Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202217725)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217725

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning carried out in communal areas.

b.     The conduct of a member of staff employed by the landlord’s cleaning contractor.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).

d.     The availability of staff members employed by the landlord.

e.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.

Background

2. The resident is fixed term assured shorthold tenant. The property is a flat.
3. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the resident raised multiple performance related concerns about the landlord’s cleaning services prior to making the state 1 complaint, which were investigated by the landlord.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 March 2022, about the standard of cleaning within the block. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s approach to allocating housing to applicants. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2022, and committed to providing its full response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
5. During a telephone conversation with the landlord on 1 April 2022, the resident added several additional complaint elements. This included the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB in the block, allegations of verbal abuse from an employee working for its cleaning contractor, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move, and the availability of staff members employed by the landlord. The landlord told the resident on 7 April 2022, that it had reassigned the complaint to another member of staff, to ensure an independent review. It would need more time to complete a thorough investigation. The deadline for the stage 1 complaint response was extended to 26 April 2022.
6. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 26 April 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint about ongoing ASB. It accepted that it had not kept the resident fully updated and it had not responded to all the resident’s reports about ASB in accordance with its agreed service standards. It apologised for the distress this had caused, identified learnings, and explained how it would ensure improvement. The landlord did not uphold the remaining complaint elements.
7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on 24 May 2022. The landlord said that it would investigate the resident’s continued dissatisfaction about communal cleaning standards and the resident’s allegations of verbal abuse from an employee of its cleaning contractor. The landlord said that it would provide a full response by 23 June 2022.
8. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 23 June 2022. The landlord said that it had found no evidence to support allegations made about verbal abuse from its cleaner. There had been no service failure in relation to the frequency of its cleaning or its cleaning specification. Where areas of concern had been raised, these had been brought to the attention of its cleaning contractor. Although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning cleaning standards, it committed to monitoring its cleaning services closely. It asked the resident to report any future issues promptly.
9. The resident told the Ombudsman on 28 November 2022, that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s cleaning service. Evidence provided to the Ombudsman since the stage 2 response indicates that the resident has continued to report issues with the standard and consistency of the landlord’s cleaning service.

Jurisdiction

10. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
11. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The following complaint elements did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process and are therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB; the availability of staff members employed by the landlord; and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.
12. In regard to the remaining complaint elements, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions between 17 September 2021 and 26 June 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning carried out in communal areas.

13. The resident is contractually obliged to pay rent and service charges to the landlord, in line with the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement provides a breakdown of the service charges payable, which includes an element for cleaning.
14. The landlord’s cleaning services are provided by its contractor, in accordance with a cleaning schedule. It is understood that its cleaning contractor cleans the internal communal areas of the flat block and its external bin store on a weekly basis. In any given week, there is no fixed day when its contractor should attend.
15. The majority of communal cleaning tasks associated with the block are carried out on a routine basis, which the Ombudsman understands means weekly. Such tasks include, wet wiping skirting boards, bannisters, handrails and stair nosing’s, vacuuming all carpeted areas, sweeping and mopping hard surfaces, and spot cleaning walls.
16. The cleaning schedule states that internal communal walls are cleaned on a cyclical basis. This includes washing the walls, dusting brick surfaces, and removing cobwebs. Emergency one off cleans may be carried out between cleans to remove large amounts of litter, sharps, faeces, bodily fluids, water, oil or paint spillages. Where follow on work is required, its contractor will inform the landlord who will give further instruction.
17. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a document showing the attendance of its cleaning contractor for the period 17 September 2021 to 26 June 2022. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s cleaning service was provided on a weekly basis, in line with its cleaning schedule. This was with the exception of the week commencing 23 May 2022, when no cleaning was carried out. This appears to have been an isolated incident over the timeframe of the complaint. After the landlord became aware of the missed attendance, it inspected the block in a timely manner, and arranged for its cleaning contractor to attend the same day. This resulted in the block being cleaned twice the week commencing 30 May 2022. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable and timely steps to put things right, after identifying its failing.
18. To promote transparency, the landlord’s cleaning contractor was required to sign a cleaning attendance record sheet each week, which was displayed on a notice board within the block. This was good practice and allowed the resident to track the days the block was cleaned. However, the irregular pattern of attendance by its cleaning contractor within any given week, made it difficult to predict when the block would next be cleaned. The landlord should consider fixing a specific day each week for its contractor to clean the block. This would create certainty for residents and may reduce the likelihood of future complaints. However, it is accepted that this may not be operationally or contractually possible.
19. The resident consistently expressed a view that the level of cleaning in the block was substandard. The resident was particularly concerned that its contractor did not routinely wipe marks and stains from the communal walls, wipe the bannisters and handrails with disinfectant, or mop the floors. The resident references several times, that the landlord told her that her standards were “too high” for the price she paid for the service. While there can sometimes be disparity between resident expectation and contracted standards, landlords should ensure that their staff are equipped with the necessary skills to handle difficult conversations such as these. Although it has not been possible to verify exactly how and what the landlord said, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident felt dismissed and “insulted”. This was likely to have harmed the landlord tenant relationship, making it more difficult for a resolution to be found.
20. Ultimately, the landlord was obliged to provide cleaning services to the standard dictated by its cleaning specification, which did include weekly spot cleaning of communal walls, wiping the bannisters and handrails, and mopping hard floors. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its own staff to determine whether those standards were being met. The landlord would also be expected to monitor the standard of cleaning and take appropriate action if the agreed standards were not being met.
21. Evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord monitored the standard of cleaning in the block on a monthly basis. The landlord rated the standard of cleaning in accordance with a criterion, where ratings A to C were a “pass”:

