Clarion Housing Association Limited (202306683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306683

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 June 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s request for information on how the service charge is calculated.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat since June 2012.
The resident contacted the landlord in August 2022 and raised her concerns about the cost of service charges. The resident raised a complaint in April 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her requests for information on the service charge breakdowns. On 12 April 2023, the resident stated that she had not received a response to her August 2022 email about service charges.
On 26 April 2023, the resident submitted a complaint form, in which she stated the following:
1. in accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord was required to provide a breakdown of how the service charges were calculated.
2. she was permitted to request receipts and evidence used to calculate the charges.
3. the landlord has 6 months every year to provide the information, but it had failed to provide it every year.
4. it had been over 6 years since the resident’s initial request for the information.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023, in which it:
1. said its service charge team were made aware of the service charge dispute in February 2023, and a response was provided in mid February 2023. However, the response did not fully detail what the resident had requested and she was required to further contact the landlord for a response. The landlord identified that this was a failure in service.
2. set out information showing how the actual service charge breakdown was calculated in the year 2019-2020.
3. set out the actual service charge breakdowns for the financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, as well as managing agent services breakdown and 3rd party ground rent for the building. It attached invoices received during the financial year 2021-2022.
4. identified a service failure due to its lack of communication and delays responding to the resident’s enquiry and the delay in responding to the email she sent on 5 March 2023.
5. offered £850 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £250 for lack of communication regarding the resident’s enquiry.
  2. £250 for the delay in responding to the resident’s email on 5 March 2023.
  3. £250 for the delay in responding to the resident’s service charge enquiry.
  4. £100 for providing the complaint response outside of the service level agreement.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 August 2023. She stated that the landlord had only provided a high-level overview of the service charges, when she had asked it to provide the following information:
1. the exact calculations of the service charges for the block and her flat.
2. a breakdown of the charges in detail, rather than the overall budget lines, including every post and salary.
3. all the receipts showing amounts charged to residents in the block.
4. the job description of every staff member charged to residents in the block, in particular estate managers.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2023. The landlord stated that:
1. its stage 1 response was fair, reasonable and accurate.
2. it acknowledged that its initial response to the resident’s enquiry did not detail all information and the information was provided in its stage 1 response within tables highlighting actual costs charged, along with the related invoices.
3. the managing agent invoiced the landlord 100% of the block service charges and the resident’s apportionment of the amount invoiced to the landlord is 2.563037%.
4. the managing agent invoiced the landlord 10.1006% of estate costs relating to the apartment buildings and 12.563037% of the block’s external services. The resident’s apportionment of both of these is 2.563037%.
5. under section 22 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, it can request sight of invoices paid by the managing agent within 6 months of receiving the year end accounts. The 2021–2022 year end accounts were sent in September 2022 and it was now outside of the 6-month time period to serve a section 22 request.
6. it would shortly receive the 2022-23 year end accounts and would serve a section 22 request once it was in receipt of these.
7. the resident first requested sight of the invoices in March 2023 and the landlord was therefore unable to facilitate the request for the 2021-2022 year end accounts.
8. it had attached the estate manager job description received from the managing agent.
9. it had not identified any further service failings.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2023. She stated that the landlord considered her complaint as a request to see the service charge accounts. However, she had requested this information prior to raising a complaint, on 30 August 2022 and 11 November 2022.
On 3 and 15 November 2023, the resident said:
1. she raised her March 2023 complaint after the landlord did not respond to her request to see the invoices in August and November 2022.
2. the landlord stated she was too late to request the information, but she was well within the 6-month period.
3. she wanted to see the cost breakdown for 2021-2022, including all invoices and information that has been charged.
4. the breakdown should specify each job post residents are paying for and their role, as well as other budget lines.
5. she wanted to understand exactly how the managing agent’s invoice was calculated.
6. the service charges have always been much higher that the average in the area.
The resident raised a new complaint on 9 February 2024 about the landlord’s response to her request for information regarding service charges.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 22 February 2024, in which it said:
1. the resident requested a breakdown of charges in September 2023 and had chased the landlord for a response following this.
2. it had previously informed the resident that the requested information was sent to her in January 2024, but there was evidence of these documents being sent.
3. it apologised for the delay in responding and said it had attached the information the resident had requested.
4. it offered £150 compensation in recognition of the delay and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2024. She said:
1. the information the landlord had provided was not what she was asking for.
2. she had asked for the managing agent’s cost breakdown, including all associated invoices and breakdowns of job posts.
3. the landlord kept sending general documents that had little relevance to her requests.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 March 2024, in which it said:
1. the request for post descriptions and salaries was addressed in its previous complaint response and the managing agent had no obligation to provide such details.
2. it had not yet received the 2022/23 account and had been actively chasing this. It would submit the Section 22 request within the 6-month requirement once this had been received.
3. it had provided all the information available regarding the service charges.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 March 2024 and stated that the landlord had again refused to provide necessary information. On 25 May 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord sent further documentation and had closed the case again. She said it was unclear why residents were paying mostly flat fees for services and the landlord had only sent the overarching managing agent invoice but not the invoices that the landlord is charging the residents for. The resident sent specific questions to the landlord regarding service charge breakdowns.
On 19 May 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had provided no further information and that it had not requested breakdowns from the managing agent. She stated that the landlord provided an overarching budget breakdown but this did not state exactly what was being charged.

