Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the quality of the deep cleaning completed by a cleaning company. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the quality of the deep cleaning that was completed by a cleaning company. He says the cleaning provider lost his clothes and other precious items had gone missing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was in hospital in October 2023. Mr X was informed by hospital staff that he could not be discharged to his house as it was unsafe and cluttered. Mr X agreed to pay for a cleaning company to complete a deep clean and tidy of his house. Mr X is unhappy with the work completed and says items have gone missing.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council confirmed that it supported him with liaising with the cleaning company to ensure they could access his property to complete the clean. The Council also said Mr X was provided with a contract for the clean and that Mr X signed the contract. The Council said if Mr X was unhappy with the cost or terms of the service, he should have let its officer aware he was unhappy and that he wished for alternatives to be considered.
7. Any complaint about the quality of the work completed is for the cleaning company to address. This is because the Council did not commission the cleaning company and the contract for services was between Mr X and the cleaning provider. Mr X confirmed he intended to raise a complaint with the cleaning company.
8. We can therefore only consider the Council’s actions in supporting Mr X to get the cleaning arranged and liaising with the cleaning company to ensure they had access.
9. I have reviewed the records and cannot see any evidence of fault with how the Council supported Mr X. The Council was involved in sourcing the quote and providing Mr X with the relevant documents to consider the quote. The Council also supported by collecting the keys from Mr X and providing the deep cleaning company entry into the property. The Council also passed the cleaning company a list of items Mr X wished to keep. Records showed the cleaning company was aware of the list.
10. The Council accepted its officer failed to keep in regular contact with Mr X whilst the deep clean was being completed. The Council said the officer relied on hospital staff to update Mr X instead. I am satisfied this fault will have caused Mr X some frustration. However, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied this by apologising to Mr X.
11. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council as it is not responsible for the deep cleaning that was completed. It is open to Mr X to complain to the cleaning company. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman