Citizen Housing (202207259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207259

Citizen Housing

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports about cleaning charges.
2. The resident’s reports of fly tipping and request for CCTV to be installed in the communal bin area.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease beginning December 2019. The property is a two-bedroom flat located on the first floor.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge increase fall outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges; therefore, this assessment focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s questions about service charges.
The resident had explained to this service that she was aware the lease agreement stated a resident must contribute to costs via a service charge, however she was unhappy that the landlord could not provide details of the work they had carried out during lockdown, in particular the communal cleaning.
Point 5.5 of the lease agreement says, “the landlord will keep the common parts of the building adequately cleaned” and the cost covered by service charges as detailed in point 7.5.2 of the lease.
The lease defines common parts as part of the building and or the estate which are intended to be enjoyed or use by the leaseholder in common with occupiers of the other flats.
The landlord provided the resident with copies of inspection sheets from July and August 2020 and the cleaning schedule from April 2021 to October 2021.
The case notes show that the resident reported fly tipping to the landlord 8 times between May 2020 and November 2022.

Summary of events

On 9 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to a cleaning service charge during the pandemic. She said that she wanted to know why she had been charged for cleaning when the majority of cleaning had been stopped at that time. Furthermore, she had reported fly tipping in the communal bins on numerous occasions and asked for a letter to be sent to all residents and CCTV to be installed to monitor the situation.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord responded saying that the pandemic had impacted how it provided services with the costs also being impacted. While it may have temporarily stopped some elements of its cleaning service, it had had to add extra elements in response to the pandemic. Furthermore, when normal service had resumed, the work it had to do to bring services back up to its normal standard was often much greater as the result of a backlog or delay in being able to do the work.
Throughout August and September 2021, the resident liaised with the landlord in relation to her monthly service charge payment. She wanted to know why residents were paying different amounts. The landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of actual costs and explained the resident was entitled to see copies of individual invoices. It went on to say that every resident was charged in accordance with the terms of their tenancy agreement and lease.
On 6 September 2021, the resident raised various queries in relation to what she was being charged. The landlord explained it would chase up the relevant department in relation to the resident’s requests for receipts of works that were carried out. In addition, that it had previously advised the resident it had no plans to install CCTV. It said it would liaise with the local council and carry out a door knocking exercise to discuss fly tipping with residents and give information on the correct way to dispose of their rubbish.
On 23 September 2021, the resident requested a full breakdown of all service charges and receipts for works. She said it was not a solution to “just be charging residents to take away the extra rubbish, instead it should be looking to install CCTV and locks to the bin stores.”
On 4 October 2021, the resident raised queries in relation to service charge statements she received. She wanted clarification because she thought she had “overpaid.”
On 7 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to her query regarding service charges. It explained the breakdown of the charges in relation to estimated and actual costs. This also included a table of service charge description, estimated charge, and actual charge.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord sent the resident copies of the cleaning schedule for the previous year.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident block inspection sheets dated from July 2020. These were tick sheets for the communal area, for example stating whether an area was “free from rubbish” and “if communal lighting was working.”
On 17 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord providing photos of the bins overflowing and dumped items.
The landlord responded the following day saying that the bins where overflowing due to strikes and that it was assisting with clearing the over spilled bags. No charge would be put to its residents. It went on to say the local council were concentrating on covering collections during the strike days and it had escalated the matter to the enforcement team. It had also put on a further chaser for collection of waste to the council.
The resident responded the same day confirming she was happy she would not be charged. However, she wanted to know what action was going to be taken to resolve the issue of fly tipping. She had requested the installation of CCTV to monitor the situation however the only outcome was one letter sent to residents which she felt was extremely poor. Furthermore, the cleaning compliance sheets it provided did not evidence the block was cleaned and therefore she wanted the service charge recalculated to reflect this.
Between 28 January 2022 and 8 February 2022, the landlord and resident liaised in relation to service charges for window cleaning and bulky item collections. The landlord explained it had formally acknowledged her request for CCTV to be installed and this would be updated as a consultation to all residents involved.
An internal email sent on 9 February 2022 said that CCTV was not an option at that point in time as it would increase the service charges for leaseholders and tenants. It discussed the option of a mobile CCTV camera unit which was being used at another site.
On 9 March 2022, the resident requested further documents in relation to the cleaning schedule as she said some sheets were “missing”.
On 15 March 2022, the resident requested the cleaning sheets for her block that related to her most recent service charge. The landlord sent the cleaning documents the following day. In addition, it said it had asked the local council’s enforcement team to attend the bin store and go through the bin area to check for evidence of dumping from offsite residents. It said it had also requested a quotation for CCTV which would be consulted with all residents.
The case notes show the resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2022 in relation to cleaning costs on the service charge. The case notes say the landlord had been working with the resident to resolve the complaint informally. However, it did not have anything further to add and therefore raised a stage 1 complaint.
On 8 June 2022, the resident chased matters saying that the compliance documents did not demonstrate that cleaning had been carried out during lockdown.
