Sovereign Network Homes (202214159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214159

Sovereign Network Homes

6 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) within the block.
2. Items being dumped in the bin store.
3. Concerns about communal cleaning not being completed.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord under a lease dated 14 May 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom fourth floor flat within a mixed tenure residential block.
The landlord has a contractor which conducts weekly cleaning of the communal areas of the block. This contractor also provides a bulky waste removal service. The costs of both of these services are passed onto residents through their service charge.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy allows that it will accept group complaints “where one complainant has been identified as the complaint lead, will act as sole communicator, and provide updates to all involved”. The complaint was brought to the landlord on this basis, with the resident acting as the complaint lead.
The landlord has an ‘estate inspection policy’. This states that it carries out periodic scheduled inspections but that “an ad hoc inspection could be completed due to a concern about the condition of one the areas where residents live”.
This policy contains a list of resident responsibilities which includes to “keep all internal communal areas clean and tidy, including bin areas where nothing should be left outside of the bins provided” and “not to dump items of rubbish either internally or externally”.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord sent a ‘block letter’ to all properties in the resident’s block. This said that it had been made aware of cannabis being smoked on balconies, within properties and around the block. It warned that this was illegal and a breach of tenancy agreement which it would take legal action against with sufficient evidence.
The landlord sent a further block letter on 6 July 2021, this time in reference to household waste and ‘bulk items’ being incorrectly disposed of in the bin store. It reminded residents that this represented a breach of tenancy and may lead to an increase in their service charge to cover the costs of clearances. It also provided details of the local authorities ‘special collection service’ for bulky waste.
At the request of the landlord, the council’s refuse collection contractor visited the block on 10 November 2021. It delivered educational material about refuse and recycling into residents’ post boxes and door knocked some properties to discuss this.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord sent a second letter to residents regarding misuse of the bin store. It enclosed a copy of its letter of 6 July 2021 to “warn and remind” residents how to appropriately dispose of refuse. The landlord said that it had issued verbal and written warnings to those that had been identified as dumping rubbish and asked residents to report any instances to it. The landlord also enclosed a copy of a poster that would be put up in the bin store “for all residents to be reminded of their responsibility to dispose their rubbish correctly”.