a.     Rating A, “ok”.

b.     Rating B, “small issue”.

c.      Rating C, “minor issue, report to contractor”.

d.     Rating D, “issue, contact contractor to return”.

e.     Rating E, “fail”.

22. The Ombudsman has reviewed the monthly estate inspection records for the period 17 September 2021 to 26 June 2022. In the main, the standard of cleaning over this period was rated a “C”, although there was a slight improvement in November 2021, when the cleaning was rated “B”. Although there was a deterioration in the standard of cleaning in May 2022 (rated “D”), this was to be expected, since the block had not been cleaned the previous week. This was corrected by the landlord arranging for its contractor to clean the block twice during the week commencing 30 May 2022, as already discussed.
23. However, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to assess the potential detriment to the resident, or whether its actions were reasonable, since the estate inspection sheets do not specify the nature of the issues observed, or how the landlord responded on every occasion. The landlord should review its processes to ensure that it maintains a clear audit trail of its findings following an inspection. Where follow on work is required, its actions should be fully evidenced.
24. It is understood that during a telephone call on 11 October 2021, the resident and landlord were able to agree that the resident’s expectations were “different” to the cleaning standards expected under its contract. In the event of future issues, the resident was asked to report her concerns to the landlord as soon as the block had been cleaned. It said, this would give it a better chance to assess the standard of cleaning. This showed that the landlord was committed to resolving the substantive complaint.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s concerns about cleaning standards. On inspection, where issues were identified, the landlord sought to address them. By way of some examples:

a.     The landlord arranged a joint inspection with the resident and its contractor for 22 September 2021 to discuss standards of cleaning in the block. It was unfortunate that the resident did not attend. After this, the landlord committed to arranging a deep clean of the block. Although this was carried out one month later, the evidence suggests that the landlord initially told the resident that this would be carried out sooner than this. The landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations as to when the deep clean would be carried out, added further dissatisfaction, which was avoidable.

b.     The resident reported on 22 February 2022, that its cleaner had left without vacuuming the ground floor. After raising this with its contactor, an inspection was carried out the following day. Although the block was found clean, it’s contractor committed to addressing other issues that it itself had identified. This included marks on walls and on a stair nosing, which it committed to resolving when it next attended.

c.      The resident reported on 29 March 2022, that its cleaner had left, but there was still rubbish in internal areas. This was passed to its estate team to action the same day.