The case notes show on 13 June 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and discussed her complaint, explaining that an “outcome letter” would be sent to her.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response summarising each point of the resident’s complaint. It said that:
1. Compliance documents were provided to the resident in relation to the cleaning schedule during COVID. It had been focusing on high traffic and touch areas such as door handles, bannisters, light switches, and lift buttons. Therefore, the residents block was cleaned but in a different way.
2. It confirmed it could not gain access to the block on four occasions which were documented and therefore it would refund the missed visits. Any figures recalculated by its finance team would be refunded into her rent account.
3. As per its contract, communal window cleaning was carried out four visits per year. It said its contractors confirmed they carried out three of the required visits and therefore it would refund one missed visit. It went on to say it acknowledged that the refunds should have been picked up and refunded at the time and it apologised that this did not happen.
4. Following the residents request to install CCTV it said that the cost would have to be recharged through the service charge. The service charge would be increased to cover the initial cost of buying the equipment and installing it, in addition to ongoing costs such as servicing monitoring and downloading footage.
5. It would be sending a reminder letter to all residents on the cost implications of leaving unauthorised rubbish on the estate. It said it was a difficult issue to address as it would require evidence of the perpetrators. It said it had to respond to request to remove the rubbish as leaving it would attract vermin and incur more costs around pest control.
The resident responded on 23 June 2022 saying that:
1. The compliance documents did not state what cleaning checks had been carried out. The resident did not think she should be charged the full cleaning amount as only spot checks of cleaning was carried out throughout the pandemic. She looked forward to receiving the refund for missed visits.
2. She had raised the issue in relation to CCTV and would be happy to pay an increased service charge for this, in agreement with other residents. However, she said no communication had been sent out to any residents to ask whether they would be happy going forward with the installation of CCTV. She was happy to pay service charges going forward however did not believe she should have to pay for everyone else’s rubbish to be removed.
On 29 June 2022, a warning letter was sent to all residents in relation to “dumping, fly tipping and littering”, warning of possible breaches of tenancy and fines.
On 19 July 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 August 2022. It said that:
1. The resident had reported issues of dumped rubbish on several occasions. The landlord reiterated that it had sent letters to all residents with a reminder on the cost implications of leaving unauthorised rubbish. It went on to say it would recharge any resident responsible for the cost of removing and disposing of items left in the communal areas.
2. Its cleaning team were not required to record individual cleaning tasks as they worked to a schedule. Its estate manager had sent all documentation relating to the compliance detailing the cleaning in the resident’s block during covid lockdown.
3. As outlined in its stage one response the team identified four times where the cleaning team were unable to gain access and figures had been re calculated and funds would be paid back to the resident by a rent account. Its annual review process adjusted its initial estimated costs against the actual costs incurred to provide these services.
4. It hoped that it had successfully answered all the resident’s queries however she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted this service on 18 August 2022 as she was unhappy with the response that had been provided by the landlord and that they had not provided her with document evidence that the communal cleaning or window cleaning had been carried out.
This service advised the resident on 15 September 2022 that the landlords complaint procedure had not been exhausted regarding the fly tipping and she should raise a further complaint with the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 2 review response on 5 October 2022, as the resident said it had not responded to all the points she raised. It reiterated its response saying that:
1. In relation to dumped rubbish it had reminded all residents of the cost implications.
2. Individual cleaning tasks were not required to be recorded on a cleaning schedule. It said that it identified four times where the cleaning team were unable to access the block and a refund would be paid to the resident by 14 October 2022 into her rent account.
3. A breakdown of service charges and the cost for each element was available to view on her service charge statement.
4. It confirmed it attended for window cleaning between 13 August 2020 and 13 April 2021. It said usually four visits take place per annum and dates cannot be fixed as the work was dependent on the weather conditions. Due to COVID lockdown from 23 March 2020 external window cleaning rounds were not considered a priority and therefore the first visit of the year was postponed.
5. It went on to confirm the dates in which the window cleaning was carried out and a description of the window cleaning programme. It apologised for not fully responding with the information at stage 2 and apologised that the resident had not yet received the service charge refund.
6. It awarded the resident £50 compensation for the delay in resolving her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 October 2022 in relation to the resident’s request of CCTV and fly tipping. It said that:
1. It understood that it was very frustrating that it could not identify “the culprits” in relation to the fly tipping. The resident’s block had not been identified as being as “problematic” as some of its other areas in relation to fly tipping.
2. It went on to say that “it should not be happening at all” however it could not install CCTV in all of its communal areas throughout all of its properties.
3. It explained it often had to make very difficult decisions when looking at how it would invest in its properties and services such as CCTV installation. It said it made its decisions based on what budget it had and looked at things such as high levels of anti-social behaviour across all of its estates.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 November 2022 saying that:
1. It understood the resident’s frustration concerning fly tipping and that the request to remove the rubbish incurred a charge.
2. It was in discussion with the local council to identify the perpetrators of the fly tipping. However, there were no plans or funding available to install CCTV in the resident’s block, nevertheless it would continue to liaise with the local council to find a solution.
3. If there are any further updates its housing team would update all residents.
During recent contact with the resident, she has explained that although she had been provided with relevant paperwork to support some cleaning that had been carried out, this evidence was not available for the period during lockdown.