Summary of events

On 22 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report that 2 sofas had been dumped in the bin store at the block. The resident emailed again on 28 February 2022 to report that further items had been dumped in the bin store.
The landlord responded on 28 February 2022. It advised that its contractor would be removing the items the next day and that it would check CCTV within the block to try and identify who had left them.
On 9 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord a picture of a mattress which had been dumped in the bin store. He said that the council had not collected the rubbish due to this and the cleaners had not cleaned the bin store for the second week in a row. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that he was paying for the removal of items dumped by other residents through his service charge.
The landlord responded on 10 March 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s “frustrations” and “how this behaviour financially impacts you and others” but explained that it was not always able to identify who had dumped items and take action against them. It asked the resident to provide it with a timeline of when items appeared so that it could check CCTV to try and identify any culprits.
The resident sent further pictures of items dumped in the bin store to the landlord on 17 March 2022. He said that the landlord was not providing any solution to the issue.
The landlord responded on 22 March 2022. It said that, as the CCTV in the block only covered the main entrance and lift doors on each floor, it was unable to identify where residents dumping items had come from. It stated that “wanting to stop this behaviour doesn’t come from a place of lack but, more so from the resolutions not being so clear cut and forthcoming” and that the bulk items would be removed that week.
On 24 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that someone had been smoking cannabis in the lift in the block and that he was also able to smell cannabis when using his balcony. He asked the landlord to send a text message out to all residents reminding them not to smoke cannabis on their balconies or within the block. The landlord responded on 30 March 2022 confirming it would send out a text message that day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 April 2022. He said that he had not received a text message regarding the cannabis use. He also claimed that the cleaners had not tidied the bin store again this week and that residents were leaving shopping trolleys from the nearby supermarket inside the block, causing an obstruction.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 May 2022. He said that the cleaners had not attended the block that week and requested for this to be deducted from his service charge. He said that he would be logging a complaint due to the landlord failing to respond to his previous email or take appropriate action on the issues raised.
On 10 May 2022, another resident of the block informed the landlord that he would like to join the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised that it would need full details of both residents, with one of them nominated to lead the complaint.
On 23 May 2022 the resident sent the landlord pictures of further items dumped in the bin store. The landlord responded on 24 May 2022 to advise that these were being collected later that day.
On 27 May 2022 the resident submitted a group complaint as the nominated lead on behalf of 7 other residents in the block. They expressed dissatisfaction that bulk items were still being dumped in the bin area, shopping trolleys left in the building and there was “continuous” ASB in the block including a gang of children running around and cannabis being smoked. The residents also said that cleaning had been missed, including multiple instances of the bin store not being tidied, and that this should be deducted from their service charges. They accused the landlord of failing to manage the building and provide solutions to issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2022 providing a picture of a mattress dumped in the bin store.
The landlord carried out an estate inspection at the block on 1 June 2022. As part of this it graded cleaning within the block on a scale from ‘A’ to ‘D’. It graded the overall cleaning as a B, with the bin store scoring an A – noting that there was some bulk waste needing to be cleared.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2022. It said that:
1. It had been using CCTV to attempt to identify those dumping items, but this was difficult due to the cameras not covering the corridors leading to flats.
2. It had sent many text messages and letters to residents to deter dumping items as well as installing posters in the bin store. It had also carried out a door knocking exercise on 1 June 2022 to “re-educate” residents on how to dispose of waste correctly.
3. Children who had caused recent nuisance issues within the block were not linked to any of the residents and so the landlord was limited in what action it could take.
4. It had delayed in sending a text message to residents about cannabis use, as agreed on 30 March 2022, and apologised for this. However, previous messages of this nature had been sent on 11 May 2021 and 27 August 2021.
5. Unless it received reports telling it who was smoking the cannabis it was unable to hold the perpetrator to account. However, it had also spoken to residents about this during the door knocking exercise of 1 June 2022.
6. It was aware of one missed clean, which its contractor had apologised for and agreed to carry out an extra day’s cleaning to make up for.
7. It had been able to identify the individual responsible for bringing shopping trolleys into the block and would be issuing them a written warning. It had also contacted the supermarket whose staff would be coming onto the estate from time to time to remove any trolleys found.
On 16 June 2022, the resident sent the landlord pictures of further items dumped in the bin store. He said the cleaners had not attended to the bin store again.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2022. It said that the cleaners had mopped the bin store floor the previous week, having previously not done this to avoid getting a mattress, which had been amongst the dumped items, wet. It said its contractor had arranged to remove the items and they should be gone by now, but it had asked the cleaners to notify it if they were not.
The residents wrote to the landlord requesting to escalate the group complaint to stage 2 of its process on 4 July 2022. They said that the landlord had not provided a solution to items being dumped in the bin store or cannabis being smoked in and around the block, which were still happening on a regular basis. They asked for a refund of service charge for the missed clean and the cleaners failing to attend to the bin store on several occasions.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2022. It said that:
1. It could only carry out action against people dumping items in the bin store if it knew who they were from CCTV or evidence, such as items with their address on.
2. It was open to suggestions as to what more it could do. One option was further CCTV, but this would come at a cost to residents.
3. Cannabis smoking was hard to manage as it had no way of knowing which property the smell was coming from or proving who was smoking it. As such, it relied heavily on residents’ evidence in order to take action.
4. Text messages and letters had been sent to residents about cannabis use and it would carry on issuing these to make it clear this was unacceptable.
5. Its stage 1 response had acknowledged that a clean was missed and an additional day of cleaning done to make up for this, therefore no service charge refund was due.
6. It was satisfied that the action it had taken was reasonable and within what powers it had. As it could not be at every estate all the time, it relied on residents to let it know when something has gone wrong as soon as possible.
7. It did not believe it would ever be able to fully stop such issues occurring or provide the resident with answers that would satisfy the residents but urged them to continue engaging with it to work on this.