26. When the resident reported one off incidents, such as rice spilled in the corridor, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to attend and clean this up on the same day. When the resident reported dog excrement outside her door, it raised a works order with a specialist company for its removal the same day and a deep clean of the carpet. This is further evidence that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that the resident remained dissatisfied with its cleaning standards. While the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about this, it did suggest that it could “consider looking at increasing and carrying out an enhanced specification”. It said it “would need to consult with all customers within the block and all customers would have to be in agreement before this is confirmed”. However, it did not confirm if it had an intention to progress this further. There is no evidence that any resident consultation has been carried out since issue of its stage 2 response, despite the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord revisit this.
28. The fact that the resident continues to describe similar issues with its cleaning service, may indicate a capability issue with its contractor, which the landlord might have addressed by now. Or alternatively, the resident is progressing her concerns in an unreasonable manner, and the landlord should have exercised its managing unacceptable behaviour policy. Given the length of time that has now passed, the landlord should have taken some decisive action to bring this matter to a timelier conclusion. The Ombudsman makes recommendations later with this in mind.
29. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns about cleaning standards. On occasions where the standard of cleaning fell below the expectations set out under its contract, it took steps to bring the standards back in line. While the Ombudsman finds no maladministration, there are learnings that the landlord may wish to take from this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff employed by the landlord’s cleaning contractor.

30. The complaint concerns a member of staff employed by the landlord’s cleaning contractor, who was a cleaner. From here on, this member of staff will be referred to as the cleaner.
31. Where there are different verbal accounts of incidents, it is hard for the Ombudsman to make a definitive decision and decide one is more truthful than another. On the evidence seen, the Ombudsman is unable to make a definitive determination that the cleaner was or was not verbally abusive. The focus of this investigation, therefore, is on how the landlord handled the resident’s allegations.
32. In October 2021, the resident alleged that the cleaner had sworn at her. The cleaner reported that the resident shouted at them aggressively. It is understood that there were no witnesses. The landlord appropriately investigated the allegations made, by speaking with the resident and its contractor, who was acting on behalf of their member of staff. The landlord responded reasonably by directing the resident not to approach the cleaner in the future and clarifying its expectations in the event of further concerns.
33. It was appropriate that the landlord reminded the resident of her obligations under the terms of her tenancy agreement, as it had a duty to protect staff working on behalf of it and its contractor. However, it is unclear from the evidence seen, whether it discussed its own expectations in respect of the cleaner with its contractor. This might suggest some imbalance in the landlord’s initial approach to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the cleaner, and counter complaints received about the resident.
34. In March 2022, there was a further incident between the resident and the cleaner. The resident complained that the cleaner had shouted at her and had made inappropriate comments. Conversely, the cleaner claims that the resident had been following them around while attempting to carry out their duties and the resident was verbally abusive. To investigate this matter, the landlord interviewed a witness, who did not recall the cleaner being abusive toward the resident. It was understandable that the landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 1 complaint, based on the evidence available to it at the time. However, the Ombudsman considers that it should have considered there had been previous allegations made.
35. After the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, the landlord responded by reconsidering the available evidence. While the landlord did not change its view, it instructed its cleaning contractor to review how their staff interact with its residents. This was fair and led to a more balanced outcome.
36. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff employed by the landlord’s cleaning contractor. Even although the witness did not corroborate the cleaner had done anything wrong, the landlord amended its approach within the timeframe of complaint. It showed that it was more balanced through its interaction with its contractor.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning carried out in communal areas.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the conduct of a member of staff employed by the landlord’s cleaning contractor.
39. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB), was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
40. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the availability of staff members employed by the landlord, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
41. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

42. The landlord should:

a.     Endeavour to arrange a joint meeting with the resident and its contractor, to discuss the resident’s ongoing concerns and agree how the parties will work together to reach a satisfactory outcome.

b.     Consider the merits of it committing to a period of weekly post cleaning inspections, over an appropriate timeframe. Dependent upon its findings, the landlord should act accordingly.

c.      Revisit and evaluate the viability of its proposal to consult with residents, concerning enhancements to its cleaning specification.

d.     Consider the merits and viability of moving its cleaning programme to a schedule of fixed days.

e.     Satisfy itself that its staff are fully equipped and supported to handle difficult conversations with residents.

f.        Review and make enhancements to its current estate inspection process, so it maintains an audit trail of any findings and actions taken in relation to its cleaning service.

43. The landlord should write to this service to confirm its intentions in relation to these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.