Your Housing Limited (202113237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113237

Your Housing Limited

16 August 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s decision to increase the service charges.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of its communal service provision. 

Background

2. The resident lives in a first floor one bed flat in a low-rise purpose build block under an assured tenancy. He has no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
3. The resident complained on 29 July 2021 that cleaners had not attended the communal hallway regularly and did not clean properly. He said the front door was mouldy, there was a missing window and dog mess in the communal garden. He was unhappy about the increase in the service charge and wanted the previous year’s charge refunded before he would pay the current year.
4. The landlord said it would write to all tenants concerning the dog fouling and sent a surveyor to inspect the door and window. An inspection of the hallway found it ‘spotless’ and the landlord asked the contractors for any missing dates for cleaning and gardening.
5. The complaint response on 13 August 2021 said there were no issues with cleaning, a surveyor would inspect the window and door and neighbours written to concerning the dog fouling, after which the lawn would be mown. No refund would be given but the service charge team were asked to contact the resident regarding the increase in the charge. 
6. Following further dissatisfaction from the resident on 18 August 2021, further inspections were undertaken. Some issues with gardening were highlighted and jobs raised to overhaul the door and windowpane, which were later replaced.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 9 September 2021, explaining that there was no evidence to support the resident’s assertion, and that the communal and window cleaning frequency was in line with its agreement. It added, in respect of the garden, that the dog fouling issue would continue to be monitored.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and seeks a refund of the service charge for 2020/1. He asserts that while the cleaners had filled in attendance sheets, they had not cleaned and the gardening had not been done for some time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to increase the service charges

Jurisdiction

9. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
10. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, this Service has determined that complaint point (a) falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
11. Paragraph 39(g) explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This is as it would be more reasonable, appropriate, and effective for such matters to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal.
12. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he will need to make an application to the tribunal. This investigation will not comment on this matter but instead, will only focus on the landlord’s response to the complaints about the service provision.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of its communal service provision

13. The assured shorthold tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord dated 2019 includes a schedule including the charge for grounds maintenance and communal cleaning. The window and communal cleaning specification provided by the landlord list the tasks included in the contract and the grounds maintenance program includes jobs which will be undertaken throughout the year, at various frequencies.
14. There is no evidence that the resident raised the issues of the cleanliness of the communal areas and windows prior to the complaint being raised in July 2021, although he has stated that the problem occurred throughout the national lockdown. A landlord inspection was made prior to the complaint response and the area found to be spotless.
15. The evidence supports that once the issue was raised, the landlord responded promptly and was able to show that regular cleaning and gardening had taken place from before the complaint was made. In addition, regular inspections by the landlord found that the standard of work by contractors was appropriate. There was an issue with dog fouling in the communal garden, which was acknowledged, and action taken to resolve this. The landlord has said this is ongoing which is reasonable in the circumstances.
16. Inevitably, there will be times when communal areas suffer with items left by tenants, and when mess or a problem occurs between cleaning visits. This does not mean that the landlord is not cleaning regularly or adequately. In addition, facilities will require attention as areas become worn and damaged. It is not reasonable to expect any landlord to guarantee that communal areas are in ideal conditions at all times when they are shared between multiple households. The Ombudsman looks to see that once alerted to an issue, the landlord responds promptly and appropriately, and that it is able to show that the service residents pay for is provided.
17. In this case, the landlord has conducted a reasonable investigation at each stage of the internal complaint’s procedure and promptly wrote to all residents concerning the dog fouling. The communal door was renewed once inspected and the landlord has been vigilant in its record keeping.  
18. Inspection reports dated November 2020, August 2021, September 2021, October 2021 and December 2021 confirm that the communal areas were clean and in a good state of repair overall. Cleaners’ attendance sheets were completed weekly throughout the period from March 2021 to April 2022, save one week in August 2021 when the cleaners could not gain access. Monthly window cleaning was recorded from April 2020 to April 2022 and invoices signed by the landlord as satisfactory from May 2021.
19. What’s more, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised any issue with the standard of cleaning at the time of the issue. The resident has suggested that while the cleaners had completed the attendance sheets, they had not undertaken any actual cleaning. If this was the case, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have brought this to the landlord’s attention so that it could address this issue and / or inspect the space to verify the resident’s claims. This Service cannot see that the resident did this, but rather, referred to the standard of all historic cleaning which the landlord could not subsequently act on or inspect. The landlord could only refer to its records in this instance and this Service can see that this demonstrated that an adequate service was provided, in line with the agreed frequency.
20. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in response to the resident’s concerns. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine that there was any maladministration in the service provided or in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, it has been determined that the complaint about the landlord’s decision to increase the service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 
22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of its communal service provision.