Harlow District Council (202006770)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006770

Harlow District Council

21 February 2022

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

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, situated in a block of flats, since May 2004.
3. The resident has noted mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
4. The lease confirms that the leaseholder is entitled to the benefit of ‘the cleaning services (if any) and lighting of the lobbies passageways, stairs, lifts and any other common parts (whether internal or external) of the property’. The lease agreement confirms that the landlord is to maintain such services at a ‘reasonable level’.
5. The cleaning tasks to be carried out in the internal areas of the property include sweeping, mopping, dusting, and wiping of banisters, rails and surfaces. The frequency of these tasks should be competed are as follows:
   1. Sweeping – Daily (Monday to Friday).
   2. Mopping – Every other day (Monday to Friday).
   3. Cobwebs – Once a week.
   4. Cleaning of marked walls – Monthly.
   5. Banisters and rails – Once fortnightly.
   6. Wiping of window cills and doors – Once fortnightly.
   7. Entrance door class – Once weekly.
   8. Interior glass – One monthly.
6. The landlord has standards for the cleaning tasks and assesses the cleaning it observes against the following grading system: 
   1. Excellent;
   2. Standard;
   3. Below standard; and
   4. Neglect.
7. In March 2019, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident about the communal cleaning. As a consequence of the Ombudsman’s order the landlord completed inspections between June and July 2019 and found the cleaning to be of a good standard. It confirmed this to the resident and provided them with a copy of the cleaning schedule, which was also displayed within the block. The resident however, disagreed that the cleaning was being carried out to a good standard and therefore was advised by this service to notify the landlord of any new or ongoing issues.

Summary of events

8. The landlord carried out an inspection of the cleaning of the block on 3 July 2020. It reported that it found some dust on the banisters and marks on the door glass. It noted that this was due to the reduction of cleaning tasks following covid 19 restrictions put in place. It said that ‘hard touching areas’ were the main focus. It graded the cleaning observed as ‘below standard’.
9. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 July 2020 stating that they were not happy with the standard of cleaning taking place within the block. They said that the block was not being cleaned when it was supposed to be and that the cleaners did not always complete the cleaning tasks, when they attended. The resident said they and another resident were the only ones who swept and mopped the block therefore, they believed it would be appropriate if they took ownership of the cleaning themselves.
10. The landlord inspected the block on 14 July 2020 and found that some tasks were not carried out regularly. It noted that covid 19 restrictions were the reason for this and reported that the cleaners were practicing lone working, which caused issues with daily visits to the block. It graded the cleaning observed as being below standard. 
11. It attended again on 16 July 2020 and said that the cleaning to the block had improved, although it found evidence that some of the cleaning tasks, such as sweeping and mopping, were not being carried out regularly. The landlord met with the cleaner to investigate whether there were any issues with their schedule which prevented them from completing the tasks as frequently. The cleaner confirmed that between 13 and 21 July 2020, they had difficulty attending to the block on a daily basis as they were lone working and had to cover a number of blocks on the estate. The cleaner advised that as a result, they cleaned the block every second day during that period. The landlord confirmed to the cleaner that they should have raised this issue at the earliest convenience, so that the relevant support could be provided to ensure that the cleaning could take place as expected.
12. As a result of the landlord’s investigation, it attributed the service standard issue it observed to operational changes as a result of the covid 19 pandemic, which resulted in lone working by the cleaners. It concluded that going forward, it would ensure that enough cover was in place to allow the service delivery to take place in accordance with its service standard. 
13. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 24 July 2020. It confirmed:
    1. The findings of its inspections that took place on 14 and 16 July 2020.
    2. That the cleaning service was amended in March 2020, as a result of the covid 19 pandemic and was being delivered by a lone worker. It said that the service at that time, prioritised the sanitation of commonly used fixtures, such as door handles.
    3. That it upheld the complaint for the period between 13-21 July 2020, on the basis of the findings from its investigation. It apologised for the inconvenience to the resident and confirmed that it would regularly monitor the cleaning.
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2020 disputing that sanitation was carried out to the block. They said that they had photographic and video evidence to show that the cleaning had not been carried out dating back to May 2020. The resident emailed the landlord again on 31 July 2020, again advising that they had photographic evidence to show that the block was not being cleaned. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this.
15. The resident submitted a stage two complaint on 13 August 2020 and explained that the reason for this was because the ‘same dirt was in the same place for months’.
16. On receipt of the complaint, the landlord agreed it would complete another random inspection. It noted that the resident had previously informed it that they were regularly cleaning the communal areas themselves, which made it difficult to monitor the standard of cleaning carried out by the team.
17. The landlord provided the resident with its stage two response on 25 August 2020 and said that:
    1. It had completed an inspection of the block on receipt of the initial complaint and the area was found to be cleaned to acceptable standard.
    2. It was aware that the resident was carrying out cleaning and said that this made it difficult to monitor the standard carried out by its own team. It asked the resident to refrain from cleaning the block for a few months so that it could monitor the standard completed by its team.
    3. It was working with the resident to ensure that the cleaning was carried out as expected. It did not uphold the complaint because on completing random inspections of the block, it was happy with the standard of cleaning, but it confirmed that it would continue to monitor the block.
18. The resident escalated their complaint to stage three of the complaints procedure on 28 August 2020. They said that the inspections it carried out hadn’t identified a number of areas which had not been cleaned as residents purposely placed items to see whether the cleaning was being carried out. The resident advised that they did not believe they were receiving value for money in relation to the cleaning service they received.
19. The landlord completed an inspection of the block on 17 September 2020. It noted that the block looked ‘good’. It found elastic bands on the floor which it said was picked up during the visit. It rated the cleaning overall as standard.
20. It provided its stage three response to the resident on 23 September 2020. It said that:
    1. Further investigations into the process found that the frequency of the cleaning carried out was inadequate to maintain the standard expected. Therefore, it had introduced two members of cleaning staff to ensure that the frequency of daily cleaning was being maintained.
    2. It upheld the complaint due to the findings and would continue to monitor the cleaning, contact residents to get their views about the standard of cleaning and also carry out joint inspections with the cleaning contractor. It advised the resident that they could send any recent photographic evidence to it for review.
21. Thereafter, the landlord completed further inspections to the block on 20 October, 20 November and 14 December 2020. It graded the cleaning as standard overall on these visits but noted some concerns in relation to marked walls and rubbish that it raised with the cleaners. Further inspections were carried out on a monthly basis between January 2021 up to July 2021.  The landlord graded the cleaning on these visits as standard.

