London Borough of Newham (202206186)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206186

Newham Council

02 May 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:

Is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of caretaking in the building and her request for a service charge refund.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder since 16 July 2018. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat, situated in a block. The resident pays a service charge, that covers caretaking duties in communal areas.

Summary of events

The resident began making service requests to her landlord about her dissatisfaction with the standards of weekly cleansing services and requested a refund of her service charge by email in May 2020. The resident described the problems as being caused by a lack of sweeping, mopping, and wiping down of surfaces in the communal areas of the block.
On 20 November 2021, the landlord agreed to monitor cleaning standards in the block for four weeks.
In December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and made a formal complaint as outlined below:
1. She was making a complaint about caretaking services, as she has previously made many reports to the landlord, regarding caretaking not being carried out on a regular basis, but there continues to be no improvement.
2. The caretaking problems have been ongoing for two years.
3. She would like a refund of her service charge, due to the caretaking not being carried out regularly.
4. She would like the block monitored, to ensure cleaning is being done as scheduled.
The landlord’s stage one reply to the above issues, was issued on 17 December 2021 and said:
1. The block was independently inspected on 25 November 2021 and was given a pass rate of 69.7%, which indicates that the cleaning was of an acceptable standard.
2. The caretaker had taken annual leave and sick leave, but temporary staff had provided cover for these absences.
3. The resident’s complaint is partly upheld, and the supervisor would monitor the block accordingly to ensure regular and adequate cleansing is being done.
4. The service charge team, in conjunction with the caretaking team would consider inspection records from the past two years, in order to decide whether or not a refund was applicable.
5. The service charge team would make direct contact with the resident regarding her refund request, once their investigations were completed.
In an email to the landlord dated 22 December 2021 the resident said:
1. She reported problems with caretaking issues in November 2021 and was told by the landlord on 20 November 2021, that the block would be monitored for 4 weeks.
2. She had not noticed any improvements and there were some weeks where she did not observe any caretaking being carried out.
3. She asked if the landlord could send an officer to her home, to speak to her and that she is fed up of reporting issues.
4. She has not heard anything regarding the service charge refund request she made.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process by email on 29 April 2022. The resident included photographs of caretaking issues in the communal areas, in support of her complaint. The resident’s stage two complaint escalation request, said the following:
1. She did not like having to keep reporting on a lack of service, however, she had had enough and all she wants is a regular weekly caretaking service.
2. She had still not heard anything about her service charge refund request.
3. The caretaker did not carry out his duties regularly and only did so when a complaint was made.
4. She was of the opinion that the caretaker knew that she had complained, as she said, he banged on her windows and doors loudly. When she queried this, he said he was clearing cobwebs or that he had dropped his equipment.
5. She had heard the caretaker tell passers-by that he had been told which block had complained about him.
6. She wanted the landlord to monitor the caretaker to make sure he was carrying out his duties. The resident would also like a refund for all the weeks the caretaking was not done.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 19 May 2022 to explain that:
1. The block was cleaned on Thursdays.
2. The income collection team would be able to assist with the service charge refund request.
The stage two reply was issued in June 2022 and said:
1. The block was scheduled to be cleaned once a week on a Thursday.
2. The results of an inspection visit carried out on 16 May 2022 found that the block was in reasonable order. The inspector is quoted as stating: “When I visited the block, I found the floor and stairs to be unacceptable, the floor covering needs to be replaced as it is deteriorating. Due to the stairs being concrete, they would need to be acid washed, as the block only has one entrance this would not be feasible”.
3. In view of the above findings, the complaint was partially upheld, not on the basis of lack of cleaning or caretaking, but on the basis that the flooring in the communal areas of the block required repair works.
4. Since the beginning of 2021, the block had been independently inspected on four occasions and passed on three out of four inspections.
5. When a block failed an inspection, additional caretaking or deep cleaning resources were allocated to that area, in order to bring it up to standard. The regular caretaker had annual leave, but temporary cover measures were put in place for that period. It was for these reasons, the landlord said that a service charge refund was not applicable.
6. The block was monitored every 4 to 6 weeks and the result of this was that it had been assessed as being up to a good standard, with a pass mark via external monitoring. The service area would continue to regularly monitor the block to ensure that acceptable service standards were maintained.
7. The stage one decision to partially uphold the complaint on caretaking grounds was not accurate. This was because the block had passed inspection at an acceptable level. Additionally, agreeing to monitor a block did not automatically mean that there was fault with the caretaking standards. Instead, such monitoring action could be taken in order to ensure that the correct standards were maintained.
The resident approached the Ombudsman after the landlord issued their stage two response to say that:
1. Prior to COVID-19, the caretaker “was doing a brilliant job”. However, once COVID-19 started around 2020, he stopped cleaning and only cleaned when a complaint was made.
2. She spoke to the service charge team, who advised her that due to the pandemic they did slow some works with the caretaking, and they would look into this. However, this did not happen.
3. She disputed that cover was provided, when the usual caretaker was on leave and requested her landlord provide her with proof that regular cleaning had been carried out.
4. The landlord’s stage one reply outlined that the service charge and caretaking teams would liaise, and contact the resident directly with their decision about her refund request, but this did not happen.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s stage two response says that cleansing/caretaking standards in the block were of an acceptable standard and the problems being reported by the resident, were caused by the flooring in the block deteriorating and needing replacement. However, the resident emailed the landlord once in 2021, to provide positive feedback, when she noticed that the caretaker carried out a thorough cleaning job. This shows that the resident could see a noticeable difference in the communal area, when regular cleaning works were carried out, which is not dependent on the state of repair of the flooring. This was also evidenced by the photographs, she provided to this Service and to her landlord.
In its stage two response, the landlord told the resident that it did not uphold the stage one finding, which had upheld the resident’s complaints regarding a lack of caretaking. The finding also failed to take into consideration that the standard of cleaning failed one of four inspections carried out in 2021/22. These conflicting decisions would have caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
In an email sent in December 2021, the resident requested that an officer visit her in her home, to discuss the issues raised. This Service has not seen any record to suggest that a visit was arranged. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to meet the resident and demonstrate that it was interested in fully understanding her concerns.
Additionally, by not speaking to the resident face to face, the landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy, which states that: “We will make contact with the complainant to understand how they have been affected and take the required actions to remedy the situation”.
In its stage one response in 2021, the landlord agreed to review the cleaning records for the previous two years, to establish if a refund of any service charges should be made. The landlord also said that if a block failed an inspection, that additional works are carried out, in order to bring it up to standard. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered all records going back in the specified two year period, from 2020 to 2021. Neither had the landlord provided evidence that showed additional cleaning was undertaken.
The landlord also said that cover was provided, whenever the main caretaker took leave. However, the landlord has not provided proof, as requested by the resident, that cover was provided. Therefore, an order in respect of this, has been made.
The landlord’s leasehold annual service charge collection policy says: when a leaseholder challenges services or costs, the following actions should occur:
1. Refer the dispute to our Leasehold Management and Client Relations team, who will investigate the dispute with the relevant service area.
2. Advise the Leaseholder promptly upon the investigation’s conclusion.
3. Explain the Complaints / Mediation process if the Leaseholder is not happy with the outcome.
4. If the outcome is favourable to the Leaseholder, then a credit will be applied for the individual element(s) of service charge in dispute.
The policy wording above, indicates that in the first instance, that leasehold queries should be dealt with by the service charge team. However, this did not occur, which resulted in a service failure. This lack of action also demonstrates a failure to comply with other sections of the landlord’s leasehold policy which state: “Ensure that Leaseholder’s disputes are resolved speedily in order to reach agreement and payment with the Leaseholder”.
In June 2022, the landlord’s complaints team informed the resident that it would not be offering a refund of her service charge in respect of caretaking issues. This is a delay of at least 6 months after the request was passed to the service charge team to deal with directly. The landlord’s policy does not give a specific timeframe for resolving a leasehold dispute. However, it would be reasonable to expect that a refund request to be dealt with as quickly as possible and ideally within the same financial year. However, the refund decision was also made in the following financial year. The landlord did not offer an explanation or apology for the delay.
Because the landlord did not respond to service requests in a timely way, the resident then had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord for an update regarding her refund request.
In its stage one and two replies, the landlord advised the resident that Thursday was the block cleaning day. This was contrary to the cleaning schedule, which says that Tuesday is the block cleaning day. In an internal email from August 2022, the landlord said: “Although the original schedule (which needs to be replaced) states the block will be cleaned on a Tuesday this can alternate depending on if issues may arise in another block, however although we may change the cleaning day subject to service requirements I can confirm it will still be cleaned at least once a week”. It is the opinion of this Service, that the landlord has not provided records which adequately show that weekly cleaning was undertaken in the block.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about the standard of caretaking in the building and her request for a service charge refund.

