Clarion Housing Association Limited (202300316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300316

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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:
   1. The resident’s service charge queries.
   2. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block on a street. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord for various services it delivers.
3. The resident previously raised queries in 2021 about his communal service charges and administration and management fees. In 2021, the landlord said it had removed charges for bin hire and refuse collection as these were incorrectly applied. In 2022, the resident made further queries and a complaint when bin hire and refuse collection charges were added to his service charge estimate again. The landlord later removed the bin charges but kept the refuse collection as this was for removing bulk waste. This complaint was later determined by the Ombudsman in December 2023.
4. In March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord after he received a statement of actual expenditure. He disputed that he should pay some communal charges and administration and management fees. He also queried why the bin charge was added again when it was previously removed. He subsequently contacted the Ombudsman, after a lack of response to his queries and a complaint, and the landlord raised a complaint in June 2023 after contact from us.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 June 2023.
   1. It said hire and refuse collection charges were previously removed in error and remained payable.
   2. It explained that door entry system and communal cleaning charges were payable. It confirmed it had referred a further query about window cleaning.
   3. It explained that administration fees were payable by those who received communal service charges and the resident was obligated to pay management fees under his lease, so these both remained payable.
   4. It apologised for failing to process the resident’s March 2023 query and tell him it had closed a March 2023 complaint. It confirmed it was discussing these internally. It awarded £250 for these and its complaint response delay.
6. The resident was unhappy with the response. He continued to question bin, refuse collection, door entry, cleaning, administration and management charges. He asked to speak to someone about them.
7. The landlord discussed his concerns internally and then provided its final response on 26 October 2023.
   1. It noted the resident said the local authority provided bins and it should not have recharged for this, so this was being refunded.
   2. It said refuse collection was correctly charged, but noted this service was for collection of reported bulky or fly tipped items and no fly tipped items were reported for the resident’s block. It therefore arranged to refund this.
   3. It said a door entry charge was valid on the evidence, which it provided a copy of.
   4. It said that service charges had been reimbursed for when communal cleaning was not done in the period from 2021 to 2022. It noted that for 2022 to 2023 there had been an underspend due to some missed cleaning which was reflected in the account.
   5. It noted that the resident requested a call to discuss the administration and management fees and asked him to supply a convenient time for this.
   6. It awarded £250 for issues it had noted and its complaint response delay.
8. The landlord had a call with the resident on 9 November 2023, after which he chased in December 2023 for a response to queries he raised in the call. The same month, the Ombudsman determined the resident’s previous complaint about similar issues. We found maladministration and ordered the landlord to review its service charge handling.
9. On 23 January 2024, after further chasing from the resident, the landlord responded to the queries and confirmed bin and refuse collection charges had been refunded on the account.
10. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to provide reassurance that bin and refuse charges will not be in future charges. It confirmed there were no bin hire or refuse collection charges due on the account for 2024 to 2025. It said it was working to ensure costs for services the resident does not benefit from are not apportioned to a “cost allocation pool” his property falls within. It said there may be future charges for refuse collection if an item was removed from the block by its estates team, as it was an ad-hoc service.
11. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about bin charges, and requests to be fully reimbursed if it has still been charging him for bins.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s service charge queries

12. The evidence shows that the landlord has generally addressed and resolved the resident’s queries. It provided reasonable explanation that services such as door entry and cleaning had been delivered and were correctly charged. It provided reasonable explanation that the administration fee is payable by recipients of communal services and charges. It also provided reasonable explanation why the management fee is payable, as the resident is obligated to pay it under his lease terms. Its handling is also in line with its approach to ask the resident to pay estimated service charges, and reconcile any excess or shortfall in a certified account of expenditure at the end of each account year.
13. The resident raised concerns about a refuse collection charge, which the landlord reasonably addressed. The resident can arrange bulk waste collection through his local authority, but the evidence shows that the landlord’s estates team may also remove bulky items sometimes. The landlord therefore seems reasonable to say that this charge may appear at points.
14. The resident raised concerns about a bin charge being added again, after being previously removed, since bins are supplied by the local authority. He seeks assurances he will not be charged for bins. The landlord has also reasonably addressed this. It accepted the charge was wrong and removed it when he raised it. It also confirmed, after his follow up correspondence, that it was working to ensure that services his block did not benefit from were not applied to the account.
15. The evidence provided for our previous determination shows it internally discussed this. It made some practical amendments to its process and also sought to ensure relevant staff were aware of the issue. This shows it has taken appropriate steps to try to avoid the issue happening again, and it is not evident the bin charge has been applied since. However, some aspects of the landlord’s handling were not satisfactory.
16. The resident raised queries in March 2023 about his service charges, which the landlord did not address until June 2023. He clearly experienced delays, communication issues, and went to time and trouble to obtain answers to his queries. He will also have been caused frustration by having the bin charge added on multiple occasions.
17. The landlord was therefore right to acknowledge issues with its handling, apologise, award compensation, and take some steps to improve service. It also discussed the resident’s concerns within 2 weeks of its response and provided some further clarification within 2 months, which included additional assurances that it was trying to improve service.
18. This shows that the landlord reasonably sought to put things right, and the £300 compensation for the service charges aspects seems overall reasonable. This is in line with amounts considered applicable in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been maladministration that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
19. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the service charges. This does not mean that we think that the issues, landlord’s handling or impact on the resident were “reasonable.” The finding reflects that there were failings which the landlord has reasonably remedied.

Complaint handling

20. The resident made an initial complaint in March 2023, which the landlord closed without telling him. There were then delays between March 2023 and June 2023, when the landlord eventually provided a stage 1 response. This was a delay of around 3 months, which is not satisfactory. The stage 2 response was then also delayed by around 3 months. These delays will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident and undermined his confidence.
21. The landlord acknowledged the issues with its complaint handling and awarded £100 at each stage, £200 in total. It also offered apologies that provided explanation and confirmed steps to try to improve service. The landlord’s responses demonstrate that it sought to acknowledge, learn from and put right the complaint, through practical action and compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
22. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably in respect to its complaint handing, and leads us to find reasonable redress in its complaint handling. Again, this does not mean that we think that the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was “reasonable,” but reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
    2. The complaint.

Recommendations

24. The landlord is recommended to pay the £500 total it offered to the resident, if it has not already paid this.
25. The landlord is recommended to check and confirm to the resident whether:
    1. it has refunded all charges for the bins.
    2. it is still charging for these.