Assessment and findings

ASB

Whilst the resident’s first report of cannabis use in the block considered by this investigation was made on 30 March 2022, it is evident that this had been an ongoing issue – with the landlord’s stage 1 response confirming that it had sent out previous communications to residents on the matter on 11 May 2021 and 28 August 2021.
When making his report the resident asked the landlord to send a further text message out to all residents. The landlord reasonably agreed to do this on 30 March 2022 saying it would be done that day. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it had been delayed in doing this. This delay appeared to last several weeks, with the resident stating in an email of 19 April 2022 that he had not received any text. The landlord offered an appropriate apology for this in the stage 1 response.
The landlord’s position that without any identified perpetrators and evidence it was limited it what further action it could take was reasonable. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses expressed a commitment to “take action as and when we can” including approaching perpetrators directly and escalating up to the point of obtaining injunctions. However, the landlord also made clear that it relied on reports from residents to be able to do this.
It is acknowledged that it may be difficult for residents to identify perpetrators in such a large block, where they may not be familiar with all other occupants and smells can travel significant distances – especially from balconies. However, these same issues would be faced by the landlord and, as its stage 2 response explained, it was present within the block far less than residents to be able to gather such evidence.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that it had carried out a door knocking exercise on 1 June 2022. It advised that this served a dual purpose in not only allowing it to speak with residents about ASB (including cannabis use) but also for its staff to become familiar with them and assist any future identification of perpetrators.
In their complaint of 27 May 2022, the residents raised concerns about ASB by children in the block. This Service has not seen any evidence of this being raised with the landlord prior to this point.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint evidenced that it had carried out reasonable enquiries in order to determine that these children were trespassers, and not associated with any of its residents. It reasonably advised that due to this it was limited as to what it could do and recommended that residents report any future instances to the police.
In summary, the landlord reasonably attempted to address cannabis use within the block using letters and texts to all residents. Due to the perpetrators being unidentified there were no reasonable lines of enquiry the landlord could follow to take further action at the time of complaint. The landlord established that children causing nuisance within the block were not linked to any of its residents and gave appropriate advice about reporting this to police. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Items in bin store

As with the cannabis use, it is evident that issues with misuse of the bin store at the block long predated the complaint. The landlord had previously taken steps to address this in the form of letters to residents, engagement with the council’s refuse collection contractor and placing posters in the bin store.
Despite this, it is apparent that the issue persisted, with the resident continuing to make regular reports of bulky items being dumped in the bin store in the lead up to the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response summarised the matter in that “it is impossible to control human behaviours especially the negative behaviours we are experiencing”. It is clear that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to make residents aware of the correct way to dispose of refuse – the posters it put up are visible directly beside dumped items in many of the photos taken by the resident, but that these were being wilfully ignored.
The landlord responded in a timely manner to reports of dumped items and arranged for their removal by its contractor. This showed appropriate consideration of the health and safety risks, as well as obstruction to both the landlord’s cleaners and the council’s refuse collectors, that these presented.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response reasonably explained that, whilst it investigated every report thoroughly, it could not always identify those responsible. Its stage 2 response reiterated this, stating that unless individuals could be identified by CCTV or evidence (such as their name and address being on an items) it was unable to take any action.
Within the information provided for this investigation, the landlord supplied a copy of a warning letter sent to a resident of the block who had been identified as having dumped items in the bin store in July 2021. The landlord also identified and sent a warning letter to the individual who had been leaving shopping trolleys within the block, as detailed in its stage 1 complaint response. This indicates that the landlord was carrying out reasonable investigations to attempt to identify those responsible for such behaviour, and deal with them directly, prior to and during the period of complaint.
As part of the door knocking exercise on 1 June 2022, the landlord also discussed properly disposing of waste with residents and, as mentioned previously, familiarised itself with them to aid future identification using CCTV.
The dissatisfaction of residents at being repeatedly recharged through their service charge for the removal of bulky items dumped by others is entirely understandable. However, this is a standard element of block and estate service charges which the landlord is entitled to collect. The landlord appropriately recognised this “frustration” in its stage 2 complaint response, noting that whilst expanding CCTV was one option to help tackle the issue this would incur costs of its own for residents.
A landlord can not reasonably be held responsible for the actions of its tenants, only for its reaction to them. In this case the landlord took reasonable steps to persuade, advise, warn and enforce against dumping of items in the bin store and removed items in reasonable time after they were dumped. The landlord showed consideration of how it could improve identification of perpetrators and invited residents to contribute to solutions to the issue. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Cleaning

