‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited (202124750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124750

‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited

28 September 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a poor standard of cleaning and maintenance services in communal areas.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a studio flat in a purpose built block of flats. In this report, the block and surrounding areas are referred to as “the estate”. The residents pay a service charge for cleaning and maintenance services in communal areas of the estate.
4. The resident had concerns about the standard of the cleaning being carried out in the communal areas. He said that since the landlord had appointed a new estate management contractor, the cleaning had become less frequent, and he felt that a number of jobs around the estate were either not being done or were not being performed to an adequate standard. The resident said he first complained in June 2021. On 3 August 2021, he wrote to the landlord and complained that:
   1. The cleaning standards had deteriorated since April 2021;
   2. The windows had not been cleaned in 3 months and the grounds maintenance was not being carried out correctly;
   3. The handyman jobs were not being carried out correctly;
   4. The residents were not receiving the service they pay for.
5. In response, the landlord visited the resident 4 times between 4 August 2021 and 22 October 2021. It shared an action plan with the resident on 13 August 2021 to address the issues he raised, and stated:
   1. the window cleaning would be done on a needs basis;
   2. it would review the cleaning rota;
   3. it would request all operatives to sign in so it could monitor the situation;
   4. there had not been any jobs raised for the handyman but it would ensure staff raised jobs as required.
6. The landlord raised the resident’s concerns with the estate management company and highlighted issues with the standard of cleaning on several occasions. On 6 December 2021, the landlord shared a property action plan with the resident, following a meet and greet, and confirmed the estate received 2 cleaning visits per week. It explained it would explore any possibilities of additional cleans and update residents by January 2022, and carry out estate visits to identify any outstanding issues.
7. Following this, the resident reiterated his complaint that the residents were not receiving the same number of cleaning hours as they paid for and it was carried out to a poor standard. He remained unhappy with the standard and frequency of the window cleaning too.
8. In its stage one response on 31 December 2021, the landlord stated it had forwarded feedback from the residents to the estate management company, met with the resident and completed a spot check. It found the operative cleaning to a good standard, and any issues raised were resolved at the time of inspection. The landlord stated it would continue to work with the estate management company to improve the service.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and escalated his complaint on 4 April 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 27 July 2022, and confirmed that:
   1. the estate would receive 4 window cleaning visits per year, and the window cleaning schedule would be updated weekly;
   2. contractors that had left the estate untidy after completing building work would be recalled;
   3. time spent on site cleaning was being monitored and quality inspections were being undertaken;
   4. the cleaning schedule had been provided.
10. Unhappy with this response, the resident contacted this Service on 19 September 2022. He remained dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning and said the situation had not improved.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

11. The landlord’s complaint handling policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. The policy states the landlord will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one, and 15 working days at stage two.
12. The schedule of services, included in the occupancy agreement, confirms that cleaning of communal areas, handyperson service, grounds maintenance and window cleaning are included under the service charge.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a poor standard of cleaning and maintenance services in communal areas.

