Cyron Housing Co-operative Limited (202218048)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218048

Cyron Housing Co-operative Limited

22 August 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports concerning the cleaning of a communal area.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the tenant member of the housing co-operative, which is controlled by its members. He resides in a 2-bedroom flat with his wife and shares a communal lobby area with a neighbour. For the purpose of this report, the co-operative, will be referred to as the landlord.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2021, stating that his neighbour was not assisting in cleaning the shared communal lobby area. He provided a history, dating back to 2018, of his concerns and attempts to resolve the matter. He stated that the landlord had failed to provide an effective solution.
A complaint panel was convened to consider the resident’s complaint, and following its investigation, it wrote to the resident on 15 December 2021, outlining its decision and findings. It stated that it had written to all members to remind them of their tenancy obligations. It had advised the neighbour that he must carry out his share of the cleaning and to write to the resident with a proposed cleaning schedule. In the event that an agreement could not be reached, it would bring in a professional cleaning firm and recharge the parties.
The landlord provided its final response on 21 January 2022. The resident had disputed that it had correctly followed its complaint procedure. It provided an explanation of its process and confirmed that it had followed this. It acknowledged that some paragraphs in its panel report would be amended. It did not agree with re-running the investigation as it did not see that this would change the panel decision or outcome. It was unable to make a judgement in relation to the cleaning as it was 1 person’s word against another.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He stated that the landlord had failed to implement a rota, instruct an external contractor, or follow its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Reports concerning the cleaning of a communal area.