Reasons

The landlord missed opportunities to speak with the resident face to face, in order to fully understand why she was dissatisfied with the caretaking service in the building.
The landlord did not provide a timely decision about the resident’s service charge refund request, as advised in its stage one response. This includes failing to demonstrate that it had taken into consideration inspection records going back to 2020, before making its decision. It also did not provide records to show that regular cleaning had been carried out, in the caretaker’s absence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must take the following actions and provide the Ombudsman with evidence it had complied with these actions within the time frames given.
1. The landlord is ordered to check it’s cleansing records, from 2020 to the present day, before advising the resident whether or not, a refund of her service charge is due. This includes identifying records that caretaking services were provided to cover any staff absence. This action should be completed within eight weeks of receipt of this report.
2. The landlord should pay the resident £150 in compensation, in recognition of the time and trouble she has taken in pursuing the issues raised. This action should be carried out within four weeks of receiving this response.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology for the delay in providing a decision regarding her refund request. This action should be completed within two weeks of the receipt of this decision.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord check that the cleaning schedules for each block, as advertised online and displayed in communal blocks, are up to date. The landlord may also wish to make residents aware that if the caretaker is unable to carry out his cleaning duties for whatever reasons, on the schedule day, that it is expected that arrangements would be made for cleaning to be carried out on an alternative day, to comply with its weekly cleaning responsibilities.