Assessment and findings

This Service cannot consider the methodology used by the landlord to set service charges for its tenants and leaseholders. In assessing the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has considered what was fair and reasonable when addressing the resident’s complaint.
This services’ recent insight report on service charges says that landlord responses should be targeted to the information requested and that the information provided is accurate and consistent. Furthermore, where residents request additional information, such as invoices, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to comply with sections 21, 22 and 23 of the landlord and tenant act 1985. Even where these provisions do not apply, it may still be appropriate to provide relevant and additional information to a resident to assist them in understanding the charge.
During the coronavirus pandemic the Government issued new legislation and guidance in March 2020, setting out how a landlord should safely deliver its services. This included:
1. Advising that people should work from home and avoid contact with others.
2. Recommended that access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent issues.
3. Visits could still be made for urgent health and safety issues.
4. Encouraged landlords and tenants to take a pragmatic, common-sense approach to non-urgent issues such as repairs.

The residents request for the landlord to demonstrate the communal cleaning service was provided during lockdown and her subsequent request for a refund of service charges.

The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2021 in relation to queries relating to cleaning charges during the pandemic. The landlord responded seven days later explaining that the pandemic had impacted how it provided certain services and although the usual cleaning had stopped, extra elements had been added in response to the pandemic. It was appropriate that the landlord responded promptly and gave an explanation as to what had impacted its service delivery.
The resident remained unhappy with this response and requested further information and breakdowns of what she was paying. The landlord provided a breakdown of actual costs and explained the resident was entitled to see individual invoices if she wished.
Despite her requests and advising the resident she could see invoices, there is no evidence to suggest that any invoices were provided to the resident. Furthermore, on 6 September 2021 the landlord advised the resident it would chase up the relevant department in relation to her request for receipt of works that were carried out. No invoices were provided to the resident, and this is not appropriate.
Communication continued between the landlord and the resident from September to November 2021. Throughout this time the resident raised queries in relation to the service charge statement. On 7 October 2021, the landlord explained the breakdown of the service charges, explaining the difference between estimated and actual charges, and included a table to demonstrate this.
This was appropriate as it demonstrated the landlord was trying to resolve the resident’s queries, and by including the table made it a user-friendly format.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord sent the resident copies of cleaning schedules with dates between April 2021 and October 2021. In addition to this, it provided two inspection sheets in relation to her block for July 2020 and August 2020. These documents did not provide details of what was cleaned in the block which was not appropriate. Where a cleaner had attended, the cleaning schedule sheet said either “cleaned” or “ok,” with the comment box often being left blank. This service noted that on occasion more detail was provided such as “hoovered” or “items left in communal areas.” Nevertheless, this level of detail was not sufficient to provide evidence of service delivery.
The insight report encourages landlords to make notes and take photographs as evidence, demonstrating the service and standards it has provided. Had the landlord taken more in-depth notes of what cleaning had been done, it could have been enough to satisfy the resident and promptly resolve her complaint.
This service acknowledges that the landlord was actively seeking to assist the resident informally, nevertheless, the responses it provided did not address the residents’ concerns nor the information she requested. Furthermore, the evidence seen by this service did not cover the pandemic period of 2020. This was not appropriate and was frustrating for the resident when clarifying her queries.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2022 and the landlord responded on 20 June 2022. It said that some elements of cleaning had stopped however it had added “extra elements” focusing on high traffic and touch areas and therefore cleaning had been done in a different way. Whilst this explained the reason for some cleaning having been stopped it did not demonstrate what it had been doing in a different way.
In its final response, the landlord said it was not required to record individual cleaning tasks. However, this service would not consider it unreasonable to have recorded such tasks given the severity of the pandemic and the need to monitor such risks.
As a result of the pandemic, the landlord would have been expected to carry out a specific risk assessment for its staff carrying out cleaning duties. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have records of tasks undertaken during the pandemic. However, no such evidence has been provided which is not appropriate.
Furthermore, it had identified 4 missed cleaning visits. It was appropriate that once it had identified the missed cleaning visits the landlord provided the resident with a refund.
The resident raised concerns in relation to the communal window cleaning between January and February 2022. There is little evidence to demonstrate this was discussed further until 13 June 2022 following the resident’s formal complaint.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it had a contract with its window cleaning contractor whereby communal window cleaning was carried out at four visits per year. It said its contractors confirmed they carried out three of the required visits and it would therefore refund the missed visit. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord refunded the missed visit, it was not appropriate that the landlord could not provide any meaningful evidence to the resident to demonstrate this. The landlord could have considered in the least, supplying the resident with relevant excerpts from the contract as this would have demonstrated the basic obligation in relation to the window cleaning.
The landlord acknowledged that the refunds should have been “picked up” and refunded at the time and apologised that this did not happen. This was appropriate.
It also awarded the resident £50 compensation for the delay in resolving her complaint. This level of compensation was not appropriate, considering the length of time over which the service failure continued, and the significant amount of contact required from the resident in pursuing this matter. Furthermore, the landlord failed to promptly pay the resident the refunds from the missed visits outline above.
Therefore, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about cleaning charges detailed above and £150 compensation has been ordered to be paid to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

