Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

One Vision Housing Limited (202006531)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006531

One Vision Housing Limited

9 December 2021


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:
    1. The quality of communal cleaning at the property.
    2. An incident involving a member of the cleaning staff.

Background and summary of events

     Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days unless otherwise specified. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 10 working days.
  3. Under the lease agreement the resident has an obligation to pay the landlord any outgoings incurred by the landlord at a fair and proper proportion attributed to the premises determined by the landlord which includes paying for a service charge.
  4. Under the landlord’s service charge agreement it agrees to regularly monitor approved supplier arrangements and the performance and satisfaction against stringent targets, it will ensure that those who provide services that are subject of a service charge are quality assured and that quality is maintained throughout contracts.

Summary of events

  1. On 24 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that the cleaners that attended the property failed to lock the communal front door which constituted a serious security issue and had potential serious insurance consequences for residents.
  2. On 13 March 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to the standard of cleaning of the communal areas at the property. The resident advised the following:
    1. He highlighted that of the 11 items listed on the cleaning schedule only the brushing and mopping of the floors had been completed, furthermore those two tasks had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.
    2. He advised that on 13 March 2020, the cleaner arrived at the property and began to clean without the required equipment. The resident confronted the cleaner and asked why he had not swept the floor and why he was not using a wet floor sign. The resident claimed that he was verbally attacked by the cleaner and that he and his wife felt scared and intimidated. He raised concerns that he would have to see the cleaner again next Friday.
    3. The resident raised that both he and his wife were vulnerable persons and cleaning in such times should be completed properly. He also stated that when the cleaner left the property, he left the main communal door wide open.
  3. On 26 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the incident with the cleaner and issued its stage one response advising the following:
    1. That it was not possible due to Covid-19 to attend the resident’s property in person to discuss the issue or inspect the cleaning.
    2. That the statement by the resident and the cleaner both have accusations against the other and it would be hard to prove or disprove either way. It stated that the cleaner would not attend the resident’s property again and would be assigned to a different block.
    3. It agreed that the resident could sent through photos of the weekly cleaning so it could assess the quality and standard of the cleaning. It advised that it had changed the cleaners at the property on a number of occasions due to the resident’s complaints in relation to the standard of cleaning at the block.
    4. It also advised that it would not be able to send its stage one response in a letter due to association working from home due to Covid-19. It advised that it would set a meeting in its offices post Covid-19.
  4. On 4 April 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update and said:
    1. It asked its cleaning monitoring team to see if it was able to vary the day that the cleaners cleaned the block to match the day the wheelie bins were emptied.
    2. It asked its Asset Team to install an electronic door entry system that would enable resident’s and contractor’s access to communal parts of the block. It advised it would update the resident when it had an answer.
  5. On 12 August 2020, the landlord attended the property to inspect the quality of cleaning and advised that it was of a reasonable standard. It informed the resident that the cleaner had been put on a different route and would not attend the resident’s block to carry out cleaning duties in communal areas.
  6. On 31 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the cleaner had been on site.
  7. On 11 September 2020, the landlord met with the resident about the continued appearance of the cleaner on site and was advised by the cleaning manager that he would no longer attend the property.
  8. On 20 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update in relation to the incident with the cleaner at the property. He advised that he had not heard from the landlord and wanted to know if it had interviewed the cleaner. He advised that there was no follow through from the landlord in relation to the standard of cleaning at the property and advised that one week the cleaning was of a reasonable standard and the next week the cleaning was poor again.
  9. On 25 November 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and advised the following:
    1. that the cleaning service did not deny the altercation and that the cleaner would not attend the residents block to clean. It stated that the cleaner did clean the block on one occasion after it informed the resident that he would not be due to emergency leave by another staff member. It stated that there was also one occasion when the cleaner remained in a van outside the building waiting for his colleague. It advised that he would not clean the block under any circumstances going forward.
    2. It advised that the cleaning charges from the dates in which the cleaners attended would be removed from the resident’s service charge bill. It stated that it hoped that the standard of cleaning would improve following the upgrade of the communal area.
  10. On 20 December 2020, the resident raised further issues to the landlord in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property.
  11. On 18 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. He advised:
    1.  That the cleaner had attended the property on two separate occasions on 31/07/20 and 07/08/20. This was reported to the landlord who advised that it contacted the cleaning manager and it would not happen again. He stated that the cleaner waited out the front in a van to the dismay of his wife and himself.
    2. He stated that after months of complaints about the standards of cleaning the landlord had done nothing, he advised that he supplied numerous photographic and video evidence to show the poor standard and nothing had ever been addressed and for that reason he felt the need to challenge the cleaner about the poor standards himself.
  12. On 18 January 2021, the landlord performed a community cleaning site quality audit and advised that the general appearance of property was clean but that there had been a few attention to details issues which had been resolved with the cleaning company and no further complaints had been made. 
  13. On 5 February 2021, the landlord contacted the resident about the incident with the cleaner and the resident became upset as she believed that the cleaner was in the building at the time of the call. The resident advised that they had a witness to the dispute, a neighbour who had come home from shopping and heard raised voices.
  14. On 10 February 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final complaint response and addressed the following:
    1. Incident with the cleaner – it advised that following the event it contacted the cleaning company and was advised that whilst the cleaner admitted to the altercation the cleaner denied swearing or threatening behaviour. It stated that as there was no independent witness to the event the best action would be to remove the cleaner from the cleaning rota for the resident’s block.
    2. It conceded that the cleaner did return once after this commitment was made and it apologised for this. It noted that on another occasion the cleaner waited outside whilst his partner cleaned the building however the partner wrote both cleaners names which it deemed unacceptable. It apologised for any distress caused and instructed the cleaning service to not let this happen again.
    3. It stated that it contacted the resident’s witness to the altercation and it was determined that all she heard was raised male voices and a softer female voice and could not make out anything said. Given this, its original solution that the cleaner no longer cleans the communal area of the block was sufficient. It advised that if the residents had any future issues with the cleaners then it should contact it directly.
    4. Communal cleaning – it advised that it had investigated the standard of cleaning in the past and it was found to be satisfactory. It advised that with the resident’s recent reports it carried out inspections and audits of the clean within the common areas and identified some small quality issues. It advised that it had organised a deep clean for the communal areas and that it would continue to liaise with the cleaning service.

