Leicester City Council (202106737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106737

Leicester City Council

23 March 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 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the frequency of the communal cleaning.
2. Handling of the accusations made about the resident’s behaviour towards the cleaning staff.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block of similar properties. The resident pays the landlord a service charge. Part of that charge is for the weekly cleaning of the communal areas of the block.
Between May and September 2020, the resident made a number of reports to the landlord about the infrequency of the communal cleaning since the corona virus pandemic lockdown started in March 2020. He said he was considering withholding part of his service charge as a result of the lack of frequency or quality of the cleaning. The landlord confirmed there had been no break in this service, and that the service manager (SM) had done a spot check to inspect the quality of the cleaning and found this to be “very good”. It advised him how to make a formal complaint if he was still unhappy with the cleaning.
During September 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint about the communal cleaning. The SM called the resident to discuss his concerns. It was not dealt with as a formal complaint at this stage. The resident continued to report concerns with the cleaning to the landlord until February 2021. He said he was awaiting a previously agreed face-to-face meeting with the SM and a housing officer, and he provided it with a letter, signed by his neighbours, which supported his claim that the cleaning had been irregular since March 2020. The resident also believed that cleaning was not being carried out weekly at a neighbouring block, as the cleaning rota sticker in that block had not been regularly signed. He therefore asked that his cleaning service charges be refunded by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in March 2021. It said that, over the last 12 months, it had completed a spot check of the building, checked sign-in records of the cleaners and was satisfied the cleaning had been completed weekly. The landlord reported that it had received no complaints from other residents until the resident had created a “petition”. It commented on the resident’s behaviour, stating that he had started to “almost entrap the cleaners by placing wrappers on the floor”, and said that it would not investigate any further ‘unwarranted disputes”. The landlord stated there were also reports that he had been rude to the SM and the cleaning staff and that, if it received any more reports of this, it would take further action.
In March 2021, the resident raised another formal complaint with the landlord about the accusations made against him. He asked the landlord what he had allegedly said to the cleaners and was dissatisfied that the landlord had not approached him about this previously. The resident said he felt he had been accused of lying about the cleaning. He also asked what the sticker in the other block was for and asked when he would get the above face-to-face meeting.
In its complaint responses in March and April 2021, the landlord explained the alleged comments the resident had reportedly made and apologised if he felt he was being called dishonest. It said the sticker had been put up in error and had been removed as a fire hazard. The landlord also stated that the face-to-face meeting had been delayed due to corona virus pandemic restrictions, but it agreed to rearrange this and offered a conversation with its leasehold officer (LO). It additionally invited the resident be part of its consultation group for developing and revising its services, and advised him he could dispute these at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It referred him to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he was unhappy with its response.
The resident contacted and was referred to this Service by his local MP in their capacity as his designated person in June 2021, as he was “angry and upset” at the accusations made about him by the landlord. He said the outcome he sought was “a full investigation into [his] said actions against the cleaners…and if there were not several incidents… a full apology and a withdrawal of the threat of further action”. The resident also wanted the landlord to speak to other residents to get their views about the cleaning, refund missed cleaning service charges, and explain the sticker he disputed as inaccurate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint involves his dissatisfaction with the service charges from landlord for communal cleaning, and he has requested a refund of some of these charges. Nevertheless, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level or increase of service charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are instead within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), as the resident was advised by the landlord. We can, however, look at how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the frequency of the cleaning, accusations made about his behaviour and its complaint handling, and whether he should have been compensated for these issues.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of the resident’s lease, despite our requests to it for this. Its leaseholders’ handbook nevertheless required its residents to keep communal areas free of any rubbish, while it was obliged to clean such areas, which it was permitted to include in its residents’ service charges. The landlord’s safe working cleaning specifications in council buildings required it to fully clean the floors in the communal areas of its buildings once per week, so that these were free from debris and had a uniform appearance.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy prior to February 2021 was a one stage complaint process, with complaints assessed to see whether a local resolution could be found and, if it not, formally acknowledged in writing with an estimated timeframe of how long the complaint would take. The aim was to complete all complaints within ten weeks of the date the complaint was made.
From February 2021, the complaint process was two stages for housing complaints to the landlord. At stage one, the complaint will be allocated to an independent complaints officer and the service concerned, to ensure a local resolution is sought at the earliest opportunity. The landlord aims to reach a stage one resolution within ten working days of the complaint being received. It will then write to the complainant with the findings of the stage one investigation and advise the complainant that the complaint can be escalated to stage two of the process if they remain unhappy.
The updated corporate complaints policy says that, at stage two, the housing complaint will be allocated to another independent complaints officer, who will liaise with the Head of Service concerned to try to conclude a stage two investigation within 20 working days of the escalation date. It will then advise that the complaint can be referred to this Service, if the resident remains dissatisfied after the stage two response.
The landlord’s corporate compensation policy gives it discretion to award its residents non-financial remedies, such as apologies, practical action and internal reviews or training, as well as compensation. It is permitted to do so for failings on its part including delays, incorrect actions or failures to take action, follow procedures, provide information, keep adequate records, investigate give replies, supply services causing detriment to its residents such as distress and inconvenience.

