Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202107582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107582

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

21 September 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

The complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. communal cleaning at the resident’s property.
2. the resident’s Subject Access Requests.
3. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s decision to issue a single point of contact arrangement.
4. the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Requests.

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
In his communication with the landlord, the resident has expressed concern about its handling of his Subject Access Request. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Therefore, this investigation report will not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request. The resident may wish to contact the ICO, if he wants to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

The resident’s concern about the landlord’s decision to issue a single point of contact arrangement.

Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In his correspondence with this Service, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the single point of contact arrangement the landlord had put in place. The Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on this matter at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. Once this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident has the right to approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is also the local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats. Each floor within the building has a communal bin storage room.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2021 and reported that a caretaker had cleared a bag of rubbish that another tenant had left on the floor in the communal bin room, but he was concerned that the caretaker did not clean the area after as a liquid had spilt from the bag. He was under the impression that the bin room on each floor was supposed to be cleaned daily and added that this was now a slip hazard. He added that he had highlighted several health and safety concerns in the past six months, all of which should have been addressed by the landlord’s estates team. He said that the bin room now had a smell and hoped that the landlord would take action to remove the spillage before an accident happened.
The landlord responded to the resident on 20 May 2021 and explained that although the caretaker had removed the refuse sacks and disposed of them, it was disappointing that neither they, nor the cleaner had identified and removed the cooking oil that had leaked from the sacks. It explained that the bin chute room was scheduled to be cleaned fully once per week, but the caretaker should check daily for any hazards such as spillages and had not done so on this occasion. It said that following the resident’s email, it’s out of hours team attended the building on 19 May 2021 and removed the oil from the bin chute room. It advised that it had reminded the employees concerned of their responsibilities with regards to ensuring the safety of residents to ensure this issue did not happen again.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 23 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. He said that a tenant of the building had again left bin bags in the bin chute area instead of properly disposing of them. The caretaker had cleared these bags but had again failed to clean the spillage left by the bags. He added that despite calling the landlord at 12:20 on 22 May 2021 and being informed that a cleaner would be sent, nobody had come to clear the spillage. He said that the spillage was cleaned by 10:00 on 23 May 2021 and his sign, informing other tenants of the issue, was taken off the door of the bin chute. He asked the landlord to investigate his concerns and explain why the slip hazard was not dealt with
2. He said that he had raised several health and safety issues over the previous four months which had not been dealt with appropriately by the landlord. He expressed concern that the caretaking staff had not been adequately trained to assess situations where harm could be caused to tenants as they had failed to report or deal with the issue despite the landlord’s previous comment that it had reminded its staff of their responsibilities. He also expressed concern that the estate staff had not been given the correct equipment as they used domestic mops and buckets and he believed the mops should be industrial mop heads.
3. The resident asked for information about the training of the caretaking staff, including what health and safety courses had been completed. He also asked what time the control room had reported the spillage to the cleaning staff and said he wanted evidence of this. He also queried why the out of hours team did not attend the health and safety issue.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 7 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. It said that it was disappointed to hear that there had been another incident in the bin room and acknowledged that its estates team did not identify the spillage over the weekend. It confirmed that the control room in the building had passed a request to its repairs supervisor. This was recorded with its out of hours team at 12:30 on 22 May 2021.
2. It explained that despite the spillage being reported, this was not passed to its caretaking out of hours team to remove and was subsequently cleaned by the caretaker scheduled to work over the weekend on the Sunday morning. It thanked the resident for placing a warning sign on the door to the bin chute room and advised that as its teams were not on site all day it was reliant on the support of its residents to highlight any concerns. It confirmed that it had discussed this incident with the member of staff responsible, who admitted that they had not checked the floor when walking the block and said that this was not the same caretaker it had spoken to about the previous spillage.
3. It said that all caretaking and cleaning teams received full training and guidance to refer to on all duties carried out. Each new employee went through a corporate health and safety training session. They also received monthly health and safety briefing notes. It said that it discussed the training each year with its Learning and Development team.
4. It confirmed that the equipment used was suitable and sufficient for the type of work its cleaning team carried out and was widely used in the industry. It acknowledged that there was alternative cleaning equipment it could use but added that it had no concerns with the type of cleaning equipment currently in use.
5. It apologised for failing to meet its aim of delivering its services correctly. It added that to improve its services in future it would remind its teams of their daily duties due to two separate incidents highlighting this issue. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated for the following reasons:
1. He said that despite requesting evidence that his report had been forwarded to the estates team the landlord had not provided this. He asked the landlord to again provide evidence that this action was completed.
2. He asked why his report of a spillage was not passed to the out of hours estates team despite him contacting the control team within the building.
3. He understood that two different caretakers, who were trained in the same way, failed to notice and make safe a spillage twice over a three-day period. He asked for information about the accreditation of the health and safety session provided to the landlord’s staff.