Under section 2.5 of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair of common parts. This includes common entrances, halls, stairs and passageways. Under section 3.5, residents are responsible to keep, with other residents, the communal areas in clean condition, free from litter, and other personal effects.
In the resident’s complaint he stated that:
1. He had previously reported his concerns in December 2018 to the housing manager, who advised him to keep photographic evidence, and that all residents would be reminded of their tenancy obligations. When his neighbour moved in, he had written to him putting forward suggestions on how the 2 households could share the upkeep of the communal area. As he received no response he had continued to do the cleaning. Some time before 2018 the neighbour had obtained a dog without consent, the dog moulted, and this added to the upkeep of the area.
2. An unannounced visit had taken place where it was concluded that the old flooring would be replaced and area painted. He was advised that the neighbour had given a verbal undertaking to continue maintaining the common parts. He asserted that the neighbour had never cleaned, and by signing his tenancy, had given a written undertaking to abide by his tenancy and other policies.
3. As nothing had changed by February 2021 he had reported his concerns again to the housing manager. He was told that the neighbour had been asked to contact the office. The housing manager advised that he would not be raising the issue at the next management committee meeting and was therefore told he could raise a formal complaint.
The landlord’s management committee meeting minutes of 29 April 2021, referred to the resident’s formal complaint being received and a panel being convened which comprised 3 people. Further records of 3 June 2021 referred to the panel having met to discuss the complaint. It had spoken with the resident who did not wish to meet until 21 June 2021, after Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted.
The complaint panel’s report of 23 October 2021, referred to the complaint being partially upheld. It agreed that the neighbour should have requested permission prior to acquiring a pet and was therefore in breach of his tenancy agreement. It also agreed that the cleaning of the communal area, was purely a housing management matter, and should have been dealt with by its housing manager without the involvement of the committee members. However, it was unable to support the resident’s assertion that the neighbour was in breach of his tenancy by not sharing the cleaning. There was no evidence to support his claim and it was 1 person’s word against another. It recommended that the neighbour be reminded of his tenancy clause and be asked to organise a cleaning rota with the resident.
The landlord’s panel findings were reasonable in acknowledging the resident’s concerns about the acquisition of pets and that its housing manager should have dealt with the matter in the first instance. It was also reasonable to remind the neighbour of his tenancy obligations and attempt to resolve the matter by asking him to introduce a cleaning rota.
The landlord demonstrated that it had followed the recommendations made by its complaint panel as follows:
1. On 26 November 2021 it wrote to all residents reminding them of their tenancy obligations. This included obtaining permission prior to acquiring a pet and the upkeep of communal areas. Where an agreement could not be reached about cleaning, it would mediate.
2. It had spoken and written to the neighbour on 10 December 2021, confirming that it had asked him to arrange to carry out his share of the cleaning. It asked him to write to the resident with what days he would clean and to do this within 7 days. If an agreement could not be reached it would arrange a professional cleaning firm and recharge both parties.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2021 confirming the actions it had taken as outlined above. It had asked the neighbour to provide a cleaning rota by 17 December 2021. It repeated the same information to the resident as it had to the neighbour in that if an agreement was not reached, it would arrange an inspection, and bring in a professional cleaning company. It had been unable to uphold the complaint, due to lack of evidence, and its previous inspection having deemed the area to be adequately clean. It would replace the carpet in the new year with easy clean flooring.
The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated that it had attempted to resolve the matter through mediating between the resident and his neighbour. It had suggested a cleaning rota be implemented between the parties, agreed to replace the flooring, and bring in a professional firm if an agreement was not reached.
The landlord wrote again to the neighbour on 21 January 2022, stating that despite the assurances given, no agreement with the resident had been reached. It gave a further 7 days for him to comply with its request and repeated that it would approach a cleaning firm.
The same day the landlord provided its final response. It repeated that its inspection had found the communal area to be in a clean state. It could not ascertain who was responsible for the hallway being cleaned, as the resident had asserted that the neighbour never cleaned, and the neighbour had stated the opposite. It was, therefore, unable to make a judgement.
The landlord demonstrated that it had attempted to resolve the matter by suggesting a cleaning rota. While it urged the neighbour to comply with its request to initiate a rota, it would have been difficult for it to have enforced this. It had no evidence to enable it to determine who was cleaning the area, and as stated in its responses, it was 1 person’s word against another. It therefore had little recourse to undertake any further actions. It should be noted that had evidence been available it would have been unlikely for it to have taken tenancy enforcement action for such a matter, as a court would not deem it to be proportionate.
However, while this Service appreciates that the landlord suggested a resolution and tried to mediate, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. On multiple occasions it stated, to both parties, that it would bring in a professional cleaning firm if an agreement was not reached. There was no evidence provided to suggest that it had attempted to source a contractor and its responses failed to provide any explanation as to why this had not happened. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it stated that it had discussed arranging for a contract cleaner to resolve the dispute. However, the difficulty in finding a contractor willing to even quote for the cleaning of such a tiny area, 1 metre by 2 metres, would have been a disproportionate cost. It should have considered that this may have been an obstacle prior to suggesting it in its responses.
Following the landlord’s final response, the resident contacted it further to request a re-examination of the matter as the neighbour had not complied with the request for a rota. In its response of 8 April 2022, the landlord stated that the committee’s decision had been that no further discussion was warranted.
The landlord further explained that the neighbour’s tenancy breach of acquiring a pet without permission was one which could be dealt with by seeking a court injunction for possession. However, this would be disproportionate action which the court was unlikely to grant. It had suggested a firm of mediators to build a better relationship between the neighbours, but this had been declined by the resident. It offered a transfer to alternative accommodation, provided the details of a 1-bedroom flat which was available, and asked him to confirm his interest by 20 April 2022.
On 5 May 2022 the resident wrote again stating that the landlord had not put in place an effective policy for managing the communal areas. He wanted the cleaning rota in place as promised previously by 17 December 2021. The landlord responded the same day, stating that it did not feel a policy for communal areas was required as in most cases the areas were small and not all properties had communal areas.
From the foregoing, following its final response, the landlord continued to try to resolve the matter by offering mediation and alternative accommodation. It also provided an explanation and its reasoning for not taking enforcement action for the identified tenancy breaches. It would have been helpful to have provided this explanation in its final response on 21 January 2022 to clarify its position.
The landlord advised this Service that no further reports about the matter have been received since the complaint was closed in 2022.
This Service appreciates that the landlord has demonstrated good practice in trying to resolve the matter, however, as outlined in paragraph 19, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and did not follow through on its offer to provide a professional cleaning firm. It also did not inform the resident about likely difficulties in obtaining a cleaning contract for such a small space. For this reason, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the cleaning of a communal area.

