Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202003737)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003737

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

26 February 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 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 concerning:
  1. The maintenance and cleaning of communal areas and associated costs.
  2. Anti-social behavior (ASB) at the property.
  3. Complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events 

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder at the property, a two-bedroom flat and is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The landlord is a Local Authority.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 15 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this should be acknowledged within three working days and a response provided within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s leasehold charter states that it ‘will keep the exterior and communal parts of the building in good repair to extend the life of the building’ and will provide the resident with ‘an itemised service charge bill and provide supporting information if requested’.
  4. The landlord’s leasehold charter states that it will ‘deal promptly with any nuisance (e.g noise, antisocial behaviour) caused by your neighbors and other visitors’.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy provides the priority and targeted completion times, emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 working days and routine within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord has confirmed that it does not have a specific compensation policy. Its complaints correspondence on this case has referred to Ombudsman guidance with respect to the setting of compensation awards.
  7. The residents at the property pay a service charge that is split equally amongst all residents which includes caretaking, estate security and support and the cleaning and maintenance of communal areas and gardens at the property.

Summary of events

  1. On 20 April 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding a number of issues at the property. He raised that the courtyard was in a ‘disgusting’ state and contained human and animal excrement. The resident asked that jet washing of the courtyard be added to the cleaning and maintenance timetable. He highlighted that individuals had been trespassing in the estate and acknowledged that the landlord had agreed to change the rear gate in order for it to lock and to signpost the area to help prevent future intruders. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of intruders defecating outside his apartment.
  2. The landlord had a contractor come and quote for a jet wash to the rear steps and courtyard at the property on 22 April 2020. It provided a copy of the quote to the resident.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 13 May 2020. It addressed the following issues that were raised by the resident:
    1. Estate services – it apologised for the excrement and stated that all human and animal faeces on communal hard surfaces are removed by caretakers as a matter of priority. It advised that the resident’s service charge accommodates for a once a year deep clean of the communal areas including the bin chute. It agreed to have the caretaker team jet wash the courtyard and grounds as a good will gesture, this would be completed as a priority when services returned to normal because of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. It highlighted that if the resident would like this service added to the regular cleaning schedule then it would have to be at an extra cost and residents would need to be formally consulted.
    2. Anti-social behavior – it apologised for any ASB cases that the resident had previously experienced, its neighbourhood wardens service had increased patrols in the area and it had advised the police of ASB issues. It had planned to improve the security of the gate and fencing leading to the rear of the block but due to COVID-19 the work had been delayed. It assured that it would continue to monitor ASB at the property and for the residents to report any incidents.
    3. Repairs team – it had responded to reports about the rear gate and it had installed a keypad lock and stated that it would be fitted with a push bar operated gate with appropriate deterrence signage described.
  4. On 14 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the matter to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident raised the following issues:
    1. He had been living at the property for three years and neither the bin room or chutes had ever been jet washed and therefore he did not wish to be charged for this service.
    2. He asked to be shown how to use the jet washer and he would do it himself, he also asked to be provided with a schedule for major cleanings to ensure they were performed. He highlighted that the cleaning schedule provided by the landlord was not possible as there is only one caretaker for several buildings and it would be impossible for him to complete all of the work described.
    3. He advised that there were daily incidents of intrusion from an individual who created mess by using the area as a toilet.
    4. He asked if the landlord could issue letters to residents reminding them of rules and regulations in the building and contact information of the landlord. He stated that the letters could include a plan showing fire exits, where to place larger items of rubbish and recycling and the rules on pets.
  5. On 12 June 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It addressed the following issues:
    1. Estate services – It highlighted that jet washing of the courtyard would be performed on 27 July 2020.  It stated that residents do not have permission to carry out jet washing as the area has electricals and can only be performed by licensed contractors. Cleaning of the bin and chutes was performed yearly at the property, it was carried out in August 2019 and would happen again on 27 July 2020.
    2. Repairs team – it acknowledged that there had been delays in the external overflow works, a surveyors report was carried out on 1 June 2020 and would be provided to the resident once complete. It stated that it would discuss ascertaining the building plans and how issues can be resolved.
    3. Anti-social behavior –It contacted the resident in relation to an antisocial behavior incident on 28 May 2020 and asked him to complete an incident form. It highlighted that the ASB perpetrators were not residents and it was therefore a matter for the police as it was an illegal act of trespassing. It had requested the neighbourhood wardens team to do more patrols of the block.
  6. On the 15 September 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and stated that his complaint was about reports of lack of cleaning in the rubbish stores which has led to rats, mice and bad odors. He stated that he had made a formal complaint which had reached stage two, the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
  7. The resident reported further incidences of individuals trespassing at the property on 19 October 2020. The resident also raised an issue with rodents at the property. The landlord responded and stated that it would escalate the rodent issue and inform the warden to patrol the block to provide a visual reassurance.
  8. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with the cleaning schedule and tasks for the block on 22 November 2020. It specified that it was responsible for weekly ‘washing of ledges and rails, sweep and washing of staircases, scrubbing the bin room floors and sweep communal hard surfaces’. It highlighted that every month it was responsible for the washing of the wall and ceilings in the chute and bin room. The landlord attached a quote from a jet washing company but no further documentation as to whether the work had been undertaken or completed. It stated that service charges at the building included cleaning of common areas and were apportioned equally between residents of the estate.
  9. On 22 November 2020, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with the KPI scores from each inspection from August 2019 to September 2020. In February 2020, it was stated that the inspection score fell below the acceptable standard and a contract cleaning service was contacted. It was unclear from the documentation provided if any work was performed.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports concerning the maintenance and cleaning of communal areas and associated costs.

