Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Your Housing Group Limited (202419939)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419939

Your Housing Group Limited

5 September 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 response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and associated window damage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in March 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat above ground floor, located in a block with several other flats. The rent includes a payment towards a service charge for the cleaning of communal areas.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 8 April 2024. He said that he was unhappy with the “substandard” cleaning in the communal areas. He also said that the reach and wash window cleaning system was scratching the glass. A reach and wash system is a cleaning method used to access high windows typically using a long pole with a brush at the end.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 August 2024 and visited the property on 18 April 2024. During the visit it determined that the cleaning was in accordance with the agreed programme of works. On the same day, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, saying that there was no evidence of damage to the window glass and the reach system was the most effective method for safely cleaning at height.
  4. The resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 May 2024. He said that the cleaners were “in and out” within 5 minutes and the reach and wash system did not clean the windows adequately. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange a “walk around” and visited on 10 June 2024.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 June 2024. It reiterated that the reach and wash system was the safest method to use and that it would be continuing to work with the cleaning contractor. While it said that no scratches were found on the window glass, it acknowledged the resident’s observations that the internal window frames had some dust and marks that would be addressed at the next monthly clean.
  6. Regarding the resident’s comments that the cleaners “only brush the mats and floors in the communal hallway”, the landlord’s contractor disagreed, explaining that brushing would be more time consuming than hoovering. Furthermore, the contractor disputed the amount of time they spent on site, saying that they worked as a team of 2 and were typically on site for approximately 30 minutes.
  7. The landlord provided cleaning reports between 17 June and 27 July 2024, which noted that the cleaning was completed. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 August 2024 expressing his concerns that the cleaning had not been completed since May 2024 and it was a service for which he was paying.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and associated window damage