The resident’s reports of fly tipping and request for CCTV to be installed in the communal bin area.

The landlord is obligated to maintain the common parts, as outlined in the background of this report. The lease agreement says, “the landlord will keep the common parts of the building adequately cleaned” and the cost will be covered by service charges.” It defines common parts as part of the building and or the estate which are intended to be enjoyed or used by the leaseholder in common with occupiers of the other flats. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the bin store is a common part and therefore the cost of keeping it adequately cleaned is covered by the service charge as per the lease agreement, regardless of where the items come from.
It has been evidenced that the resident raised issues with fly tipping in the communal bin store 8 times between May 2020 and November 2022. Each time resulting in the items being removed.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had no plans to install CCTV in the bin area. The landlord said it would liaise with the local council and carry out a door knocking exercise to discuss fly tipping with residents and give information on the correct way to dispose of their rubbish. This was a reasonable response when trying to deal with the situation.
On 17 January 2022, the resident sent the landlord photos of the bin store overflowing. The landlord responded the following day explaining that this was due to strike action, and it would be assisting with clearing the over spilled bags at no extra charge to residents. It further explained it had escalated the matter to the council’s enforcement team. This was a prompt and appropriate response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and requested CCTV be installed to monitor the situation. Internal emails demonstrate that the landlord was looking into ways to remedy the situation which was appropriate.
It has also been evidenced that the landlord wrote to all residents in relation to fly tipping warning of possible breaches of tenancy and fines. This was appropriate.
This service advised the resident on 15 September 2022 that the landlord’s complaint procedure had not been exhausted regarding the fly tipping and she should raise a further complaint with the landlord. It has been noted that the landlord had in fact addressed these concerns in its initial response, which was appropriate.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that resident’s block had not been identified as problematic in comparison to some of its other areas with regards to fly tipping. The case notes show that the resident reported fly tipping 8 times over a 2.5-year period. The cost analysis provided to this service did not break down individual blocks therefore a comparison could not be clearly made. Nevertheless, the decision not to install CCTV was a decision the landlord was entitled to make when considering value for money in the services it provides.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it understood the resident’s frustration and it would liaise with the local council “to find a solution”. Although the landlord explained it could not provide the resident with what she wanted, that being the installation of CCTV, it remained sympathetic, and resolution focused in trying to resolve the issue.
The resident had suggested installing locks to the bin stores as a preventative measure to the fly tipping. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider installing a lock when trying to resolve the situation and ensuring only the building occupiers deposit their waste in them. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
Therefore, as outlined above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping and request for CCTV to be installed in the communal bin area.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to demonstrate the communal cleaning service was provided during lockdown and her subsequent request for a refund of these service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping and request for CCTV to be installed in the communal bin area.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide sufficient information as requested by the resident in relation to her service charge. While the landlord took steps to try to put things right, the amount of compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord met its obligations and acted within the terms of the lease agreement when removing rubbish from the communal bin store and charging through its service charge. In addition, it was within its rights not to install CCTV if it considered it not value for money in service delivery.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
Pay the resident £150 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
If not already done so, pay the resident the refunds identified for any missed visits.

Recommendations

The landlord to familiarise itself with the Ombudsman’s Insight report on service charges and review and implement any recommendations where it thinks may be appropriate.
Consider installing combination locks to the bin stores which allows building occupiers access only.