Assessment and findings

22. This investigation will consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning and whether its response was reasonable.
23. The landlord’s cleaning standards explain that they are subject to factors including maintenance work being carried out within the building and the age of the building. The standard explains that to ensure a fair assessment, inspections are to be carried out within a reasonable time of the cleaning being carried out.
24. The landlord completed the inspection on 3 July 2020 and found that the cleaning to the block was below standard. It confirmed that some cleaning tasks had been reduced and that hand touching areas were the main focus at the time due to covid 19. It scored the cleaning as being below standard but there is no evidence that it informed the residents of the amendment to the cleaning service as a result of the pandemic or, evidence that it took action to address the standard of cleaning it observed during that inspection.
25. After the landlord received the resident’s complaint, it promptly completed further inspections. It found evidence that the cleaning was not carried out at the frequency expected and marked the cleaning as below standard again. It took the appropriate action in this instance, as it spoke with the cleaner about what it found and when it received confirmation that the cleaner was not attending daily to the block, it introduced another cleaner within a week of its investigation. This was to ensure that the cleaning was delivered to the block on daily basis in line with the expectations and standards of the cleaning contract.
26. The landlord is expected to inform the resident of its findings and any further action it is taking in respect of any issues it has identified. When it initially responded to the complaint, it apologised to the resident for the fact that the cleaning standard had lapsed and agreed to continue monitoring this but omitted that it had taken steps to address this at that time. It later mentioned that it introduced a second cleaner in the stage three response, dated 23 September 2020.
27. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response and indicated twice that they had photographic evidence to dispute the landlord’s conclusions about the standard of cleaning, but they did not provide this to the landlord. The landlord also did not ask for the evidence at the time but did offer the resident the opportunity to provide further evidence when it responded to the stage three complaint.
28. The resident stated in their complaint that they and another resident, were frequently cleaning the block themselves. The landlord requested that they stop doing so for a period of time, and this was a reasonable request. This is because, the landlord has a responsibility to deliver the service and in accordance with its standard, the inspections it carries out are to assess this. If residents are regularly cleaning the block themselves, the landlord could not accurately assess what cleaning its own contractor had carried out.
29. The landlord has explained that during the pandemic its cleaning schedule was amended and prioritised certain areas though, not informing residents of this change was a service failure. However, its overall response to the residents complaint was appropriate as it took prompt action to review their concerns and when it identified the reason for the lapse in the service, it introduced additional staff to deal with this quickly. It then continued to monitor this as agreed.
30. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service, in the form of reports from inspections that it completed in the property on a monthly basis from September 2020 up to July 2020. These inspections show that some issues were identified during its visits, but these were addressed accordingly at the time with the cleaning team. The findings during the visits were consistently assessed as being in line with the standard.
31. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, they said that they remained unhappy with the final response to the complaints as they did not feel that the cleaning service had changed. They said that the landlord had not apologised or, offered a refund for the money they paid for the cleaning even though it found the cleaning to be lower than its standard on occasions.
32.  With a matter such as cleaning, there can be differing opinions on what is deemed acceptable. As explained above, this investigation is to review the landlord’s actions in so far as how it responded to the concerns raised about the cleaning. Whilst the resident has asked for a refund of their service charges for the cleaning, this is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider as such issues fall within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber), who may investigate whether the service charge costs incurred are reasonable and this includes whether the service is at the required standard.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the concerns about the cleaning.

Reasons

34. The landlord acted in line with its standard and carried out inspections to the block prior to and swiftly after the resident raised their concern. It did not act on the issue when it was first identified however, on finding that the cleaning was below standard a second time after the resident raised concern, it addressed this with the cleaner and took prompt action to ensure that the resources were available to deliver the cleaning.
35. It is unclear if the resident was cleaning the communal areas for a period of time when the landlord requested that they stop so it could assess its contractor’s performance. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to continue to monitor the cleaning carried out and continued to do so over a period of ten months after the complaint, showing that it delivered on this commitment. It has completed a comprehensive investigation into the cleaning and where necessary, it has addressed any observed issues during each visit with the cleaners.