13. 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 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
14. 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’.
15. The occupancy agreement sets out which areas of the estate are included in the schedule of services and therefore the responsibility of the landlord. This includes, but is not limited to, maintenance of communal grounds, cleaning of communal areas, handyperson service and window cleaning. When issues with this were reported to it, it was obliged to investigate to determine whether services were being delivered to a reasonable standard. Though there is no measurable standard set out in these documents, the landlord has provided a list of primary tasks that should be completed on each visit.
16.  As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence such as communal cleaning logs, inspection reports, feedback from contractors, and any monitoring reports in relation to communal cleaning.  
17. The landlord has advised it completes monthly inspections of estate services in communal areas, however no longer has the inspection reports from this period due to a process change and time elapsed since the complaint was raised. It is a concern that the landlord does not hold inspection reports, particularly from more recent times, and indicates a wider issue with record keeping. Clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding works and issues, and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, including cleaning logs and inspection reports.
18. From the evidence provided, the landlord appears to have inspected the estate and raised cleanliness issues with the estate management company 3 times, on 7 September 2021, 20 October 2021 and 16 November 2021. Additionally, the landlord has provided evidence of an estate services quality check from October 2021. All feedback provided indicated the cleaning was below the required standard. For example, the estate was described as ‘very dusty, dirty communal toilets and debris in corridors’.
19. In the stage one response, the landlord stated it completed a spot check on 20 December 2021 and found the operatives cleaning to a good standard. This demonstrates that the landlord took the concerns of the resident seriously and took steps to improve the standard of service being delivered. The landlord and resident were in close communication about the standard of works and the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns by inspecting the estate, as was reasonable.
20. The landlord has provided evidence of a maintenance log for the estate, though it does not detail what specific work was carried out. The resident has repeatedly said the handyperson service was not provided and reported many tasks on the handyperson specification were not being carried out, such as cleaning the bins and bin rooms and replenishing supplies in the bathrooms.  From the evidence provided, it is unclear what actions were completed on each visit.
21. Additionally, evidence of a cleaning log has been provided, dated from 8 November 2021 to 26 July 2023. For the purposes of this assessment, this service will consider the evidence up to the date of the final response, which was July 2022. Records show cleaning visits were carried out once per week from November 2021 to April 2022. However the landlord advised the resident the estate would receive 2 visits per week from October 2021,and there is a gap in the logs between April and July 2022.
22. Therefore, the landlord has not been able to show that it appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns, as the required actions had not been carried out. Inconsistencies in the record keeping meant it would have been difficult for the landlord to monitor what actions were being carried out, and whether this was to an acceptable standard,. Furthermore, the resident disputed that the estate was receiving the number of contracted hours it ought to, and in response the landlord said it had arranged for operatives to sign in. Whilst the cleaning log provides some evidence of when operatives attended site, it is not clear from this whether they attended the required number of hours and as highlighted above, evidence from April to July 2022 is missing. Therefore, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it adequately monitored the hours on site during this period.
23. As the resident informed the landlord he remained dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning when he escalated his complaint on 4 April 2022, the landlord reasonably ought to have taken additional steps to follow up on his concerns. An inspection was carried out on 18 July 2022, where the landlord identified issues with the window cleaning and contractors leaving the estate untidy. The landlord then stated it would be ‘unrealistic’ for the estate to be inspected on a weekly basis.
24. Given the landlord had identified issues with the standard of cleanliness, it ought to have taken appropriate follow up action to ascertain whether the standard had improved following its response. The landlord should also have been monitoring whether the contract conditions were being met irrespective of whether a complaint had been raised. However, there is limited evidence of the landlord monitoring its cleaning management contractors between January and July 2022, though the landlord refers to quality audits and monitoring systems in its stage two response.
25. The fact that cleaning standards had still not improved several months after the stage one complaint, and after the stage two escalation, represents a failure on the part of the landlord over a considerable period to ensure that it was delivering a reasonable standard of service.
26. Overall, there was maladministration on the part the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a poor standard of cleaning and maintenance in communal areas. Compensation is ordered below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there was failure which adversely affected the resident, the landlord has made some attempts to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. The resident stated he first complained in June 2021, though the first record of a complaint provided is from 3 August 2021. The resident stated the services provided ‘were not fit for purpose’ and that the cleaning standards were ‘below that of the previous contractor’. On 6 August 2021, in an internal email, the landlord acknowledged that the resident complained ‘again’. So, it is reasonable to assume the resident had complained beforehand. However, the landlord did not record a stage one complaint until 15 September 2021. It is unclear why the stage one complaint was not recorded on 3 August 2021, given the definition of a complaint as per the complaints policy. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. Though it was clearly taking steps to address the resident’s concerns, it ought to have recorded the complaint sooner.
28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This time is extended to 20 working days for stage two responses.
29. The stage one response was provided on 31 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged that this was outside of usual timescales, as it continued to work to resolve the resident’s concerns. Though the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord was in regular communication with the resident, the timescale from the stage one complaint being logged and the response being provided was 75 working days. The resident reiterated his complaint to the landlord twice in this time. Whilst its clear the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns, the time taken to formally respond to the resident’s complaint was excessive and constitutes an unreasonable delay. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
30. Similarly, whilst the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 4 April 2022, the response was not provided until 27 July 2022, 78 working days later. The resident informed this Service on 17 July 2022 that he met with the landlord to discuss his stage two complaint. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord was in communication with the resident, the meeting occurred 71 working days after the escalation of the complaint. This was well outside the timescales of 15 working days stipulated in the landlord’s policy, and the timeframe given in the Code. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints handling policy, and contributed towards the resident’s distress and inconvenience with this delay.
31. Overall, there were significant delays in providing a response to the resident’s complaint at both stage one and two and this was a failing. Orders are made below for compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Determination

32. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of a poor standard of cleaning and maintenance services in communal areas.
33. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

34. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £350 (comprised of £200 for the failings in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a poor standard of cleaning, and £150 for the complaint handling failures)
    2. Write to this Service, copying in the resident, detailing how it will monitor communal cleaning, to include the frequency of any inspections/checks, to ensure that standards are being met, and what processes are in place to address this if it is found standards have not been met.
    3. Review its record keeping practices, to determine how it will ensure that records are kept that allow it to track and monitor the delivery of communal cleaning services.

Recommendations 

35. It is recommended that the landlord consider meeting the resident during a cleaning inspection, to allow the opportunity for feedback.