From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202216566)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216566

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for details of her service charge costs.
    2. Concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The service charges for the building are managed by a managing agent which was hired by the developer of the estate.
  2. The resident has moved to a different property since bringing her complaint to us.
  3. On 28 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to confirm how the fly-tipping clearance charge for the estate was calculated.
  4. In June 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s email and explained it did not hold information regarding the fly-tipping charge, as the managing agent managed the service charges.
  5. On 13 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and submitted a complaint about her service charges. As part of her complaint, she requested a breakdown of her service charge costs specifically details on the fly-tipping clearance cost. The resident also asked for a copy of her service charge terms and conditions. She also explained she was waiting for the communal carpet to be cleaned.
  6. On 25 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident a letter with a breakdown of her service charges. The breakdown included information of the services provided such as ground maintenance and general repairs and the associated charge.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 September 2023. It explained it had attached a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement and rent and service charges. The landlord stated the invoices provided by its managing agent did not include a detailed breakdown of the charges. Therefore, it stated it could not provide the information about the fly-tipping charge and apologised for this. The landlord also stated it could not directly arrange services provided by the managing agent such as carpet cleaning, as this was required to be completed by the managing agent as part of the contract. It confirmed it had recommended its housing officer complete a visit of the block with the managing agent to assess the reported issues.
  8. On 3 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated the issues she raised were still unresolved.
  9. On 10 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord with further details to add to her escalation request. She explained there were outstanding issues regarding her service charges, clearance of furniture, poor cleaning, and the landlord’s failure to wash the reported blood stain out of the communal carpet.
  10. On 2 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out a clean of the communal areas including the stained carpet.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 November 2023. It explained it had contacted the managing agent, and it stated it regularly removed fly tipped items and confirmed if the resident reported a specific incident, it would investigate this. In addition, the landlord acknowledged it had made an error in its stage 1 complaint response by stating the managing agent was responsible for cleaning the communal carpet. The landlord confirmed communal carpet cleaning was the responsibility of its cleaning contractor. It apologised for this error and offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord also confirmed that an urgent clean of the communal areas including the carpet had been completed. It also confirmed it would carry out a full review of its relationship with managing agents and consider the resident’s feedback. In addition, the landlord explained its neighbourhood officer would continue to monitor the cleanliness of the communal areas.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to provide her with details on how the fly-tipping charge was calculated. She also stated she wanted to receive a refund of the service charges for the fly-tipping clearance and for the communal cleaning due to the poor standard.

Assessment and findings.

Scope of investigation

  1. This report will consider whether the landlord sufficiently responded to the resident’s service charge queries. Disputes about the level of rent or service charge or whether a service charge is payable are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are better suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is in line with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website). Therefore, the Ombudsman will not respond to the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge and whether the service charges are payable. The resident can contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), and it may be able to consider a claim.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s rent and charge setting policy explains it will be transparent with service charges and make sure a resident is aware of all associated costs before they start their tenancy. In addition, the policy states if an external management company provides services, it will recharge these to the resident as set out in a resident’s lease or tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord’s contract with its communal cleaning contractor states deep cleaning of all carpeted blocks should take place annually. In addition, it states emergency cleans should be completed when required. It explains an emergency clean would be required if there are biohazards or bodily fluids located in the communal areas.
  3. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also sets out the statutory timescales when landlords are expected to respond to service charge enquiries. A landlord is expected to respond within one month of the request or 6 months of the end of the period to which the query relates, whichever is later.

The resident’s request for details of her service charges.

