Clarion Housing Association Limited (202415814)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415814

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 August 2025

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 the resident’s concerns about the standard and frequency of cleaning in communal areas.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in June 2022. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The resident says she began raising issues about the standard of cleaning in communal areas in July 2023. The landlord says it only became aware of the issue in August 2023.
On 23 November 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said nothing had changed over the last few months. She felt that herself and other residents should get a refund of their service charge payments as they are not getting a service they are paying for.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 December 2023. It said:
1. Sorry that there had been a delay in responding to the complaint, it said this was due to high customer contact.
2. It had found it had failed to investigate the standard of communal cleaning promptly.
3. There were no concerns about the standard of cleaning in inspections in early August 2023 and end of September 2023.
4. It has increased inspections from every 8 weeks to every 2 weeks for 2 months.
5. It had found a service failure in not arranging more frequent inspections when it first became aware of the issue in August 2023.
6. It had arranged for a deep clean to be carried out in November 2023 which will not be charged back to the residents of the block.
7. It will not refund any service charges as the cleaning contractor did attend and the landlord has paid for a deep clean.
8. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by the poor quality of the cleaning contractor’s workmanship.
9. It offered compensation of £100 for not arranging more regular inspections and the delay in responding to the complaint.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said a deep clean did not happen in November and she was still unhappy with the cleaning. She also said that some weeks the cleaners did not come at all.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 February 2024. It said:
1. Sorry that there had been a delay in responding to the complaint, it said this was due to high customer contact.
2. No deep clean took place in November 2023 as the stage 1 response had said. This is because the landlord had since found that would not resolve the issue. It said flooring work was needed.
3. Cleaning should be completed weekly.
4. The resident has variable service charges. This means if the resident has paid too much service charge, due to missed cleaners, it would be carried onto next year’s account as a credit.
5. It carried out inspections of the communal areas in August 2023, September 2023 and January 2024. Cleaning in August and September was poor all round but in January it was acceptable but with issues with the condition of the floors.
6. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by these issues.
7. It would offer an additional £275 compensation. This included £50 for the delay in responding, £125 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and £100 for the inconvenience caused by the failings.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said she wanted:
1. A refund of service charge for missed and poor-quality cleaning.
2. Compensation for the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue, meaning she has had to chase them repeatedly.
3. The landlord to find a new cleaning contractor.
4. The landlord to provide evidence that cleaning was completed.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, we apply our dispute resolution principles. These are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We look at if the landlord has failed in its responsibilities and if that failure had any adverse impact on the resident. If we identify a failure, we will then examine if the landlord took enough steps to put things right and learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it will inspect blocks of flats regularly. It will ensure they are clean and well maintained. The landlord uses a contractor to provide its cleaning services. When the resident raised concerns about the quality of the cleaning to the landlord, it had a responsibility to determine if the cleaning was being carried out to an acceptable standard. It should do this by carrying out regular inspections and addressing any issues to ensure standards are made satisfactory within a reasonable time frame.
On 14 September 2023 the landlord said it would monitor cleaning and follow up on concerns raised. It inspected the block on 26 September 2023 and found the cleaning to be poor. The landlord should have taken reasonable action following the inspection to improve the standard of cleaning. There is no evidence that it did. This lack of action is likely to have frustrated the resident.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said inspections in August and September 2023 found no concerns with cleaning. At stage 2 it said those same inspections found cleaning to be poor. This shows the landlord did not properly check its records when investigating the complaint at stage 1 which it reasonably should have. This is likely to have added to the resident’s frustrations and concerns.
In the stage 1 response the landlord also said it had increased the frequency of its inspections from every eight weeks to every two weeks for two months. In the stage 2 response, seven weeks later, it had only carried out one inspection on 15 January 2024. The inspection log on that date says that inspection frequency is every eight weeks. It found cleaning to be acceptable but the floors were in a poor condition.
This shows that the landlord had improved the overall cleaning standard from poor to acceptable after the stage 1 response. However, it did not explain in its stage 2 response why it had not carried out inspections every two weeks, or if there had been any issues outside of its control that prevented more frequent inspections. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not do what it said it would.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had carried out a deep clean of the communal areas. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord said that a deep clean did not take place. This shows that the landlord did not complete a thorough investigation at stage 1. It also did not provide the resident with an accurate response which it reasonably should have. Clear and accurate responses are key to fair complaint handling and demonstrate the landlord is taking the matter seriously.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not do the deep clean as it had found that flooring works were needed. It said it was meeting a contractor that day and it would keep the resident updated. It is appropriate that the landlord explained why it had failed to do the deep clean and reasonable that it agreed to keep the resident updated.
The landlord ended its contract with the cleaning company responsible for its communal cleaning in October 2024. It ended the contract as the company did not provide a satisfactory service. This shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. It took reasonable steps to improve the standard of cleaning by finding a new contractor for the work.
The resident said she paid for a service she did not receive. She asked for a refund due to the poor cleaning and missed visits. In its stage 1 response the landlord refused a refund as it said cleaners had attended and that it had funded a deep clean. In the stage 2 response it refused a refund as it said that the resident was on a variable service charge.
The landlord has since confirmed that the resident does not pay a separate service charge. It has told us that it was an error in the stage 2 response to say the resident was on a variable service charge. As the resident does not pay a separate service charge, there was no obligation on the landlord to offer a refund which it should have made clear to the resident. This error shows that the landlord did not carry out robust checks when investigating the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2. It missed an opportunity to manage her expectations and be clear on realistic outcomes. This caused inconvenience to the resident as she has continued to chase a refund.
The landlord has apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the issues and for being late with its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. To try to put things right it offered a total of £375 in compensation.
The landlord said in its complaint responses that it failed to arrange more frequent inspections when it first became aware of the issue. It also said it failed to investigate the standard of cleaning in a timely manner. While reviewing the case, we also found the following failures by the landlord:
1. The landlord supplied no evidence to show it took action to improve cleaning following the inspection on 26 September 2023.
2. Conflicting information from the landlord in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses showing a failure to complete a thorough investigation.
3. The landlord failed to carry out inspections every 2 weeks as it said it would in its stage 1 response. It also failed to explain why it had not done this in its stage 2 response.
4. The landlord failed to confirm to the resident at stage 1 and 2 that she was not paying a service charge.
Overall, the landlord has identified some service failures and took steps to put those failings right. However, the steps it has taken are not quite proportionate for the additional failings this Service has identified. For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and have made an order for further compensation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns about the standard and frequency of communal cleaning.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Communicate in writing to the resident to explain what her rent payment each month covers.
3. Apologise in writing for its error in the stage 2 response, incorrectly informing the resident she paid a variable service charge, and the confusion this would have caused. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling, to ensure it meets the commitments it makes, and to ensure its investigations are thorough and its responses are accurate.