Assessment and finding

Scope

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of service charge, or the amount of the service charge increase. This means we will not investigate the level of the charge or the increase at the beginning of each year. However, we will investigate the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, and how it has handled responses to the resident’s enquiries relating to service charges.
When the resident raised her complaint, she said she had been asking the landlord questions about the service charges for 6 years. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timescale, usually within 12 months of the issues arising. The resident raised her complaint in April 2023. Taking all of the circumstances into account, this investigation focuses on events from April 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charge is calculated

The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will provide estimated service charges before the beginning of the financial year. The estimated charges are based on previous years’ charges and services that may need to be provided in the coming year. Within 6 months of the end of the financial year, it will send a certificate of actual expenditure, which will explain if there has been a difference between the estimated and actual cost.
The lease states that the expenditure to be included in the service provision shall comprise all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the premises.
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges, for the last accounting period. If a landlord receives a request for a summary of the service charge account, they must provide it within one month (or within six months of the end of the 12-month accounting period, whichever is later).
Section 22 of the Act says residents have the right to request certain information about service charges. Within six months of receiving the summary, leaseholders can write to the landlord to ask if they can access and inspect the accounts, receipts and any other documents that are relevant to the service charge information in the summary and to ask them to provide facilities to copy these.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 30 August 2022, which she addressed to the CEO. She said residents in the block had been trying for years to find out why their service charges were so expensive. The resident said the landlord had not sent an adequate and auditable breakdown of costs.
The landlord responded on the same date confirming that it had passed her service charge concerns to the service charge team who would contact her directly. The resident responded and said she had raised the issues to the service charge team for over 5 years with no result. There is no indication that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 14 September 2022 and the landlord responded on 12 January 2023. It stated it held a meeting 18 months prior in which it shared costs with residents. It also said it had shared the final accounts for 2020, 2021 and 2022 and the budgeted accounts for 2023 with the resident.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident information on the new rent and service charges from 1 April 2023. The ‘Summary of tenants’ rights and obligations’ document attached stated that residents have the right, within 6 months of receiving a written summary of costs, to require the landlord to provide reasonable facilities to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary and for taking copies or extracts from them.
On 11 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she had the right to receive the exact breakdown of how it reached the service charge amount. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 31 March 2023 and stated that time was running out for it to provide the cost evidence. The resident further contacted the landlord on 12 April 2023 and stated that she was still waiting for a response 9 months after her August 2022 email. The landlord acknowledged the email on 17 April 2023 and stated that it had logged the matter as a formal complaint.
In December 2023, the Ombudsman published an insight report on service charges. While this is after the resident’s complaint, it reflects the landlord’s obligations and best practice. It outlines that the Ombudsman expects landlords to comply with the Act when residents request additional information such as invoices. Where there is a separate freeholder or managing agent, landlords should make requests for invoices to those parties, in addition to providing the contact details for the managing agent to the resident so they can make their own requests.Landlords are required to provide clear and transparent information to residents regarding charges, including the amount, breakdown of costs, and any changes.
It is clear that the resident requested information on the service charges several times from August 2022 and the landlord failed to respond to her within a reasonable timeframe. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident first requested sight of invoices in March 2023 and it was therefore unable to facilitate a Section 22 request, as this must be made within 6 months of receiving the end of year accounts. However, it is evident that the resident began seeking information about the services charges from August 2022, and the end of year accounts were received in September 2022. Had the landlord properly engaged with the resident about her queries, it is likely that a Section 22 request could have been made well within the required timeframe. The landlord’s poor communication resulted in the resident being unable to pursue this, which was a failing.
In its stage 1 response, dated 9 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident was delayed and it offered her a total of £750 compensation in recognition of this. The amount of compensation offered was reasonable.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to the first complaint, the landlord included a breakdown of service charge actuals for 2021-2022 and said it had attached invoices. The breakdown included costs for 3rd party ground rent, managing agent services, pest control, solar panel maintenance and an administration fee. It said that it added the pest control and solar panel maintenance in error and these would be removed from the service charge actuals for the year 2021-2022. The resident said that the information was not specific enough.
In March 2022, the Ombudsman published a Spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. The report states that landlords should ensure that they are proactive in pursuing managing agents and/or freeholders for meaningful account information in relation to service charges to ensure it is provided in a timely manner. In addition, landlords should ensure they are regularly and transparently communicating with their residents with respect to service charges, delays in providing them and the method of calculation.