  1. The resident stated that one of the main issues that needed to be addressed was the communal cleaning and jet washing of the courtyard and bin room at the property. It is accepted that the landlord was responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the area, the cost being included in the resident’s service charge and there is a caretaker responsible for the day to day maintenance and cleaning. The cleaning schedule provided by the landlord states that once a year it will ‘deep clean communal areas and to jet wash the bin room and chute’. The resident said that the landlord had failed to perform this task since he moved into the property over three years ago. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord became aware of the issue of human excrement on 20 April 2020. The landlord stated in its stage two response that jet washing would be performed at the property on 20 July 2020.
  2. It is unclear from the documentation provided if the cleaning was completed at the property, this service asked the landlord to provide documentation in relation to the jet wash cleaning of the courtyard and bin room on three different occasions between 11 and 29 October 2020. The landlord failed to provide the necessary documents to evidence that the jet wash cleaning had taken place at the estate. Accordingly, this gives rise to a failure as it has not been possible to establish that it complied with its cleaning obligation.
  3. The landlord also failed to provide any information to either the resident or this service when requested about the service charge breakdown and cleaning charges. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its leasehold charter that says that it must provide the resident with an itemised service charge bill and provide supporting information if it is requested by the resident. The landlord’s file and record keeping standards are concerning as it failed to comply with the requests from this service on three different occasions. The landlord also has an obligation under Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to provide this information to the resident.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behavior at the property.

  1. The resident made a number of reports of ASB at the property to the landlord. There was an issue with trespassers around the estate due to a broken rear gate and evidence of human excrement, it is acknowledged by both parties that the perpetrators are non-residents of the estate. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord had made several attempts to address the issue of trespassers including working with the neighbourhood wardens to increase patrols in the area and communicating with the police regarding any instances of ASB. The landlord also installed deterrence signage and a keypad lock to the entry gate at the property in order to discourage trespassers. The landlord had also informed all resident’s to report trespassers and any non-residents to the local police.
  2. The problem of trespassers in this situation is made more complex as the landlord’s anti-social behavior policies and procedures are not applicable to non-residents such as trespassers. This factor limits the enforcement action that the landlord can take. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps and engaged with the neighbourhood wardens and police in an attempt to stop trespassers at the property. The landlord had regularly communicated with residents using letters and signage about reporting instances of trespass. The landlord has also taken appropriate action in addressing the repair of the side security gate at the property which should significantly reduce incidences of ASB. Overall, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.   

The landlord’s complaints handling and record keeping

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 15 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 22 April 2020 and the landlord providing a stage one response on 13 May 2020 which equates to a two-day unexplained delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. However due to reduced services from the COVID pandemic this was a minor failure. The day after receiving the landlord’s response the resident asked for a review of the decision, the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final response on 12 June 2020 which was in compliance with its complaints policy targets.
  2. There has been several failures in the landlord’s response to requests for information and subsequent communication with the Ombudsman. The landlord in its correspondence failed to provide records requested by this service of any appointments made, works carried out and any feedback received from employees/contractors about the cleaning of the courtyard or bin chute. It also failed to provide any evidence or information provided to the resident in relation to the service charge. It is unclear if the records don’t exist or the landlord has just failed to provide them to this service. However, the landlord’s failure to provide the documentation is not in accordance with its member obligations as set out in paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and further delayed to the determination of the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning the maintenance and cleaning of communal areas and associated costs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behavior at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Reasons

  1. When the landlord first became aware of the reports concerning the maintenance and cleaning of the courtyard and bin chute it took over two months to organise a quote from the jet washers to fix the issue. The landlord failed to evidence that it had completed works within its prescribed timelines. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with requested service charge documents is also a breach of its statutory obligations and its leaseholder charter.
  2. In response to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord has taken reasonable steps and engaged with the neighbourhood wardens service and local police in an attempt stop trespassers at the estate. The landlord took appropriate action by installing deterrence signage and a keypad lock to the entry gate at the property.
  3. The complaint handling by the landlord was in line with its internal policies at stage one and two of the complaints process. There were however failures to provide evidence requested by this Service on multiple occasions as it is required to do in line with paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the complaint about maintenance and cleaning of communal areas and associated costs. 
  2. If the maintenance and cleaning of communal areas has not been complete, the landlord should seek to engage a contractor to perform the required works within 4 weeks.
  3. The landlord is to provide the resident with copies of the service charge breakdown for the period requested.
  4. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made and any repairs completed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that staff and contractors are maintaining detailed records of the results of its appointments.
  2. The landlord to signpost the rules and regulations in the building and provide relevant contact information for the landlord.
  3. The landlord provide the resident with the survey report and building plans outlined in its stage two complaint response.