The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Lewisham Council (202227447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227447

Lewisham Council

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. 
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and occupies a 1 bedroom property on the second floor of a purpose built block of flats, which is accessed by a communal staircase and walkways. The block accommodates residents over the age of 55. The resident pays the landlord a service charge and part of that charge is for the weekly cleaning of the communal areas of the block.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 October 2022 about the lack of cleaning in the communal areas, particularly noting that the staircase was filthy. She noted she had complained continuously about this but no action had been taken. She sent a further email on 11 November 2022, in which she said the staircase had not been cleaned for 4 weeks. She also claimed a neighbour was throwing water, causing puddles on the stairs and walkways, which she considered to be a health hazard. She referenced an injury she had sustained by slipping on the wet stairs and said she wanted this addressing urgently.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 November 2022 and responded on 23 November 2022, when it apologised for the lapse in caretaking within the block. It explained the caretaker had been on annual leave for an extended period and, although cover had been arranged, this had not been carried out ‘fully’. It noted the block had since been cleaned and was back to the expected standard. It explained that, going forward, the block would be cleaned on a weekly basis and it assured the resident that inspections were carried out regularly by the caretaking manager.
  4. On 23 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint, claiming there had been no cleaning for a second week and the stairs and walkways were filthy. She provided photographs evidencing this. She expressed frustration that she had complained month after month and no action had been taken.
  5. The landlord responded on 19 January 2023 and apologised again for the lapse in caretaking standards, which it attributed to inadequate cover arrangements following further absence of the usual caretaker. It explained that the impact of the reduced cover was increased because of another resident’s building work within the block and some antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the period between 23 November 2022 and 9 January 2023. It assured that the caretaker had returned to work and resumed normal weekly service. It did not believe a refund of the service charge was warranted because the recent lapse had not brought the service below the minimum standard.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 February 2022. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the communal areas remain filthy and cleaning is not being completed on a weekly basis. As of January 2024, the resident reported that no cleaning had taken place for 2 months.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning

