Clarion Housing Association Limited (202340920)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340920

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Service charge account.
2. Concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The resident is being represented by her friend on this complaint. For ease of reference, the resident and her friend will both be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 5 December 2012, the landlord carried out a consultation with residents to add further service charges to residents’ agreements.
On 10 June 2013, the resident completed a mutual exchange to her current property, which includes service charges as part of the tenancy.
On 19 September 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained she wanted to dispute the service charges, as she believed they were not in line with her tenancy agreement. In addition, she also stated that the landlord’s cleaners would attend and not carry out cleaning of the communal areas, and she stated if the cleaners completed any cleaning, they did not complete it to the expected standard.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 November 2022. It confirmed all the fees which make up the resident’s service charges were correct. It explained whilst certain charges were not listed on the tenancy agreement, the agreement states the landlord retains the right to add charges following a consultation period with residents. The landlord stated it completed a consultation prior to the resident completing her mutual exchange. In addition, the landlord explained to the resident what the following charges included:
1. Administration fee
2. Communal electricity
3. Communal window cleaning
4. Door entry service contract
5. Fire protection
6. Pest control
7. Provision of equipment
8. Refuse collection
In response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning, the landlord explained it carried out regular inspections on a bi-monthly basis to ensure that the cleaning services provided were to an acceptable standard. The landlord also stated the cleaners were required to take photographs of their work while on site, which were then uploaded to an online portal. It explained the resident could contact its neighbourhood officer if she had evidence of issues with the standard of communal cleaning. The landlord also acknowledged that its tree surgeon contractor reduced some trees on the estate more than requested and, due to this, the contractor agreed to refund the charges relating to this work. It confirmed the refund would be reflected in the resident’s future service charges. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay.
On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated she found the resolution unacceptable and disagreed with the landlord’s findings.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 March 2023. It explained the resident was correct to state that not all the service charges were included in the original tenancy agreement. It also explained it completed a consultation prior to the resident’s mutual exchange and additional service charges were added. In addition, the landlord stated it was the responsibility of the resident’s mutual exchange partner to advise the resident about any costs and changes as part of the mutual exchange process. It explained in its previous response, that it stated if services were not provided correctly, it would seek a refund from the contractor concerned and apply this to a resident’s account. The landlord also stated it had been actively consulting residents about the services they receive and had adjusted these services in line with residents’ requests.
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 refund her service charges, which were not listed on her tenancy agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

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). However, due to the length of time which has passed since the resident’s mutual exchange, a claim may be outside the time limits of the tribunal.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy explains that the landlord wishes to support residents who need to move, and to provide a level of choice about where they live. In addition, the policy explains residents who are eligible to exchange can do this with another resident of the landlord, a resident of another housing association, local authority or arm’s length management organisation (ALMO).
The landlord’s service charge policy states if a resident has a social rent tenancy, the breakdown of a resident’s service charges outlines the charges for services they receive which are not covered by the resident’s rent. The policy also includes a list and description of the different service charge items the landlord may charge for.

The landlord’s assured tenancy terms and conditions document states it may increase or remove, reduce, vary or add to the services after consultation with residents. In addition, it states it will give a resident at least 4 weeks’ notice of changes in services and of any changes in the service charge, if any, because of the change.

The resident’s service charge account.