The resident’s reports about the frequency of the communal cleaning

The resident began to make regular reports to the landlord about the frequency of the communal cleaning from May 2020, for which it was responsible for arranging weekly under its leaseholders’ handbook and safe working cleaning specifications in council buildings. This was because he had noticed that the cleaning no longer appeared to be conducted weekly since the start of lockdown in March 2020, but this had instead regularly been missed by its cleaners between then and August 2020.
The landlord’s initial response to this was reasonable, as it replied to the resident in August 2020 after it had spoken to the SM, who had checked with the cleaners that the cleaning had been completed and had also conducted a spot check of the building, reporting that the standard of cleaning was “very good”. When his reports about the lack of cleaning continued in September to November 2020, the SM put the block on their priority list and started ringing the cleaners each week to check that this had been cleaned, which was an appropriate response.
Once the resident raised a formal complaint about the frequency of the communal cleaning in September 2020, the SM spoke to him via telephone, but ended the call as they said he was being “very rude” and that they were getting nowhere. They told him they would speak to the housing team to ask to arrange a meeting with him, however there is no record of the SM having a conversation with the housing team to do so.
In December 2020, when the resident sent the landlord a letter about the continued infrequency of the communal cleaning that was signed by other residents, it would have been reasonable for it to have spoken to the other residents to see if they had any additional information or evidence regarding the cleaning. There is nevertheless no record of the landlord contacting the other residents to do so, or of it regularly carrying out further checks to ensure that this had taken place instead of relying on calls to the cleaners for them to verify this themselves.
When the resident contacted the landlord again in January 2021 to report that another two weeks’ communal cleaning had not been completed, and to show it a photograph of a cleaners’ sign-in sticker in a neighbouring block, it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted him to discuss this. However, no contact was made by it with him at that time, although its internal emails in February 2021 showed that it was investigating and preparing to provide him with a response and explanation about the frequency of the cleaning and the sticker.
To summarise, there were repeated occasions from October 2020 to February 2021 where it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to discuss the further emails he had sent about its lack of communal cleaning during that period. However, there is no record of it doing so or independently verifying this with other residents or via its own inspections, despite its investigations during that period into the frequency of the cleaning with the cleaners themselves. As such, there was a failure by the landlord in response to its handling of the resident’s reports of infrequent cleaning.
In March 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter written by the LO It said it was the landlord’s final response to the resident’s ongoing communal cleaning queries. It listed times the resident had contacted the landlord regarding the cleaning in the last 12 months, and its responses to the contact. This was appropriate as it gave an outline of the previous reports and its general response to them, although it did not acknowledge that the landlord had not replied to a number of the resident’s reports.
The landlord also did not acknowledge that, by signing the letter the resident sent it in December 2020 about the frequency of communal cleaning, other residents appeared to agree with the resident’s reports. Instead, it referred to the fact that no residents had complained until the resident “instigated this and created a petition.” This was unreasonable and unfair, as the resident was permitted to provide the landlord with evidence to support his reports of a lack of communal cleaning from other residents, which it ought to have investigated independently with them and via its own inspections instead of only relying on its cleaners to self-verify their own work.
The landlord’s March 2021 response letter to the resident also said that, as it had investigated his reports and found that the cleaning had been completed with no break in service, the leasehold team would no longer respond to any further reports he made about the same issue. Although it is reasonable that the landlord should not have to deal with repeated vexatious reports, on this occasion there was no evidence that the reports were vexatious. This is because other residents appeared to have supported the resident’s reports of infrequent cleaning, and it would have reasonable for it to have investigated their views too. For the reasons outlined, this part of the content of the letter was not fair or reasonable.
The landlord’s subsequent responses to the resident’s formal complaints in March and April 2021 said that the cleaners’ sign-in sticker had been put up in error and been removed as a fire hazard. It also agreed to rearrange a face-to-face meeting with him, offered him a conversation with its LO, invited him be part of its consultation group for developing and revising its services, and advised him that he could dispute these at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). These actions were appropriate and partially put right the landlord’s above failings in declining to respond to or fully investigate the resident’s ongoing reports about its lack of communal cleaning, as it agreed to discuss these with him and outlined how he help to improve this in the future and challenge its current services.
It was nevertheless another failing on the landlord’s part that its responses did not fully resolve the resident’s formal complaints about its lack of communal cleaning, as these still did not confirm that it would independently verify his reports of this with his neighbours or its own regular inspections. Moreover, it did not consider compensating him for its failures in respect of this, despite being permitted to do so by its corporate compensation policy, which was unreasonable.

