Brighton and Hove City Council (202428156)

Decision
Case ID	202428156
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Brighton and Hove City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She pays a weekly service charge that includes a communal cleaning service. The landlord temporarily suspended the weekly cleaning service from 20 May 2024 until 10 June 2024 while it investigated an incident involving its cleaners. The resident requested a refund for this period, which the landlord declined.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for a communal cleaning service charge refund.
   2. The associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for a communal cleaning service charge refund.
   2. The associated complaint.

 

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a communal cleaning service charge refund

4. The landlord’s decision to temporarily suspend the communal cleaning service was reasonable. During its complaints procedure, the landlord appropriately explained why the service was suspended and its decision not to offer a service charge refund.

Complaint handling

5. While the landlord’s stage 1 response was slightly delayed, this did not significantly affect its handling of the complaint. It also put things right by answering all the resident’s questions in its final response.

 

Putting things right

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord clarify to the resident if there is a provision for service charge refunds within its internal policies or process. The landlord must set out if there are any differences between its approach to leaseholders and tenants. The landlord should also clarify if any variations in service delivery may be reflected in the year-end service charge calculations.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 June 2024	The resident complained about the landlord suspending the cleaning service. She asked when a refund would be offered for this period and what steps the landlord would take to prevent future service disruptions. She also raised concerns that the landlord acted in a discriminatory manner in handling the matter.
17 June 2024	The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It explained that the cleaning service was suspended while it investigated reports of inappropriate behaviour towards cleaning staff and confirmed that the service resumed on 10 June 2024. It said it would not refund her service charge and could not guarantee that similar suspensions would not be necessary in the future. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on the same day, as not all her questions had been answered.
5 July 2024	The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not answering all her questions at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It acknowledged that the resident provided evidence showing a neighbour had received a refund of the cleaning charge but explained it could not discuss this due to data protection. It reiterated that it would not offer a refund because the suspension was necessary and service charges are not calculated per clean but split into weekly payments for residents. It confirmed that it found no evidence that it acted in a discriminatory way.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she felt it was unfair not to receive a refund for the period when the communal cleaning service was not provided. She also felt that the landlord acted unfairly in its communication with her.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request for a communal cleaning service charge refund
Finding	No maladministration

6. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s decision to temporarily suspend the communal cleaning service between 20 May and 10 June 2024, as this was the subject of the associated complaints that the resident submitted to the landlord and to which it responded. We are aware that the resident previously complained about an earlier suspension of the cleaning service, which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in October 2023. That complaint is outside the scope of this investigation. The resident can contact us separately about the earlier complaint if she wishes.
7. The landlord is responsible for safeguarding its staff and contractors. It was therefore reasonable to temporarily suspend the communal cleaning service while it investigated concerns raised by the cleaning staff, which they said made them feel uncomfortable continuing the service.
8. Effective communication is important for accountability and transparency. In this case, the landlord should have informed the resident about the service suspension at the time. It would have been reasonable to display a notice in a communal area of the building or contact the resident directly to inform her. It did not do this. While the landlord has said the resident was notified by telephone, we have seen no record of this. This indicates a shortcoming in its record-keeping. Good record-keeping is essential for maintaining accountability and transparency. In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, we can only conclude that the landlord did not reasonably notify the resident.
9. The landlord appropriately explained the circumstances for suspending the service in its complaint responses. It was also reasonable for it to state in its stage 2 response that similar decisions might be necessary in the future because of its responsibility to investigate inappropriate behaviour toward contractors and staff.
10. In line with our Scheme, we do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge. We will not assess whether the communal cleaning service represented good value for money or whether it should be charged. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better placed to consider such matters, given its knowledge and expertise. However, we can assess the landlord’s decision not to refund the service charge and how it communicated this to the resident.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows a missed opportunity to communicate effectively when addressing the resident’s query about the refund. While it confirmed that no refund would be issued, it did not explain why. This may have left the resident unclear about its decision-making. Where matters are not put right at stage 1 of its complaints procedure, the landlord has the opportunity to do so at stage 2. It was therefore appropriate for it to provide a more detailed explanation in its stage 2 response.
12. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is liable to pay the service charge. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that the cost is charged annually and divided into regular payments for residents. It confirmed that the charge is not calculated per clean. We acknowledge there may be instances where a refund is appropriate if a service is not provided. However, given the reasons for the suspension and the fact that the landlord may still have incurred the cost, its decision not to refund the resident on this occasion was reasonable. We have seen no evidence that the landlord’s policies state it will provide a refund in this situation.
13. The resident has told us that she is aware that leasehold neighbours were refunded for the same cleaning service interruption. While we acknowledge this, there may be differences in arrangements for leasehold and secure tenancy service charges based on the terms of their respective tenancy agreements and leases. Therefore, a refund to leaseholders does not necessarily mean the resident was also entitled to one. It is outside our remit to comment on these arrangements because the terms of the neighbours’ leases are confidential.
14. As part of her complaints, the resident raised concerns that the landlord acted in a discriminatory manner in its handling of the matter. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords must consider residents’ protected characteristics, such as age, gender, and race. We can assess whether the landlord showed it considered this. However, the resident did not specify in her complaint which protected characteristic she believed was overlooked. This means the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to that specific concern.
15. Based on the above findings, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regards to the resident’s request for a communal cleaning service charge refund.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

16. Our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices are set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which landlords who are members of our scheme are required to follow. In line with the Code, the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaints as required under the Code. However, this did not significantly affect its handling of the complaints. The stage 1 response was issued 11 working days after receiving the complaint, slightly exceeding the Code’s 10 working day timescale but not significantly. The landlord correctly issued its stage 2 response within the Code’s 20 working day timescale.
17. Under the Code, landlords are expected to respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. The landlord did not answer all the resident’s questions in its stage 1 response. However, it addressed these in its stage 2 response, which was sufficient to put this right.
18. Based on the above findings, we have found no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

 

Learning

Complaint handling

19. The landlord appropriately used its stage 2 response to address points the resident raised but that were not answered at stage 1. It also expanded on its initial responses. This demonstrated learning and was in line with the Code, which expects landlords to address all points raised by residents, acknowledge errors, and take steps to put things right.

 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord could consider reviewing its record-keeping practices in line with the recommendations in the spotlight report.

Communication

21. The landlord did not take a proactive approach when communicating with the resident about the suspension of the cleaning service. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of resident-focused and proactive communication. The landlord could review its communication practices against the recommendations in that report to ensure it addresses similar issues proactively in the future, rather than waiting for residents to raise concerns.