  1. In May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to provide details on how the fly-tipping clearance charge included as part of her service charges was charged. The landlord responded to the resident’s query in June 2023, and it explained it did not hold this information as the managing agent managed the service charges. Therefore, it suggested for the resident to contact the managing agent directly regarding her query. However, the landlord explained if the resident experienced difficulties obtaining the information, she should let it know. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial query was reasonable.
  2. In September 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord requesting a breakdown of her service charge costs specifically details on the fly-tipping clearance cost. She also asked for a copy of her service charge terms and conditions. The landlord responded quickly to the resident’s request for service charge information and sent the resident a breakdown of her service charges on 25 September 2023. The service charge breakdown included information of the services provided such as ground maintenance and general repairs and the associated charge. However, the breakdown did not include any information about the fly-tipping clearance costs, which was unreasonable.
  3. In addition, on 26 September 2023, when the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, it also provided the resident with a copy of her tenancy agreement and rent and service charges. However, the landlord stated the invoices provided by the managing agent did not include a detailed breakdown of the charges, so it could not provide specific information about the fly-tipping charge. We would have expected the landlord to contact the managing agent to request further information in relation to the fly-tipping charge.
  4. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that the managing agent explained it regularly removed fly tipped items, and it stated if the resident had a specific report incident it would investigate this. However, the landlord acknowledged the managing agent had not provided it with a detailed breakdown of service charges. Therefore, it stated it was unable to confirm how much was paid towards the fly-tipping charge.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises the resident was obliged to pay her rent and service charges in line with the terms set out in her tenancy agreement. However, the landlord was also required to provide a reasonable response to the resident’s service charge queries. The landlord failed to provide the resident with any information related to the fly-tipping clearance charge as requested. We recognise it may have been difficult obtaining this information, as it had to be obtained by the managing agent, as it managed the service charges. However, we would have expected the landlord to continue to chase the requested information about the fly-tipping clearance charge. The landlord should have oversight of the managing agent, on behalf of its tenants to ensure that it is fulfilling its duties correctly and that any service charges it applies are accurate.
  6. We recognise the landlord has taken steps to improve its process and relationship with its managing agent. The landlord provided us with a copy of its improvement project document, which includes steps to improve its relationship with its managing agent. This was a positive step by the landlord.
  7. As the landlord did not sufficiently respond to the resident’s query about how the fly-tipping charge was calculated, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for details of her service charges. We order the landlord to respond to the resident’s query about how the fly-tipping charge is calculated. For example, if a contractor is hired to clear the fly-tipped items, then there should be supporting invoices for this. However, if a caretaker clears the fly-tipped items as part of other duties, the landlord should explain this to the resident with an estimated cost. The landlord should contact the managing agent for this information and then provide a response to the resident.
  8. In addition, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the inconvenience she experienced, due to her query remaining unanswered. The amount of compensation awarded, is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

Concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.

  1. The resident raised concerns with the standard of the communal cleaning as part of her initial complaint. She was also unhappy that the cleaning of the stained communal carpet was outstanding, as she stated the managing agent said this would be cleaned.
  2. The resident initially contacted the managing agent directly about the stained carpet and standard of communal cleaning in June 2023. From the information provided, it appears the landlord was not aware of the reported cleaning issue in June 2023. Therefore, we acknowledge that the landlord could not take any action in regard to the cleaning at this point. The resident raised her concerns to the landlord about the standard of communal cleaning and the stained carpet in September 2023.
  3. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord incorrectly explained in its stage 1 complaint response the managing agent was responsible for cleaning of the communal areas including the communal carpet. However, it was a separate cleaning contractor which the landlord had hired who was responsible for the cleaning of the communal areas. The landlord took appropriate steps by acknowledging the error in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the error which was positive and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the error. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord for the error, is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above.
  4. The landlord also arranged for its cleaning contractor to carry out an urgent clean of the communal areas and the stained carpet. The clean was completed on 2 November 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the communal areas to be cleaned as a priority once it identified who was responsible for the cleaning.
  5. The landlord also confirmed its neighbourhood officer would continue to monitor the cleanliness of the communal areas. The landlord has provided evidence of estate inspections by its neighbourhood officer completed in November 2023, May 2024, and June 2024. Also, the landlord has provided a copy of its cleaning completion schedule from its cleaning contractor, which shows the cleaners attended the estate regularly between November 2023 and August 2024. This demonstrates the landlord took reasonable steps to address the concerns with the standard of the cleaning.
  6. It is evident the landlord has taken appropriate steps to resolve the reported concerns with the standard of the communal cleaning. The landlord also apologised for the incorrect information it provided about the communal cleaning and offered sufficient compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the error. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the error on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for details of her service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her request for details of her service charges.
    2. Write to the resident with an answer in response to her service charge query about how the fly-tipping clearance charge was calculated. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the response.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £50 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
  2. We recommend that the landlord continues to take steps to strengthen its working relationship with the managing agent, including seeking a formal agreement or process for sharing service charge costs. This will help ensure that residents receive timely and transparent information, even where the landlord does not directly control the service provision.