There is no indication that the landlord liaised with the managing agent to obtain meaningful account information. The information the landlord provided in the stage 1 and 2 responses did not give specific breakdowns of the costs that made up managing agent services. While it is noted that the 6-month timeframe for submitting a section 22 request had elapsed, the landlord ought to have liaised with the managing agent to explore whether a breakdown of the charges could be provided. This was a failing by the landlord. However, it is noted that the landlord contacted the managing agent to request a copy of the job description for Estate Manager, which it then provided to the resident, as requested.
On 22 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she wanted a breakdown of the managing agent’s invoices and evidence relating to the charges, such as receipts for the period 2022-2023. The resident chased the landlord for this information on 26 January 2024 and said that she had tried to raise a new complaint that the landlord had ignored. She said she had still not received the documents for 2021-2022 and the landlord was now ignoring her request for information relating to the 2022-2023 service charges. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 January 2024 and said it had attached a service charge breakdown, budgets and invoices for 2022-2023.
In its stage 1 response dated 22 February 2024, the landlord found that it had not properly responded to the resident despite her chasing it in November and December 2023 and that it could find no evidence that the relevant documents were sent to her in January 2024. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of its poor communication, which was reasonable to remedy the failing. The landlord said it had attached the information that the resident had requested. The evidence indicates that the landlord sent a service charge budget with a breakdown of the charges for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, as well as service charge invoices from the managing agent.
In its stage 2 response dated 20 March 2024, the landlord said it had been chasing the 2022-2023 accounts and would submit a section 22 request once it had received them.
On 25 May 2024, the resident informed us that she had responded to the landlord with multiple queries and requests for more information regarding the service charges, but the landlord had not responded to her.
Landlords should ensure they provide specific responses to residents requesting service charge information, and responses should be targeted to the information requested.
Although the landlord sent some information to the resident regarding the service charges, there is no evidence that it submitted a Section 22 request for the year 2022-2023. The landlord said it would take this action in both stage 2 complaint responses. This indicates a failure by the landlord to take the action it said it would take. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord provided the managing agent’s details to the resident so that she could request the required information, which was a further failing.
It is evident that the resident has incurred significant time and trouble in chasing the landlord for the requested information. To remedy the distress and inconvenience caused, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident. We have also made further orders regarding the resident’s information request. The landlord should make efforts to provide the requested information. However, it should be highlighted that requests for service charge information should be proportionate and it may not be feasible to provide the requested information regarding staff salaries.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time explained its 2-stage complaint procedure. The policy states that when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. The policy says that if the landlord is unable to resolve the complaint, it will provide the resident with an action plan outlining what it intends to do and, if possible, provide a timeline of when it will be able to provide a full response.
The policy refers to stage 2 of the complaints procedure as a peer review, which it will acknowledge and log in 10 working days. It states that it will aim to resolve stage 2 complaints within 40 working days, and if it is unable to resolve the complaint in this time, it will:
1. Explain why it is unable to resolve the complaint.
2. Provide a timescale of what is involved in order to resolve the complaint and if possible, approximately how long the review will take.
3. Agree with the resident on the frequency of keeping them updated and their preferred method of communication.
The landlord took the resident’s 12 April 2023 email as her complaint. On 17 April 2023, it informed her that it had logged the complaint. The resident chased the landlord on several occasions and the landlord informed her it was seeking further information to respond to the complaint. There is no indication that it sent an action plan to the resident, as per its policy. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 26 July 2023 and stated that the landlord should respond to the complaint by 9 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023, which was 59 days in excess of the 20-working day deadline set out in its complaints policy. This was a complaint handling failing by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 August 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 1 September 2023, which was a minor delay of 3 days in excess of the 10-day timeframe for logging complaints. It issued the stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2023, which was within the required timeframe.
The landlord apologised for the delayed response and offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the failing. It is evident that the resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing the landlord for a response to her complaint. The amount of compensation offered was reasonable to remedy the detriment to the resident of the failing identified.
The landlord issued the stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident’s second complaint within the required timeframe, and there was therefore no complaint handling failing.
It is noted that the landlord’s has since updated its complaints policy so that it is in line with the timeframes for complaint responses set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charge is calculated.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable regarding its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,300 made up as follows:
  1. £400 for its handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charge is calculated.
  2. £900 already offered by the landlord in its previous complaint responses for its handling of the resident’s request for information on service charges, if it has not already paid this.
2. provide a clear response to the resident’s request to see a breakdown of service charges including invoices and receipts. It should respond to the resident’s queries submitted in May 2024. If it believes any information that it has provided meets its obligations under the Act, it should clearly explain this.
3. provide the resident with the managing agent’s details and explain how she can make a request for information directly.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe stipulated.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £100 compensation offered to the resident if it has not already done so.