In September 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated she wanted to dispute the service charges as she believed they were not in line with her tenancy agreement. The landlord took appropriate steps by responding to the resident’s complaint and query about her service charges in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It acknowledged that not all of the resident’s service charges were listed on the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord explained this was due to it adding additional service charges for the block following a consultation with residents on 5 December 2012. It was reasonable for the landlord to add further service charges, as this was in line with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. In addition, the landlord has provided evidence that it took appropriate steps by carrying out a consultation with the residents prior to amending the service charges.
The landlord recognised the consultation period and amendment of the service charges happened prior to the resident completing her mutual exchange and property assignment. Therefore, it explained when the resident’s mutual exchange took place in June 2013, it was the responsibility of the other resident who she was exchanging properties with to advise her of any costs and changes as part of the mutual exchange process. The landlord’s response was reasonable as usually, as part of a mutual exchange process, it would be the responsibility of both of the residents exchanging properties to discuss information about the properties and ask questions about the service charges. In addition, in February 2014, the landlord sent the resident a letter with a breakdown of all the payable service charges. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in this instance.
The landlord also provided an explanation in its complaint responses about the additional service charges and what they covered. The landlord provided details about the following service charges:
1. Administration fee – It explained this was a charge based on the total cost of services to the communal service charges. The landlord also stated it covers its costs for obtaining and managing the service, and the cost of preparing and reconciling the service charge account.
2. Communal Electricity- It confirmed this charge covered the cost of the consumption of electricity in the communal areas, including running costs for lighting, power points, door entry phones, lifts and TV aerials.
3. Communal window cleaning- It stated it carried out a regular window cleaning service at the resident’s block, and it explained the window cleaning fee was charged separately to the communal cleaning fee as these were two separate services, carried out under separate contracts.
4. Door entry service contract- It explained this charge is for a service that provides repairs which are carried out to the door system as necessary. It stated the cost of this charge was based on an estimate of the services provided the previous year.
5. Fire protection – It stated the charge covered the cost of running regular fire risk assessments and testing emergency lighting as well as smoke alarms.
6. Pest control – It confirmed this charge covered the cost of its contractors regularly putting bait in communal areas to reduce vermin activity. It stated this was essential due to previous reports of rat sightings from residents.
7. Provision of other equipment – It explained this charge was for the provision of equipment such as salt bins and equipment in drying areas. In addition, it stated the cost covered the maintenance of the equipment.
8. Refuse collection – It confirmed this charge covered the cost of removing large objects dumped or disposed of around the estate or block. The landlord stated the charge was not for the removal of general domestic household waste collected by the local authority.
9. Tree work – It explained this charge was for the maintenance of the trees on the estate. In addition, the landlord confirmed it was not required to consult with residents prior to tree maintenance works.
Also, in relation to tree works, the landlord acknowledged its tree surgery contractor previously carried out works to several trees and cut back the trees more than it requested. Therefore, due to this, the landlord contacted the contractor about this, and they agreed to refund the charges relating to this work. The landlord confirmed the refund from the contractor would be calculated in the resident’s future service charges. This was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges was reasonable and there is no evidence that there was a failure by the landlord in relation to the service charge information which was provided to the resident. Therefore, we would not ask the landlord to pay the resident any compensation in this instance. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s service charge account.

The resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning.

The resident raised concerns with the standard of the communal cleaning as part of her initial complaint. She also stated that the landlord’s cleaners would attend and not carry out cleaning of the communal areas, and she stated if the cleaners completed any cleaning, they did not complete it to the expected standard.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It explained regular inspections were carried out twice a month to check that cleaning had been completed to an acceptable standard, with the most recent inspection completed in October 2022. In addition, the landlord explained, the cleaners were required to take photographs of their work while on site, which are then uploaded to an online portal. Therefore, it stated they could not attend and not carry out any cleaning to the communal areas and asked the resident to provide evidence to show that the standard of cleaning was unsatisfactory if she still had concerns. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, as it investigated but did not identify any issues with the standard of cleaning.
In addition to the landlord’s explanation in its complaint responses, the landlord provided us with a copy of an action plan which confirmed it inspected the communal areas in May and June 2022, and it identified no issues. Also, the landlord has provided a copy of an estate inspection from February 2023, which provided a rating of “acceptable” for the communal cleaning. Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s interim complaints policy from the time of the complaint states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 response within 20 working days and a stage 2 response within 40 working days. These timescales were not compliant with the Code. However, the landlord’s recent complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code.
On 19 September 2022, the resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 November 2022. The response was approximately 26 working days late and not in line with the timescales referenced in the Code.
On 2 December 2022, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was provided on 20 March 2023 and approximately 54 working days late. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there was a delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay. Although the landlord did not acknowledge that its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. The overall compensation offered for complaint-handling delays was sufficient to recognise the delays for both stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning.
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, resolves concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

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 complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.