Associated formal complaint.

Under section 3.1b of the tenancy agreement it states that tenants must be a member of the co-operative throughout the tenancy and to comply with its policies and regulations. The tenant will also comply with the cooperative’s complaints procedure in case of dispute with either another tenant or the cooperative.
The landlord’s complaint policy, dated 2012, describes its 3-stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage 1 complaints are made to its office and in most cases the person responsible will be able to resolve the issue.
2. Stage 2 complaints, classed as a formal complaint, are made to its housing manager. The complaint is given a reference number and will be acknowledged in writing within 14 days of receipt. It will then be investigated by the relevant member of staff who will respond within 4 weeks.
3. Stage 3 complaints are addressed to the secretary to request a panel hearing. The secretary will set up a complaints panel consisting of 1 officer and 2 committee members. The panel will meet and hear the complaint within 3 weeks of the secretary reporting it to the management committee. The panel will interview the complainant and any other persons it finds necessary in dealing with the complaint. The decision of the complaints panel ends the complaints procedure.
4. Where the panel finds that the complainant has suffered in consequence, it may recommend appropriate action to the management committee, and compensation not exceeding £250 can be paid.
The evidence provided to this Service demonstrated that the resident had reported his concerns to the office in February 2021, suggesting that this was stage 1 of its complaints process.
As the matter was not resolved, the resident asked to make a formal complaint on 21 April 2021, stage 2 of its complaints process. There was no evidence provided to suggest that it had allocated a reference number or responded within 14 days in line with its complaint policy. There was also no evidence to suggest that its housing manager had responded in writing within 4 weeks of receiving the complaint. It should, however, be noted that at the time of the resident’s complaint Covid-19 restrictions were in place. The landlord advised this Service that its 2 members of staff had been furloughed at the time and there was a delay in responding as there were no staff in the office.
The formal complaint was escalated to stage 3, effectively bypassing stage 2 of its process. This was demonstrated in the landlord’s panel meeting minutes whereby it acknowledged that the cleaning of the communal area, was purely a housing management matter, and should have been dealt with by its housing manager without the involvement of the committee members.
There was a significant delay from April 2021, when the resident raised his formal complaint, to the panel decision in October 2021, and the landlord’s responses in December 2021 and January 2022. While this Service appreciates that there were Covid-19 restrictions in place, these were eased in June 2021. The delay from June 2021 to its panel decision and responses was therefore unreasonable and not in line with its complaint policy timescales. Its policy also does not state when its stage 3 decision will be provided to the resident.
The resident had disputed that the landlord had followed its complaints process, in relation to being interviewed by 3 panel members. In its final response it explained that it had conducted the interview with 2 people, rather than the 3 as stated in its policy. However, at the time the third member of its panel was unwell. It had offered to re-arrange the interview but he had advised that he was happy to proceed so the complaint could be progressed. It did not consider that this impacted negatively on its handling of the complaint and the remainder of the investigation was carried out by the full panel. Its response was reasonable given that the resident had agreed to be interviewed by 2 members of the panel at the time.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that since the resident’s complaint, it has reviewed its complaints policy in line with this Service’s complaint handling code, to a 2-stage process. It has also ensured that timescales are clarified for providing responses.
While this Service appreciates that there were Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time of the complaint, the landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure with respect to its stage 2 process and there were delays in its stage 3 process. This Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Reports concerning the cleaning of a communal area.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 broken down as follows:
1. £50 for distress and inconvenience in relation to failing to manage the resident’s expectations of instructing a professional cleaning firm.
2. £50 for time and effort in relation to the failings in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.