Clarion Housing Association Limited (202314809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314809

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Service charge queries.
2. Reports of poor cleaning in the communal areas.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is the head leaseholder. The building is owned by the freeholder, which is a separate organisation from the landlord.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord issued a service charge notice to the resident. It included a breakdown of actual costs for 2021/22, the charges paid by the resident for 2022/23, and a notice of an increase for 2023/24.
Between 15 February and 15 March 2023, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the 2023/24 increase. She asked for invoices and related documents for 2021/22 to understand how her money was being spent. She also raised a number of queries about the 2021/22 charges, including:
1. Fire protection – she asked why she was charged when the communal area no longer had a fire alarm
2. Refuse collection – she questioned the charges as she paid council tax and had reported poor upkeep of the bin area with no response
3. Bin hire & estate bin hire – she queried the duplicate charges and said the block did not have recycling bins
4. Communal electricity – she said lights were faulty and did not always turn off, which she had reported
5. Management agent fee – she queried being charged twice
6. Cleaning – she questioned charges from 2 separate contractors and asked for deductions where she had reported cleaning was not done properly in 2021
7. Window cleaning – she queried charges for 3 months when windows were only cleaned once
8. Pest control – she said one of the invoices related to a different address
9. Security – she asked what this invoice was for
10. Day-to-day repairs – she asked why she had been charged for repairs that did not relate to her property
11. Grounds maintenance – she said she had carried out tasks herself, including hedge trimming and buying plants and the landlord had promised flower baskets as a goodwill gesture
In the same email, the resident said she would not pay her service charges until her concerns were addressed and the disputed charges removed.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord responded to some of the resident’s queries:
1. Refuse collection – the charge related to the removal of large items across the estate, not general household waste
2. Pest control / day-to-day repairs – these were block-wide services, with the costs shared equally between residents
3. Ground maintenance – this covered estate-wide services such as plant maintenance, grass cutting, and tree surgery.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 July 2023. She asked why her previous reports about the poor standard of cleaning had not been treated as a complaint. She queried why bulky waste was being collected gradually instead of in 1 collection, as she did not want to be charged unnecessarily.
On 2 August 2023, the landlord’s service charge team responded to some of the resident’s earlier queries:
1. Fire protection & security – it confirmed there were no fire alarms in the resident’s block, but said the charges related to checking and servicing emergency lighting throughout the year
2. Bin hire – it said the cost covered bin hire across the estate and was spread over a longer period to manage cost
3. Communal electricity – it advised the resident to contact the repairs team, but said it would refer the issue to the housing team
4. Management agent fee – it clarified this fee differed from the management fee. It explained that as it was not the freeholder of the block it paid for various services carried out around the estate which were provided by a managing agent
5. Day-to-day repairs – it apologised for wrongly charging the resident and credited her account with £21.64
On 7 August 2023, the resident told the landlord she had spoken to other residents about the pest control charges. She said they confirmed they had not been charged for the invoice she was disputing, even though the landlord had said that the cost had been apportioned between 12 residents. She repeated that she believed she had been charged in error.
On 25 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay, said this was due to high customer contact levels, and added:
1. Cleaning
  1. It acknowledged the resident’s longstanding reports but said it usually found the standards of cleaning in communal areas acceptable
  2. It said it had changed to a new cleaning contractor 6 months ago so could not investigate or provide a refund for missed cleans before this period
  3. It inspected the block every 4 weeks and had recently placed the new cleaning contractor on a 2-month performance monitoring plan as cleaning standards had fallen
2. Grounds maintenance
  1. It did not cut shrubs between March and August, but said they were kept to safe levels
  2. It said estate inspections showed standards had improved
  3. It had not asked the resident to do the work herself therefore would not remove this charge, but would reimburse her for materials and non-delivery of the promised flower baskets
3. Pest control
  1. It explained a different address appeared on the invoice as a point of contact. However, the cockroach treatment was done estate-wide
4. Window cleaning
  1. It said this took place quarterly but was charged monthly.
5. Bulky waste
  1. It said charges were only applied for confirmed removals, verified by staff.
6. Compensation – it paid:
  1. £50 for the delay in complaint response
  2. £35.55 for materials and the missed flower basket gesture
  3. £150 for inconvenience, time, and effort chasing responses
Later that day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She disagreed that cleaning had improved, said the block had not been cleaned in 2 weeks, and objected to the refusal to refund missed services beyond 6 months, as she reported her concerns at the time.
On 23 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint. We then asked the landlord to respond.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 November 2023. It apologised for the delay and accepted it had overlooked the escalation. It repeated its stage 1 position, said the charges were correct, and highlighted that there were arrears on the resident’s service charge account because of unpaid service charge variances. It paid the resident an additional £50 compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.
On the same day, the resident told us she remained dissatisfied. She said her concerns remained unanswered and the landlord had not removed the disputed charges from her account.
On 20 August 2024, the landlord awarded the resident an additional £50 to honour its earlier agreement to gift her flower baskets in recognition of her contribution to the upkeep of the communal grounds. The landlord confirmed that the payment was intended to allow the resident to purchase the baskets herself.