In the lead up to the complaint being logged, the resident reported the bin store not being attended to by the cleaners on 9 March 2022 (stating this was the second week in a row) and 19 April 2022. The landlord’s response to the former email failed to address this matter, whilst it has not provided any evidence that it responded to the latter – which was a contributing factor to the complaint being made.
When the resident reported that the cleaners had not attended the block at all on 6 May 2022, the landlord similarly failed to respond on this matter despite replying to the email.
As communal cleaning is a service which residents pay for directly through their service charge, the landlord should take reasonable steps to ensure that it is being appropriately delivered to the contract specification. The landlord has the processes in place to do this, as seen in its estate inspection of 1 June 2020, yet failed to follow up on the resident’s concerns. Nor has the landlord evidenced that it provided any feedback to its cleaning contractor around this.
After the complaint had been logged, the landlord did carry out on estate inspection on 1 June 2022. It is unclear whether this was in response to the concerns raised within the complaint or was a scheduled inspection which happened to fall on this date. This inspection graded the overall cleaning as a B – constituting ‘satisfactory’ according to the landlord’s ‘Estate Inspection Procedure’. It was therefore reasonable for it not to take any further action based upon this.
The resident made a further report of the bin store not being cleaned on 16 June 2022. In this instance the landlord did investigate and provided a reasonable response as well as ensuring its contractor reattended to clean the bin store the following day.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that its contractor would be carrying out an additional day’s cleaning at the block to make up for the missed clean on 6 May 2022. This was a reasonable solution to the matter, as any adjustment to residents’ service charge for a single missed clean would likely be a very small amount.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided this information to all residents as soon as it became aware that a clean had been missed. It is apparent from its handling of ASB and bulk items in this complaint that the landlord has the means to easily send mass communication to all residents of a block and this could have been effectively utilised here. This may have helped residents to feel that the landlord was pro-actively managing the block – something the complainants repeatedly stated they felt not to be the case.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appeared to misunderstand the complaint about the bin store not being cleaned on multiple occasions and interpret this as the cleaners having not attended at all – which it asked for more information on. Regardless of this, it would not be proportionate for the landlord to offer a service charge ‘refund’ for cleaning (and by extension withhold monies from its contractor) based solely on the bin store being missed.
It is noted that the landlord has provided cleaning reports from its contractor which include photos taken on each attendance. The reports provided are dated from March 2023 onwards, so it is unclear whether this facility was available to the landlord at the time of complaint. However, this should improve the landlord’s ability to investigate reports of missed or unsatisfactory cleans going forwards.
In summary, the landlord has not provided evidence that it addressed the issue of the bin store being repeatedly missed, or the cleaning missed entirely on 6 May 2022, until a complaint was raised. Although the landlord’s position of accepting a ‘make up’ clean by its contractor was reasonable, it did not appropriately communicate this to affected residents. This represents service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB within the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to items being dumped in the bin store.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to concerns about communal cleaning not being completed.

Reasons

The landlord reasonably attempted to address cannabis use within the block using letters and texts to all residents. Due to the perpetrators being unidentified there were no reasonable lines of enquiry the landlord could follow to take further action at the time of complaint. The landlord established that children causing nuisance within the block were not linked to any of its residents and gave appropriate advice about reporting this to police.
The landlord took reasonable steps to persuade, advise, warn and enforce against dumping of items in the bin store and removed items in reasonable time after they were dumped. The landlord showed consideration of how it could improve identification of perpetrators and invited residents to contribute to solutions to the issue.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it addressed the issue of the bin store being repeatedly missed, or the cleaning missed entirely on 6 May 2022, until a complaint was raised. Although the landlord’s position of accepting a ‘make up’ clean by its contractor was reasonable, it did not appropriately communicate this to affected residents

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to review its processes around missed communal cleaning giving due consideration to:
1. Having a clear policy detailing criteria for when and how a ‘make up’ clean or service charge credit will be applied.
2. Information regarding this policy being accessible to residents (such as in tenancy/lease sign up packs, displayed in communal notice boards and on the landlord’s website).
3. How it acknowledges reports of a missed clean and communicates around this with affected residents.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.