  1. In the resident’s complaint of 30 October 2022, she raised the issue of communal cleaning amongst other matters. In referring the complaint to this Service, in February 2023, the resident expressed concern only in relation to the cleaning aspect of the complaint. This investigation has, therefore, considered only this part of the complaint, and the landlord’s response to it.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibility for keeping communal areas, including corridors, walkways and stairs, in good repair and maintenance. The agreement also specifies weekly charges to be paid by the resident for caretaking services which, as of 2018 when the tenancy commenced, were £2.84. Caretaking activities are outlined in the estate management policy, which states that caretakers will sweep and wash shared areas, stairways, and landings on a weekly basis.
  3. The estate management policy further states that landlords will aim to stick to these frequencies under normal circumstances including planned annual leave, but cannot always cover long term sickness or other unplanned absences. It aims to achieve these frequencies 85% of the year, and always prioritise the most urgent and health and safety related tasks.
  4. In her stage 1 complaint the resident stated the landlord had taken no action despite continuous complaints about the lack of cleaning. The Ombudsman has asked both parties to provide all their correspondence on the matter, but no records have been supplied of any correspondence prior to the complaint of 30 October 2022. As such, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord was at fault for any inaction before the complaint was made. Regardless, it is not disputed that the resident had considered the matter ongoing since August 2022 and this had created an increasing sense of frustration for her.
  5. Upon receipt of the complaint the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have acknowledged it, and taken initial steps such as inspecting and/or cleaning the communal areas. There is no evidence the landlord took any such action, and it was left for the resident to contact it again, on 11 November 2022, to report that the stairs had remained unclean for 4 weeks. That the landlord neglected to act promptly upon the resident’s concerns, or even acknowledge and explain the lapse in caretaking at this juncture, was a service failure.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response of 23 November 2022 that standards had slipped in relation to its caretaking services due to the caretaker being on annual leave for an extended period and there being insufficient cover. It noted this had been addressed, but it appears the problem persisted leading the resident to escalate her complaint in December 2022.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord once again acknowledged the cover arrangements ‘fell short of what could be expected’ in the period up to 9 January 2023. The Ombudsman appreciates that, as per the landlord’s policy, there may be occasions when services are not carried out due to circumstances outside of its control, such as unplanned staff absence. It is not clear what the specific circumstances were around the staff absence in this case, but the landlord itself acknowledged that the cover arrangements were not adequate.
  8. The landlord stated that, now the caretaker had returned to work, normal service would be resumed. However, this was not, in itself, a sufficient remedy for the period of the complaint. The issue was not that the caretaker had been on leave, but that its cover arrangements had, by its own admission, been inadequate. Had the landlord explored why the cover had been insufficient in the first instance, it might have prevented the situation being repeated. Going forward, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its arrangement for providing cover of caretaking duties to avoid disruption in services during future periods of staff absence, both planned and unplanned.
  9. The landlord also noted in its stage 2 response that the impact of the reduced cover had been exacerbated by ASB and another resident’s building work. However, it offered no further detail or explanation about how it had addressed, or was managing, the ASB. Again, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it was taking action, thereby providing assurance the matter would not be ongoing.
  10. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence, such as communal cleaning logs and inspection reports. This Service would expect a landlord to keep such records in order to effectively track and monitor the delivery of its services. Further, accurate record keeping is essential in enabling the landlord to properly respond to resident queries or complaints, and the Ombudsman’s requests for information, where necessary. However, very little in the way of such evidence has been provided in this case.
  11. While the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were lapses in caretaking, it did not believe this brought its service below the minimum threshold of 85% cover across a 12-month period. It therefore did not find a refund of the service charge was justified. However, based on the limited information provided, it remains unclear how the landlord arrived at this conclusion, given it kept no sign-in sheets, or records that otherwise demonstrated adequate caretaking was completed.
  12. In cases such as this, the Ombudsman considers the onus to be on the landlord to evidence that it provided the contracted services. This is particularly the case where the resident has provided photographic evidence to the contrary. The fact that the landlord did not do so is a service failing, and the Ombudsman considers an offer of compensation to be appropriate here in recognition of the omission in its provision of services and record keeping.
  13. In her email to the landlord of 11 November 2022, the resident reported that there were always pools of water in the communal area which were hazardous. It is not clear whether any action was taken in this regard. The landlord has not provided evidence that it responded to this issue and it was not specifically addressed in its complaint response. However, neither is there evidence of this issue being further pursued by the resident, which might infer that it was resolved. Without additional information the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord was at fault here, however, had the landlord kept records of the dates and/or duties carried out by its caretakers, this would have provided clarity on the matter.
  14. At the time of referring the complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2023, the resident noted further hazards including broken glass on the stairs. Whilst it is accepted that these particular instances have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process, they are indicative of the issues raised by the resident in her formal complaint. This Service therefore takes the opportunity to remind the landlord of its obligation, as outlined in its estate management policy, to carry out health and safety checks for spillages and hazards in lobbies and stairways 3 times a week.
  15. The landlord noted in its complaint response that the caretaking manager inspects the block on a regular and ad hoc basis. While the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for checks to be made, without adequate records this provides little accountability. Nor has this been of assurance to the resident, who considers the lapse in service to have been ongoing since August 2022. The landlord should implement a more robust monitoring system, utilising sign-in sheets for caretakers as a minimum, and consider using other teams or residents to carry out inspections.
  16. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the frequency of cleaning in the block, and little in the way of evidence to demonstrate regular caretaking and monitoring of standards, which amount to maladministration. This led to time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter, frustration, and the impact of living with an unreasonable standard of communal cleaning. The Ombudsman considers an offer of compensation of £150 to be appropriate as a form of remedy, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident stated that she first complained to the landlord on 21 August 2022, but no documentary evidence has been provided to support this statement. Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, it is not possible to say with any certainty whether a complaint was made at that time.
  2. The records do, however, show that a formal complaint was made on 30 October 2022 and acknowledged on 16 November 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord therefore delayed in acknowledging the complaint, and did so only after a further email was sent by the resident on 11 November 2022.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 November 2022, after 18 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code), requires that complaints are responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days. The landlord therefore delayed in responding to the complaint. This was not acknowledged in its complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 December 2022. The landlord responded within 17 working days. This was a prompt response, in line with its policy and the Code, which requires that stage 2 decisions are provided within 20 working days.
  5. Overall, the short delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint at stage 1 constitute a service failure and the Ombudsman considers compensation of £50 to be appropriate, reflective of some inconvenience to the resident in having to prompt the landlord to act and respond.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. 
    2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation (£150 for failures in its provision of caretaking services and £50 for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint). This should be paid directly to the resident and not deducted from any applicable rent balance unless requested by her.
    2. Carry out a review of caretaking cover arrangements to ensure a continual provision of service during staff absence.
    3. Quality assure its caretaking services, and build in greater accountability by ensuring housing officers, other internal teams, or volunteer residents have responsibility for inspections.
    4. Ensure better record keeping, utilising sign-in sheets, and records of inspections.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should also review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against its recommendations.