Assessments and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident disputed whether the landlord should charge her for cleaning in the communal areas that she said failed to meet an acceptable standard. She also said she was unhappy with the increase in service charges for 2022/23. This element of the resident’s complaint relates to the level and reasonableness of the service charge.
Under paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), available on our website, we will not consider complaints about the level of rent or service charges, or the amount of any increase. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (Property Chamber) is better placed to assess whether a service charge is reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to contact FTT if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further. She can also seek free, independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) on how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.
We have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about poor maintenance of the communal areas, and whether it acted fairly and in line with relevant policies and procedures in the circumstances.

Legal policy and framework

Under the terms of her lease, the resident is liable to pay a charge for services provided by the landlord. It states that the landlord will provide a statement detailing actual expenditure at the end of each financial year and the resident is liable for the difference between the estimated and actual service charge costs. The lease also states that the service charge includes costs relating to the resident’s block and the estate.
Under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), leaseholders have the right to request a written summary of their service charge costs. The summary must be provided within 1 month of the request, or within 6 months of the end of the period it relates to – whichever is later.
Under section 22 of the LTA 1985, leaseholders can also ask to inspect the receipts, invoices and other documents used to prepare the summary of service charge costs.
At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy. This was because of a cyber incident affecting its systems. The policy stated that the landlord had a 2 stage complaints process. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints 40 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries

The landlord’s records show that in February 2023, the resident asked to inspect documents relating to the 2021/22 service charges and raised several queries about specific items. In line with section 22 of the LTA 1985, the landlord provided the requested documentation 1 month later. This was within the statutory timeframe and demonstrated that the landlord had the relevant records available and was able to meet its legal duty to provide supporting evidence when asked.
While the landlord provided the requested documents in March 2023, it did not address all the resident’s specific queries at the same time. It issued a partial response in April 2023, but did not respond to the remaining points until August 2023 – 5 months after the initial enquiry. This delay was unacceptable. Although there is no set statutory or policy timescale for responding to service charge queries of this type, we would expect the landlord to provide a timely, structured, and transparent explanation once documents have been shared. This delay undermined the purpose of providing the supporting documents and fell short of the landlord’s responsibility to engage constructively with reasonable enquiries about charges.
The resident’s queries about charges for fire protection, bin hire, the management agent fee, window cleaning and security were addressed by the landlord in its responses between April and August 2023. The landlord provided clear explanations of what each charge related to and why it had been applied. We have seen no further indication that the resident sought additional clarification on these points. As noted earlier, if she remains dissatisfied with the reasonableness of these charges, she may escalate her concerns to the FTT.

Refuse collection / bulky waste

The landlord explained that the refuse collection charge, related to bulky waste removal across the estate and was separate from general household waste services provided by the local authority. This was a clear and reasonable explanation.
However, the resident then asked why the collections were not being arranged more efficiently, based on advice she said she received from the contractor. She understood that a single photo of all items could be submitted to reduce the number of visits. The landlord did not address this point. Given it had confirmed that leaseholders were only charged for confirmed collections, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain whether the resident’s suggested approach was feasible or already in use. Her query directly related to the way the refuse collection service was being managed and the potential for additional avoidable costs. The landlord’s failure to respond missed an opportunity to provide transparency and assurance about how the service was being managed.
The landlord must now provide the resident with a clear written response to her query about the arrangement of bulky waste collections. This response must confirm whether the approach suggested by the resident is feasible or already in use, and, if not, set out why. The response must also clarify how the landlord ensures bulky waste services are managed efficiently and in a way that reflects its charging approach.