Accusations made about the resident’s behaviour towards the cleaning staff

The SM first made allegations about the resident’s behaviour in November 2020, following their telephone conversation in September 2020. The allegations made in an email to the LO were that he was “very rude”, as he was reportedly talking over the SM and laughing. There were also further allegations that he had been “very rude” to the cleaners by asking if they had done the cleaning and saying “whatever”.
Although the records show the SM making the allegations about the resident’s reported rudeness in the above telephone conversation, there are no records of reports directly from the cleaners about the allegations that the resident was also “very rude” to them. The landlord’s subsequent stage two complaint response to the resident in April 2021 said that the information about the cleaners’ allegations came from the SM. When the SM was asked by the LO in February 2021 for further feedback about the resident’s comments to the SM, and whether there had been any further incidents with the cleaners, there is no record by the landlord of the SM replying to this query.
If these allegations were thought to be significant then it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss them when they were made in November 2020, under any policies and procedures that it had on unacceptable, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour by its service users. This would have given him a chance to respond to the allegations and for a fair investigation of these to take place. However, the resident was not made aware of the allegations until the landlord wrote to him in March 2021 to say that, if his behaviour continued, it was likely that a complaint would be made about him and, as this would be in breach of his lease, appropriate action would be taken regarding that too.
It is appropriate that the landlord can issue warnings and take action in response to a resident’s unacceptable, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour towards its staff, particularly if this is an ongoing problem. However, there appears from its records to have only been one occasion where the resident was alleged to have laughed and talked over the SM, and one occasion where the resident was alleged to have said “whatever” to the cleaners. Neither incident appeared to be extreme enough to warrant the warnings of future action that were referred to in the letter in the absence of further evidence of this, or of a demonstration by the landlord that the resident had breached its relevant policies and procedures with regard to such behaviour.
As the landlord’s response was disproportionate to the alleged behaviour and the resident was given no chance to defend himself against the allegations, there was a failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the allegations made about the resident’s behaviour towards the cleaning staff. This is also because, instead of contacting him about this separately under any policies and procedures on unacceptable, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour, it included its concerns and warning about his behaviour in its response to his reports about the frequency of the communal cleaning. This was inappropriate, as these were different and unrelated issues, and the landlord could be seen as using the former to dismiss the resident’s reports about the latter instead of addressing them directly.