4. He did not accept the landlord’s apology as he did not feel that anything would be done moving forward. He asked for his complaint to be escalated as the landlord had not provided the evidence he had requested and had not explained why the issue reported was not passed to its out of hours team.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 17th June 2021 and acknowledged that he remained dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response, but that it was unclear from the escalation request as to which aspects he remained dissatisfied with. It was satisfied that it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns, explained how the incident occurred, explained the steps it had taken to prevent the incidents in future and apologised for its service failure on this occasion. It did not feel that there was anything further it could add to its stage one complaint response.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He advised that he had asked for evidence that the concierge team had passed his concerns on to the caretaking team but the landlord had not provided this. He had also asked the landlord to provide details of the caretaking staff’s training and queried the accreditation of the training but had not received a response. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident requested compensation and an apology for being discriminated against in relation to the complaint. He also asked for answers to his original questions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the communal cleaning at the resident’s property.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for providing a caretaking and cleaning service on estates with blocks of flats and keeping estates clean, safe and tidy. The landlord has confirmed that its estate caretakers have several responsibilities, including daily inspections of the buildings, communal repairs and litter picking, and weekly cleansing of the internal bin chutes. Its estate cleaners would be responsible for cleaning the entrances and lifts daily, and cleaning of the communal landings, stairwells and bin chute rooms weekly.
In this case, the resident had reported two separate incidents of liquid being left on the floor of the bin chute room, after bin bags had been disposed of, within a four-day period. He remained dissatisfied as he believed that these issues should have been identified and resolved by the landlord’s estates team. He also expressed concern that his report on 22 May 2021 was not passed to the landlord’s out-of-hours team to resolve, meaning that the spillage was cleared the following day.
The evidence provided shows that each incident was attended to by a member of the landlord’s estate team within approximately 24 hours of the resident’s report. This is not an unreasonable timescale and is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that emergency repairs should usually be made safe within 24 hours and urgent repairs should be attended to within three days. As such, there has been no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of spillages within the bin chute rooms in his building.
The landlord has acknowledged that health and safety issues such as spillages should be identified and resolved by its estates team during their daily inspections of the building. It was reasonable for the landlord to say that it relied on the support of its residents to report health and safety issues as its staff were not on site all day but acknowledged that there was an opportunity for the spillage to be rectified sooner when the bin bags were disposed of by its caretaker. The landlord has shown that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint by reminding staff of their duties regarding health and safety to prevent future incidents. It has apologised to the resident that the spillage was not rectified by its out-of-hours team. Ultimately the resident was not significantly disadvantaged as information about the spillage was provided to the caretaker scheduled to work on 22 May 2021 and the spillage was removed within 24 hours.
In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the communal cleaning at the resident’s property. The landlord has acknowledged that its estate staff should have identified the issue and has spoken to the relevant staff member, reminding them of their responsibilities. Both spillages were removed within approximately 24 hours of the resident’s report which was reasonable. The landlord has also provided details of the training it provides to its caretaking staff in answer to the resident’s queries about this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it had a two–stage process for handling formal complaints. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two by specifying the reasons for wanting to proceed. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint in its complaint responses.
In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stages one and two within a reasonable timescale, in line with its complaint policy. However, in its stage two complaint response it said that it was unclear from the escalation request as to which aspects the resident remained dissatisfied with. It would have been helpful for the landlord to contact the resident if it felt his escalation request was unclear to gain further clarity on his reasons for escalating the complaint.
The landlord has not addressed the resident’s request for evidence to show that his report of a spillage on 22 May 2021 was passed to the estates team. Nor has it addressed the resident’s request for further information about the health and safety training provided to its estates team. The landlord would have been expected to address the resident’s request and provide the relevant information or give a satisfactory explanation as to why it was not able to do so.
The landlord should now address the resident’s request for information within four weeks. It should also compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by failing to address his requests, as set out below. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that a resident is contacted if their reasons for escalation or dissatisfaction are unclear, and that each complaint aspect is addressed in the landlord’s responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the communal cleaning at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that its estate staff should have identified and resolved the spillages in the bin chute room within the resident’s property on their daily inspections. Following the resident’s reports of these health and safety concerns the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for these to be cleaned within 24 hours of the report. It has also taken appropriate steps to prevent future incidents occurring.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales laid out in its complaints policy, however, failed to address certain aspects of the complaint, including the resident’s request for information and evidence.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused because of errors in its complaint handling.
2. The landlord is to address the resident’s request for information regarding its caretaking staff’s training and accreditation as well as his request for evidence showing that his concerns were passed to the caretaking team. If the landlord is unable to provide this information, it should explain why it cannot provide it.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that a resident is contacted if their reasons for escalation or dissatisfaction are unclear, and that each complaint aspect is addressed in each complaint response.