Communal electricity

The resident queried the charge for communal electricity on the basis that the communal lights were faulty and not turning off, which she had reported. She questioned why she was being charged when the issue had not been resolved. In response, the landlord signposted her to the repairs team but did not engage with the concern further. This was unreasonable.
The landlord had a responsibility to review the repair history before issuing a charge, or at least to check whether the reported fault had been logged and addressed. Simply directing the resident without checking or acknowledging her report risked appearing dismissive and failed to demonstrate that the charge had been properly reviewed. This likely added to the resident’s frustration and undermined the confidence that she was being charged fairly for a working service.
The landlord must now review the repair records for the period in question and confirm whether a fault with the communal lighting was reported and addressed. If the fault was not resolved, the landlord should write to the resident to explain how it considered this when applying or upholding the communal electricity charge. Its response should also clarify how it ensures communal electricity charges reflect a functioning and maintained service.

Pest control

The resident questioned the pest control charge on the basis that one of the invoices she reviewed listed a different address. The landlord explained that the address was used as a point of contact, that treatment was carried out block-wide, and that the cost for cockroach treatment and monitoring was apportioned between 12 residents. The landlord’s records show it was invoiced for 2 cockroach-related visits in the 2021/22 accounting period. 1 invoice listed 11 addresses, while the other listed only a single address. The resident later said that, to her knowledge, other residents had not been charged for the second invoice.
We cannot determine whether the apportionment was accurate based on the evidence provided. However, the landlord should have gone further to explain how it calculated the resident’s share in this instance, particularly given the inconsistency in the way the addresses were presented across the 2 invoices. While it could not confirm the charges issued to other residents for data protection reasons, it could have asked the resident for more information about who she said had not been charged for pest control and followed up accordingly. Investigating the resident’s concern and issuing a further response would have helped confirm whether the charge had been applied correctly. This would have provided greater assurance and transparency.
The landlord must now review the disputed pest control charge and provide a clear written explanation to the resident. This must confirm whether the second invoice was correctly apportioned to her. If the resident provides the names or addresses of others she believes were not charged correctly, the landlord must investigate and confirm whether her charge aligns with its standard apportionment process, without telling her details about other residents.

Day-to-day repairs

The resident disputed the charge for day-to-day repairs, which she believed did not relate to her property. In April 2023, the landlord told her the charge was correct but later acknowledged in August 2023 that this had been a mistake and refunded the amount to her service charge account. While it was positive that the landlord took steps to correct the error, it should not have taken the resident’s challenge and complaint to prompt this. Accuracy is essential in the handling of service charge accounts, as residents must be able to rely on the information provided when deciding whether to query or pay a charge. Still, the landlord’s later actions showed a willingness to acknowledge mistakes, which is in line with good complaint handling practices. The landlord’s reimbursement resolved this aspect of the complaint and it does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Grounds maintenance

The resident disputed the grounds maintenance charge on the basis that she had carried out work herself. The landlord confirmed it had not asked her to do this and explained that it paid for contracted services throughout the year. In this context, it was reasonable for the landlord to uphold the charge under the terms of the lease, despite the resident’s personal contribution.
The evidence also shows the landlord had previously agreed to gift the resident flower baskets to acknowledge her efforts in maintaining the communal grounds. The resident followed up on this agreement in September 2021, but the landlord did not respond. Whilst the landlord was not initially obliged to provide flower baskets, once it had agreed to do so, it should have honoured its agreement. This missed opportunity to resolve the matter early likely left the resident feeling ignored. While the landlord later reimbursed £35.55 for materials and, 9 months after its final complaint response, awarded a further £50 to honour the original promise, these steps came significantly later. The redress was appropriate, but the delay reduced its impact.