Complaint handling

Following numerous reports of dissatisfaction from the resident about the communal cleaning from May 2020 onwards, he was advised by the landlord in September 2020 to make a formal complaint to it about this. He then raised such a complaint about this with it at that time on an unspecified date, which was forwarded from its complaints team to its leaseholder team on 28 September 2020. At the time the complaint was made, the landlord’s corporate complaints policy was a one stage complaint process, which gave it the opportunity to see if the complaint could be resolved locally in the first instance and, if this could not be, then the complaint was to be formally acknowledged and investigated within ten weeks.
Although there is no record from the landlord of how or if the first formal complaint in September 2020 was resolved, it mentioned a telephone call between the resident and the SM at that time, so it appeared that the decision was made to try to resolve the complaint locally. This was reasonable, as the corporate complaints policy included that option, and it had not yet attempted to resolve the matter in that way. However, following this conversation, the resident was under the impression that a face to face meeting with him, the SM and the housing team was being arranged to discuss the issue. The SM also confirmed to the LO in November 2020 that they would speak to the housing team for them to arrange a meeting with him.
It would have been appropriate for the SM or the housing team to have kept the resident updated about the scheduling of the proposed meeting and informed him if this was not able to take place. However, there are no records of that happening or of any discussions between staff about making arrangements for a meeting. The resident also continued to email the landlord from October 2020 onwards with reports that the cleaning had not been completed, as well as chasing up the face to face meeting, which suggested that he remained dissatisfied and so his complaint remained unresolved.
The landlord nevertheless did not respond to the resident’s subsequent emails. As the corporate complaints policy at that time said that, if local resolution was not possible, it would formally acknowledge his complaint in writing and explain how long it expected an investigation to take, it should have accepted that local resolution was not possible and formally acknowledged the complaint. An independent officer would then have been able to investigate the complaint within the policy’s ten-week timescale. As this did not happen, there was a failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
As there was no resolution, meeting or independent investigation, the resident continued to report the same issues about the communal cleaning to the landlord until February 2021. He also sent it a letter about the cleaning in December 2020, which was signed by other residents. On 4 March 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter, which it said was its final response to his queries about the cleaning, but invited him to make a formal complaint about this if he remained dissatisfied. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord neither responded to his formal complaint of September 2020 under its corporate complaints policy nor replied to this within the policy’s ten-week deadline, but at least 12-and-a-half weeks later than that timescale.
The resident then raised another formal complaint with the landlord on 5 March 2021 in response to this letter. As per the revised corporate complaints policy in effect at that point, the housing complaint should have been investigated within ten working days at stage one of its complaints procedure, and escalated to stage two of the procedure if the resident was unhappy with the stage one response. At stage two a different complaints officer should have investigated the complaint. If the resident was still unhappy with the stage two response, he should have been given the details of how to contact this Service.
However, what actually happened was that the landlord sent its first complaint response six working days late on 29 March 2021, and it advised the resident that, if he felt anything had been missed, he could respond by return email. It also said that if, he was unhappy with the response, he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This would have been very confusing for the resident, as the landlord’s initial complaint response appeared to give him contradictory information as to whether or not he could escalate his complaint with it, and this signposted him to the incorrect Ombudsman for his housing complaint, contrary to its corporate complaints policy.
When the resident responded to the landlord by a return email on an unspecified date, which outlined why he was still dissatisfied, it issued a final complaint response to him within its corporate complaints policy’s 20-working-day response timescale for stage two complaints on 16 April 2021. It nevertheless again told the resident that he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with the response, and the final response was sent to him by the same officer as its first complaint response, contrary to the policy.
Not only was this the wrong Ombudsman for the landlord to signpost the resident to, it should not have signposted him to the Ombudsman until stage two of the complaint process. Instead, in its stage one complaint response it should have explained how to escalate the complaint to stage two, in accordance with its corporate complaints policy. At stage two a different person should have investigated the complaint, however, as the same officer sent both the first and final complaint response, the landlord did not follow its policy, and acted contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality. As the landlord did not follow its policy in this respect, there was another failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
The main points that the resident had raised in his complaints were that he felt he had not been given the opportunity by the landlord to respond to the allegations about him before he was warned about the consequences of them by it. He also wanted to know why the views of other residents regarding the communal cleaning had not been taken into account by it, and that he wanted to know what the sticker in the neighbouring block was for. Although the landlord’s explanation that the sticker was placed there in error as no complaints had been made in that block and had subsequently been removed was reasonable, as this was confirmed by an email from the SM in its records, it did not adequately address the other two issues in either of its two responses.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have either further investigated the allegations or apologised to the resident for the disproportionate reaction to the alleged behaviour by him, as previously outlined in this report. It would also have been appropriate for it to have spoken to the residents who had signed the resident’s letter to see if their views were valid, and to have investigated these itself via its own regular inspections of the communal cleaning. This is particularly as the resident said that one neighbour had reported there had been a break in the cleaning service, which would have corresponded with gaps in the cleaners’ sign in sheet between 11 December 2020 and 7 January 2021 that the SM emailed to the LO.
The landlord’s explanation in its final complaint response to the resident that it did not take his other neighbours’ views into account, as they had not previously reported any problems with the cleaning themselves was not reasonable. This is because the neighbours’ signatures on the resident’s letter at the very least suggested that they too had experienced problems with the cleaning, even if they had not made individual reports to it about this themselves. As these issues were not addressed, there was a further failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about the frequency of the communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the accusations made about the resident’s behaviour towards the cleaning staff.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay a total of £400 compensation to the resident within four weeks, comprising of:
  1. £125 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s reports about the frequency of its communal cleaning.
  2. £125 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the accusations made about the resident’s behaviour towards cleaning staff.
  3. £150 for in recognition of any unnecessary time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its failures in its complaint handling.

This award is made in accordance with the amounts recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for failures including giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information, residents repeatedly having to chase responses requiring an unreasonable level of involvement by them, and failures over a considerable period of time to follow policies and procedures.

Contact the resident within four weeks to apologise for its above failings in his case, outline the lessons that it has learnt from this and explain how it will prevent these failures from occurring again in the future.

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its processes for retaining copies of its residents’ leases, monitoring the frequency and standard of its communal cleaning, warning its residents about their alleged behaviour towards its staff and contractors, and escalating formal complaints in light of its failings in the resident’s case.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in respect of their application of its leaseholders’ handbook, safe working cleaning specifications in council buildings, policies and procedures on unacceptable, unreasonable or vexatious behaviour, and corporate complaints and compensation policies as a consequence of its failures in the resident’s case. This should include the consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.