The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Camden Council (202117200)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117200

Camden Council

26 April 2023

 

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:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the level of service charges.
    2. The landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
    3. The landlord’s handling of enquiries for information on service charges.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a property contained within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord is responsible for providing services to the block including communal cleaning that the resident pays by way of a variable service charge.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about the level of cleaning in her block and advised that she wanted to have a better understanding if the charges are value for money.
  4. After this complaint, there are numerous correspondences between the resident and landlord about the standard of the cleaning and the related service charges. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She provided images of the communal area and requested advice on how to challenge the level of service charges.
  5. In its final complaint response to the resident, the landlord advised that it didn’t uphold the complaint in respect of the resident’s concerns over the standard of cleaning in her block. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint for not providing clear information on the level of service charges.
  6. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, she advised that she was unhappy with the level of service charges and wanted a reduction. She wanted an improvement in the standard of communal cleaning, and she wanted the landlord to respond to her enquiries for information about the service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states:
    1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can look at the landlord’s communication around the service charge and whether it correctly followed its relevant policies and procedures.
  3. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  4. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’

The landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of communal cleaning

  1. The role of this Service is to determine if the landlord followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns about service standards. When the resident escalated her complaint, she provided images of the communal area between November 2018 and May 2021. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from the images, however, this Service has considered the evidence for the context of the complaint.
  2. When a resident raises concerns over the standard of a service provided, the landlord is expected to take reasonable steps to investigate and address the concerns in line with its policies and procedures. It should also treat the resident fairly in its investigation and consider the circumstances.
  3. Between 29 November 2018 and 18 June 2021, the resident corresponded with the landlord several times and advised she felt that the landlord wasn’t meeting its obligations in respect of the standard and the regularity of its communal cleaning. The resident requested a copy of the cleaning schedule and details of the duties required by the cleaners so she could have a better understanding of what was being paid for.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord initially authorised a deep clean of the apartment block and conducted a site visit. The landlord visited the resident to discuss her concerns directly. It communicated appropriately with the resident to advise what it would do in response to the resident’s reports of poor communal cleaning. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take.
  5. In its correspondence, the landlord advised the resident that its communal cleaning responsibilities include, a daily health and safety check, cleaning of its stairs and landings on a weekly basis, and the handrails and walls cleaned when required. The estate service supervisor carries out monthly inspections of the cleaning. The landlord advised the resident that the communal cleaning service is a responsive service, and as such, it did not have a set schedule as it is difficult to keep to a set time and day. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s enquiry.
  6. The landlord accepted that the covid pandemic affected the frequency of the cleaning services. Due to staff shortages and increased workload, during this period, the landlord advised it took a more focussed approach on communal cleaning, so it was not possible to provide a full service during this period. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. Based on the evidence, this Service finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning. The landlord responded to each incident reported by the resident in line with its processes. It also appropriately communicated its processes for dealing with communal cleaning.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied with the communal cleaning service. In her complaint escalation she requested transparency in the cleaning service’s duties and the cleaning schedule. This Service recommends that the landlord considers how it records and monitors its communal cleaning in a way that is transparent to its residents.

Handling of enquiries for information on service charges

  1. The resident’s enquiry for information on service charges was in the form of a complaint. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide a response to the complaint within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they have the right to escalate the complaint to stage two. At stage two, a response is provided within 25 working days. If the complaint is not resolved, the resident can bring the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. When a resident makes a request for information on service charges the landlord should take reasonable steps to provide the information they are entitled to. If the resident requires further assistance in understanding the information, it would be fair and reasonable to provide assistance or direct the resident to another agency for advice.
  3. On 29 November 2018, the resident complained to the landlord that she was unhappy with the cleaning service levels in her block and requested a breakdown of the cleaning services so she could have a better understanding of what she is paying for and if it was value for money. On the same date, the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint and advised it would respond.
  4. There are several complaints throughout 2019 in respect of communal cleaning standards. On 04 December 2019, the landlord advised that it would email the resident a breakdown of its costs. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to help the resident understand the service charges. However, this Service found no evidence that the landlord provided this information at that time.
  5. In July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord querying the service charges and asked for a reduction as she felt that the landlord reduced its cleaning services during the covid pandemic. The landlord explained that it apportions caretaking costs on the hours spent cleaning on the block as a percentage of the total caretaking hours across the borough. The landlord advised the resident that it will investigate if a reduction in charges is applicable and keep her informed. This was a reasonable response by the landlord; however, it did not provide an update on its investigation to the resident until the resident followed up in November 2020.
  6. In November and December 2020, the resident requested further clarification on the service charges going back to 2018. The landlord advised the resident how she can access information on the service charges on its online portal. The landlord provided a breakdown of the actual charges for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and highlighted the data relating to block caretaking. The landlord advised it could not provide information for 2020/21 as it is within the current accounting period. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  7. On 04 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and requested further information to assist her to understand the service charges. In January, February, and March 2021 the landlord advised it was looking into the service charges and would respond to the resident. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 June 2021 with the subject heading: ‘Urgent, escalate complaint’. She provided the complaint reference relating to her initial complaint in 2018 and specifically asked for advice on how to challenge the service charges. The evidence shows that the landlord did not register a formal complaint at this stage. The landlord did not reply to the resident until 25 January 2022, after intervention from this Service.
  8. This Service finds that the landlord’s delay in handling the resident’s queries was unreasonable and unfair. There are numerous correspondences in which the resident expresses ongoing dissatisfaction since the initial complaint, up until the intervention of this Service in January 2022.The landlord did not provide a stage one complaint response throughout this period, and it should have. Based on the evidence, it is unlikely that the landlord would have escalated the resident’s complaint without the intervention of this Service.
  9. In its final complaint response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not registering the complaint as a formal complaint. It advised it would obtain estimated and actualised service charge bills and will provide as detailed a breakdown as possible. This was a reasonable response to the complaint.
  10. In the same correspondence, when addressing the level of service charges, the landlord advised the resident that she can challenge the reasonableness of the service charges through the First Tier Property Tribunal. This was a reasonable complaint response by the landlord, however, it failed to consider the distress and, time and trouble, likely caused to the resident by its delay in providing the complaint response.
  11. This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of enquiries for information on its service charges. It did not follow its own complaints procedures, and it should have. This failure led to a significant delay in providing the resident with the information she requested. The resident first raised her complaint in November 2018 and did not receive a complaint response until January 2022, after intervention from this Service. If the landlord had provided its complaint response at an earlier stage the resident would have been sign-posted to the First Tier Property Tribunal and this Service at an earlier stage.
  12. This Service orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300 to the resident. This compensation reflects the distress, and time and trouble, caused to the resident by the delay in responding to her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of enquiries for information on service charges. This is because of the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s enquiries through its complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, it is ordered that the landlord provide the resident with the estimated and actualised service charge bills and provide as detailed a breakdown as possible that it said it would in its complaint response, within 28 days of this determination.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation within 28 days of the date of this determination, comprising:
    1. £150 for distress caused by its failure to communicate with the resident.
    2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its delay in responding to the resident’s enquiries.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers how it records and monitors its communal cleaning in a way that is transparent to its residents.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that complaints are properly identified and escalated when appropriate.