Cleaning

The resident asked the landlord to remove cleaning charges for dates in 2021 when she reported the service had not been carried out. The landlord declined, stating it no longer had a contract with the cleaning provider from that period and could not investigate reports more than 6 months old. It also said it was satisfied with the cleaning standards during the 2021/22 accounting period, based on previous follow-up inspections. However, this was not a reasonable response. If the landlord relied on inspections to assess the quality of cleaning during that period, it should have been able to provide records showing when those inspections took place and how they supported its conclusion. In the absence of that evidence, we cannot verify the basis of its position.
We have seen evidence that the resident sent emails to the landlord about missed cleaning on 7 separate occasions between September 2021 and April 2022, and these appear to have gone unanswered. The landlord missed an opportunity to raise these reports as a formal complaint at the time and to investigate them while records or contractual oversight may still have been available. Its failure to act at the time and its inability now to show how it reached its conclusions undermines the creditability of its responses. While we cannot determine whether the service did or did not take place, the core failing is the landlord’s lack of investigation and its failure to provide the resident with a timely, transparent, evidence-based explanation.
The landlord paid the resident £150 compensation for inconvenience and the time taken to resolve her concerns. However, based on the cumulative failings identified in this section of the report, we are not satisfied this offer went far enough to put things right.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, we may award a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident and additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. This brings the total compensation for this element of the complaint to £250.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor cleaning in the communal areas

The evidence shows that between May and September 2023, the resident raised monthly concerns about poor cleaning standards in the block, including dirty water being used to mop floors, litter not being removed, and skirting boards and walls not being cleaned. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to these individual reports at the time, so we cannot determine what (if any) immediate action was taken.
The landlord accepted the cleaning standards required improvement, and there is no dispute about the issues raised during this period. Its stage 1 complaint response confirmed the cleaning contractor had been placed on a monitoring plan, and records show the landlord carried out monthly inspections of the block between June to September 2023. This demonstrated the landlord was taking some steps to address the performance concerns.
However, the resident continued to report poor standards throughout this time, which suggests that the actions taken by the landlord had not resolved her concerns. While we have seen evidence of monitoring, we have not seen how the landlord was assuring the resident it was managing the service effectively or responding to her reports. This lack of visible engagement may have contributed to the resident feeling her concerns were not being taken seriously and reduced confidence in the monitoring arrangement in place.
The landlord’s records show that it continued to carry out inspections into 2024, with later entries confirming that cleaning standards had vastly improved. This is a positive development and demonstrates a commitment to raising and sustaining service quality. However, maintaining this progress will require continued oversight and effective communication with residents. In this case, the landlord should ensure it keeps the resident informed about inspection outcomes and any further actions taken. Doing so would help rebuild trust and support a more constructive relationship.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged that cleaning standards were poor between May and September 2023 and took steps to improve performance. However, it did not engage with the resident’s individual reports at the time of offer any compensation for the disruption she experienced. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor cleaning of the communal areas.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of cleaning in the communal areas.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 July 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 46 working days later – significantly outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 September 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 49 working days later, also exceeding its complaints policy timescales.
We appreciate that a cyber incident can disrupt an organisation’s operations, and it is reasonable for an organisation to pause its usual processes while it implements plans to manage the impact. However, the length of time it took the landlord to respond at both stages of the complaints process was unacceptable. The lack of timely updates reflected a pattern of poor complaint handling and oversight, likely causing frustration and inconvenience for the resident, particularly given the wider context of her complaint.
The landlord paid the resident a total of £100 for the delays in responding to her complaint at both stages. While the delays were significant and likely caused frustration, we are satisfied that the redress offered was reasonable in the circumstances and broadly in line with what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident if it had not done so already.
We therefore find that the landlord has provided reasonable redress in response to concerns about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s service charge queries.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor cleaning in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. This is in addition to the £150 already paid, bringing the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £250
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of cleaning in the communal areas
2. Provide the resident with a clear written response to her query about the arrangement of bulky waste collections. This response must confirm if the approach suggested by the resident (whether a single photo of all items could be submitted to reduce the number of visits) is feasible or already in use, and, if not, set out why. The response must also clarify how the landlord ensures bulky waste services are managed efficiently and in a way that reflects its charging approach.
3. Review the repair records for the 2021/22 accounting period and confirm whether a fault with the communal lighting was reported and addressed. If the fault was not resolved, the landlord should write to the resident to explain how it considered this when applying or upholding the communal electricity charge. Its response should also clarify how it ensures communal electricity charges reflect a functioning and maintained service.
4. Review the disputed pest control charge from the 2021/22 accounting period and provide a clear written explanation to the resident. This must confirm whether the second invoice was correctly apportioned to her. If the resident provides the names or addresses of others she believes were not charged correctly, the landlord must investigate and confirm whether her charge aligns with its standard apportionment process.
The landlord must ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure it keeps the resident informed about future estate inspection outcomes and any further actions taken to improve and maintain cleaning standards. Doing so would help rebuild trust and support a more constructive relationship.