Assessment and findings

The quality of cleaning at the property.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was a fault with the cleaning at the property but to assess how the landlord responded to such reports. The landlord had an obligation under the lease agreement to clean and maintain the communal areas of the building. Under the service agreement the common areas are to be cleaned weekly and paid for by the resident through the service charge.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint in relation to the quality of cleaning on 13 March 2020, the landlord appropriately informed the resident that due to the current Government Covid-19 guidelines that it would not be able to attend the property to inspect the cleaning. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and advised the resident that he could send photos of the weekly clean so that it would assess the quality of the cleaning in order to pick up any issues that arose in relation to performance. Once government guidelines permitted, the landlord appropriately inspected the property on two separate occasions and deemed the cleaning to be of an acceptable level inline with its service level agreement. 
  3. Following further complaints from the resident the landlord took a resolution focused approach and advised that the service charge fee from the cleaning company would be removed from the resident’s service charge. It appropriately organised a deep clean of the communal areas and advised that it would continue to liaise with the cleaning service in line with its service charge policy.
  4. Overall, the steps taken by the landlord were appropriate to investigate the resident’s claims in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property. It organised for the resident to send in photos in order for it to monitor the situation and inspected the cleaning itself when permitted. It suitably agreed to remove the cleaning fee from the resident’s service charge account and agreed to perform a deep clean at the property. The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and in line with best practice.

An incident involving a member of the cleaning staff.

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 March 2020 that there was an altercation with a member of the cleaning staff which left the residents feeling scared and intimidated. It is not for this service to determine if the conduct took place but how the landlord responds to the resident’s reports.
  2. The landlord upon receiving the complaint appropriately investigated the matter and contacted the cleaning company in question who advised that there had been a dispute between the two parties and it made counter accusations against the resident. The landlord suitably informed the resident that due to Covid-19 it would not be able to attend the property and perform interviews. However, the cleaner would be moved to another block so there would be no further interaction between the parties. The landlord also appropriately interviewed the resident’s neighbour after it was provided by the resident but they were unable to shed light on the incident. The steps taken by the landlord were appropriate to address the immediate complaint.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2020 and made further complaints that the cleaner had reattended the resident’s property to perform communal cleaning. The landlord appropriately met with the resident and contacted the cleaning company and was informed that the cleaner had attended the property on at least one occasion due to emergency leave by another staff member, it also advised that on one occasion when the cleaner remained in a van outside the building waiting for his colleague. The landlord apologised to the resident and appropriately advised the cleaning company that the cleaner was not to clean the block under any circumstances going forward.
  4. It is not disputed the distress the incident caused both residents and the further distress caused by seeing the cleaner at the property on two separate occasions after being informed that the cleaner would no longer attend. The actions taken by the landlord in investigating the complaint were appropriate however given the seriousness of the allegations made by the resident, the landlord should have taken further steps to ensure that the cleaner did not attend or be in the vicinity of the complex. Given the landlord’s failure and the evident impact on the residents it would have been appropriate to offer the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of an incident involving a member of the cleaning staff.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and investigated the resident’s reports in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property. It took a resolution focused approach and organised for the resident to send in photos in order for it to monitor the situation and inspected the cleaning itself when permitted. It agreed to remove the cleaning fee from the resident’s service charge account and agreed to perform a deep clean at the property. These actions were reasonable and in line with best practice.
  2. The steps taken by the landlord to investigate the complaint were reasonable however considering the circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the allegations, the landlord should have taken further steps to insure that the contractor did not reattend the property on multiple occasions.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the distress experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to adequately address an incident involving a member of the cleaning staff.
  2. This amount is to be paid within four weeks from the date of this report.