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

Newcastle City Council (202213013)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213013

Newcastle City Council

27 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. cleaning of communal areas at the resident’s property.
    2. access to an electrical cupboard.
    3. an intercom system.

Background

  1. The complaint was raised by a family member acting on behalf of the resident. For the purposes of this report the resident and representative will both be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident’s property is a flat within a block of flats.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord via telephone on 5 August 2022, adding further complaint points during another telephone call on 8 August 2022. The complaint outlined the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling issues relating to the communal areas. In particular:
    1. Not having access to the electrical cupboard, which requires a key. The resident referred to an incident involving an engineer who had visited and left after 20 minutes due to being able to gain access.
    2. The cleanliness of the communal areas, including the stairs, lift and landings. The resident mentioned the smell and “stains”.
    3. The call times when using the intercom system to call the contact centre were too long and after around 20 minutes the call terminates.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage one response on 11 August 2022. The landlord said that it regularly cleaned the communal areas of the resident’s block. It also confirmed it had conducted an inspection of the block and found it to be in “good condition”. The landlord said access to the electrical cupboard was a matter of health and safety and access would not be granted to residents due to the potential risks. The landlord also confirmed that it had deployed additional staff to its contact centre to handle the increased call volumes.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaint process. This was acknowledged and confirmed by the landlord in a letter to the resident on 22 August 2022.
  6. The landlord conducted another inspection of the block in September 2022. This allowed it to identify any required repairs and/or adjustments to the communal areas. The inspection recognised the following items related to the resident’s complaint points:
    1. The main entrance required repainting in some areas.
    2. Some floor tiles were “discoloured” but were clean and replacing them would not be considered.
    3. The stairs were “stained” in some places but were cleaned daily and would not be painted.
    4. The issue with the intercom cutting off after 20 minutes was to be investigated.
    5. The painting work would be raised with the appropriate contractor.
  7. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 12 September 2022, addressing the resident’s concerns about the communal areas and delays with response times. The landlord explained the delay in responding was due to staff absence, but it should have responded sooner. It also said the issue with intercom system were being investigated. The response reaffirmed the points made in the stage one complaint response about access to the electrical cupboard and the cleanliness of communal areas.
  8. The resident contacted this Service in September 2022 as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. They questioned why they were paying a service charge and requested a refund of payments or for the communal areas to be appropriately cleaned.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of variable service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication about service charges and how it responded to the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident pays a service charge for services such as communal services which, under legislation such as The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, must be reasonably incurred and to be of a reasonable standard. The landlord should therefore review any concerns about the delivery and quality of these services, and to take appropriate action to address any identified issues. The landlord is expected to take steps to address issues with services. The landlord is also expected to reduce service charges in circumstances such as where it agrees this is applicable; where recharges have been applied which are out of line with the lease; where a service has been charged for which is not received (e.g. lifts on an estate without lifts); or where a landlord has been ordered to after a dispute has been raised to the First-Tier Tribunal.
  3. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy confirms that “…a regular programme of cleaning…” which is “…paid for by tenants through a service charge” was in place at the resident’s property. The policy also outlines the landlord’s commitment “to take reasonable care to maintain and ensure cleanliness” in communal areas.
  4. The landlord has made it clear it had responsibility of the areas complained about by the resident throughout the complaint process. In doing so, it had to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns and, where applicable, put things right.
  5. The resident’s concerns can be summarised as cleanliness of the communal areas, access to an electric cupboard and issues with the intercom system.
  6. Following the resident’s reported issues and complaint, the landlord explained that the resident’s block was cleaned “daily” and that any urgent requests (e.g., spillages) could be made directly to the landlord. The landlord has also confirmed that it carried out two separate site inspections to investigate the resident’s concerns. The first of which, in August 2022, identified the block as being in “good condition”. The second inspection recognised that some repairs were required, but the areas mentioned by the resident in their complaint – stairwells and communal landings/hallways – were “clean”. The landlord accepted that some of the flooring was showing signs of discolouration, but despite this it was clean. It also explained that the “stains” on the stairs were difficult to remove due to them being made of concrete, which it said can absorb spilled liquids. The landlord explained that although these “stains” were visible, the stairwells were kept clean.
  7. This Service has found the action taken by the landlord, following the resident’s reported issues of cleanliness in the block, to have been fair and reasonable. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show daily cleaning of the block took place, the landlord demonstrated a willingness to investigate and act where applicable. It conducted inspections of the communal areas and provided clear and detailed information about the cleaning schedule. The landlord also provided the resident with instructions should they need to report spillages in the block, which would be cleaned as a priority, and details about out-of-hours requests. Going forward, the landlord is recommended to keep records of attendance for cleaning to give assurance to residents that cleaning is being carried out as scheduled.
  8. The resident’s request to have access to the electrical cupboard was rejected by the landlord. It appropriately explained that this was due to health and safety concerns and was applicable to all residents. While this Service understands it can be frustrating having to request access via the landlord for utilities engineers, it also understands that the landlord has a duty of care to its residents. To mitigate the potential associated risks, it was a reasonable decision for the landlord to not allow free access to areas which have a ‘live’ electrical feed.
  9. The resident also raised an issue with the intercom system. They said that waiting times were unacceptable and calls would cut off after 20 minutes. It is understood that the intercom system is used to contact the landlord directly, to report issues with a property/block. The landlord explained during the complaint process that it had reallocated staff to remedy the extended waiting times. This Service has found the landlord acknowledged the issue was undesirable and took appropriate action to resolve it. The landlord has also provided this Service with clarity around intercom calls cutting off after 20 minutes. It stated that this was a safety feature implemented to avoid line congestion and allow emergency calls to come through. It is not clear whether this information has been provided to the resident, therefore the landlord should make sure they are aware of this.  Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the intercom was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its cleaning of communal areas or handling of the resident’s request to access an electric cupboard and reported issues with an intercom system.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord did not provide this Service with evidence to show if and when cleaning had been carried out. It should consider implementing recordkeeping for cleaning schedules, to evidence when cleaning has been done and to record any identified issues.
  2. The landlord provided this Service with an explaining of why the intercom would cut out after 20 minutes. As this relates to one of the resident’s complaint points, the landlord should provide them with this information to better explain its position.