  1. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require employers and those in control of any work at height activity to ensure that the work is properly planned, supervised, and carried out by competent people. This includes using the right type of equipment for working at height. It goes on to say that when planning and organising window cleaning, employers must avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so, for example by using telescopic water-fed poles or cleaning windows from the inside.
  2. The landlord’s cleaning and window cleaning specifications 2021 says that the cleaning contractor will provide cleaning services for communal areas (for example, communal doors and windows, door mats and woodwork). Additionally, the contractor will shake out, sweep or vacuum any door mats at communal entrances and exits and vacuum floor areas, and sweep and mop any hard floors with an appropriate cleaner.
  3. On 8 April 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas. He said the mopping was ineffective at removing stains and marks, and that the cleaning staff only spent 5 minutes in the property. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 April 2024 acknowledging the complaint and proposing a joint visit to the property. This was a positive step by the landlord as it showed commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns. Additionally, it provided an opportunity for the resident to visually demonstrate the issues with which he was dissatisfied.
  4. The case notes indicate that the landlord visited the property on 18 April 2024, during which it conducted a site audit and concluded that the cleaning activities were in accordance with its specifications outlined above. On the same day, it issued its stage 1 response saying that the cleaning was consistent with the programme of works displayed on the communal notice board. The response also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the reach and wash system had caused any damage to the glass. Conducting a site visit to assess the potential damage was appropriate, as it allowed the landlord to observe first-hand the resident’s concerns and provided an opportunity to review the contractor’s work directly. The landlord also explained that the use of the reach and wash system was justified because it provided an effective and safe method for cleaning windows at height. This explanation was appropriate and aligned with the Work Height Regulations 2005, which recommends using equipment such as telescopic water feed poles to ensure safety during such works.
  5. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 23 May 2024. He reiterated his concerns that the cleaning standards were not adequate or acceptable. He stated that the mop used for cleaning the floors was only slightly damp and failed to remove ingrained stains or dirt. Also, he said the door frames, sills and carpets were not properly cleaned or vacuumed, and cleaning staff were only present on site for approximately 5 to 10 minutes. The cleaning reports supplied to us by the landlord confirmed the dates of cleaning activities but lacked detailed information to clearly demonstrate the specific tasks that had been carried out. Where cleaning staff had attended, they answered “yes” to the question “has all work been completed today” and included a single photograph in most instances.
  6. This level of detail was not sufficient to provide evidence of service delivery. This Service’s insight report on service charges encourages landlords to make notes and take photographs as evidence, demonstrating the service and standards they have provided. Doing so would have helped the landlord verify that the cleaning had been completed to the expected standards, ensuring accountability and providing transparency for the resident.
  7. On 10 June 2024, the landlord and cleaning contractor attended site to carry out an inspection alongside the resident. The case notes show that the resident highlighted “some minor cleaning issues” that the landlord said would be addressed during the next cleaning visit. The notes further said that the site was generally in good condition, with only a few minor issues observed, which was reasonable given the cleaning was scheduled on a monthly basis. The landlord’s actions demonstrated a proactive response to resolving the issue and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns, assuring him action would be taken during the next cleaning visit.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 June 2024, reiterating the stance in its stage 1 response. It said that it had discussed with the resident his reports of marks on the inside of the window frames, which would be addressed at the next cleaning visit. It also confirmed that it would continue to work with the cleaning contractor and use the reach and wash system, which was due to health and safety reasons. This was an appropriate approach by the landlord, offering a clear resolution to the resident’s concerns about the interior marks and managing his expectations going forward regarding the continued use of the reach and wash system.
  9. The response went on to address the resident’s concerns regarding the cleaning of the floors and mats. It said that it had discussed the matter with the cleaning contractor, who disagreed with the resident’s report that only brushing the floors and mats was being done. They confirmed that they actually used hoovers as this was a more time efficient method. The response also said that its contractors typically worked in pairs and spent approximately 30 minutes on site depending on the condition of the property. We have seen evidence of a cleaning log on the communal notice board and examples of cleaning reports. Both of these were dated but not time stamped for entry or exit. Recording precise entry and exit times would have provided the landlord with a clear indication of the duration of each cleaning session and could help establish a correlation between the time spent and the quality of the cleaning performed.
  10. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the cleaning contractor to obtain their version of events. This approach ensured that the landlord had a comprehensive understanding of the situation and demonstrated it was thoroughly investigating the resident’s concerns.
  11. The stage 2 response addressed the resident’s reports of dust build-up on the inside of the window frames. The landlord explained that during the site visit, the dust observed on the front of the property was noticeably different from that on the back, indicating that the accumulation likely resulted from air pollution from the road at the front, rather than lack of cleaning. The landlord concluded that, aside from a few internal marks on the windows and around the frames, the internal cleaning was consistent with the expected standards for a monthly cleaning schedule. When services are provided at estate or block level, it is best practice for landlords to conduct regularly scheduled checks to confirm the work has been completed or that the service has been provided and that the standard is appropriate. This approach helps ensure consistent quality and accountability.
  12. On 8 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that no cleaning had taken place in the communal areas since May 2024. The resident also provided a photograph of the cleaning log displayed on the communal noticeboard. While the log showed that no cleaning (aside from window cleaning) had occurred during that time, the landlord supplied us with copies of cleaning reports related to the internal parts of the property dated 17 June and 19 July 2024. These reports lacked detailed notes specifying what cleaning tasks were carried out.
  13. This highlights the importance of landlords thoroughly documenting inspections using detailed notes and photographs, which serve as evidence of service delivery. When residents raise concerns about the standards of a service, it is the landlord’s responsibility to demonstrate that the work was completed to an acceptable standard. In this instance, the landlord’s inspection records did not contain sufficient detail about the specific cleaning activities carried out. However, a photograph included in the cleaning report documented attendance and indicated that some form of cleaning had taken place. We are therefore satisfied that the evidence supplied confirmed the landlord’s fulfilment of its cleaning responsibilities during the relevant period.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the cleaning was prompt and proactive. By visiting the property twice to visually assess the issues, the landlord demonstrated it was committed to addressing the resident’s concerns and gaining a better understanding of the situation. The landlord clearly explained the reasoning for using the wash and reach system and outlined the action it would be taking to address the issues. Although the record keeping in this case could have been more comprehensive, the landlord showed that it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports and took appropriate steps to address those concerns.
  15. As a result, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and associated window damage.
  16. A recommendation has been made in relation to record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas and associated window damage.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Familiarises itself with the Ombudsman’s Insight report on service charges and review and implements any recommendations where it thinks may be appropriate.
    2. Familiarises itself with the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and considers assessing its internal record keeping procedures against these. This may include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM by relevant staff if this has not been done recently.