Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202320150)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320150

Platform Housing Group Limited

7 March 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning of communal areas.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat, within a block of flats. The resident pays a service charge for cleaning of communal areas.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 May 2023. He said the communal areas of the building were not being cleaned. The landlord acknowledged his email the same day.
  3. On 20 June 2023 the resident sent a complaint to the landlord. He said the landlord had not replied to his email.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 July 2023. It offered £75 compensation for not replying to his email from May 2023. It said it had visited the building and found the cleaning was not up to standard.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 July 2023.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 1 September 2023. It increased its compensation offer to £100 for not replying to his email from May 2023. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the building not being cleaned.
  7. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, he pays a weekly service charge to the landlord for it cleaning communal areas within the building.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 May 2023. He said communal areas of the building had not been cleaned, even though he paid a service charge for it. The landlord replied the same day. It said it would investigate the matter and reply within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord did not reply, so the resident complained to it on 20 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 27 June 2023. It asked him to explain what service he felt he was not receiving. 
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 June 2023. He said he was paying £10.04 a week for a communal cleaning service charge. He said the building had been cleaned a maximum of 4 times in the previous 2 years. He asked for a refund of the service charge.
  5. The landlord recorded on 4 July 2023 its cleaning contractor told it they cleaned the building every week. On 6 July 2023 the landlord inspected the building. It recorded on 11 July 2023 that certain areas had been neglected. It said it had informed the cleaning contractor.
  6. The landlord sent a response at stage 1 of its complaint process to the resident on 11 July 2023. It apologised and offered £75 compensation for not replying to his email of 31 May 2023. It said its contractor had confirmed the building was cleaned every week, but its inspection of 6 July 2023 showed it had not been up to its standards. It said it had informed the contactor, and he should notice an improvement in the cleaning going forward.
  7. A review of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows it acknowledged it had failed to reply to the resident’s email from May 2023. It apologised and offered £75 compensation, which was in line with its redress policy. Although it was positive the landlord informed its cleaning contractor it had found sub-standard cleaning at its property, it did not apologise to the resident, nor was redress offered for the failing. The landlord’s failure to apologise and offer compensation to the resident for the communal cleaning not being up to standard was unreasonable.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2023. He said the contractor had not cleaned the communal areas of the building properly for about 2 years. He said he wanted a refund of the £1,040 service charges he had paid during that time. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 August 2023.
  9. On 1 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised again for not replying to his email in May 2023, and increased its compensation offer to £100.
  10. The landlord said its contractor told it they had cleaned the building between 1.5 and 3 hours a week for the previous 3 years. It again said it had inspected the building on 6 July 2023. However, this time the landlord said it did not uphold his complaint about the standard of cleaning. It said it found the standard to be reasonable, although it also said it removed cobwebs from the entrance doorway and a corner wall. It said a manager would make regular spot checks to ensure the standard of cleaning was met. It said it would not refund the resident’s communal cleaning service charge. 
  11. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response shows it apologised again and offered increased compensation for not replying to the resident’s contact in May 2023. However, the landlord’s changed decision regarding the standard of cleaning was confusing, especially as it highlighted failures to clean areas. The landlord’s failure to apologise or recognise the shortcomings from the cleaning of communal areas was unreasonable.
  12. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint.
  13. In summary, the resident first raised issues with the landlord’s cleaning of communal areas in May 2023. It did not initially investigate the matter, but following his complaint it apologised and offered £75 compensation. That offer was in line with its redress policy, as was its increased offer of £100 made in its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. The resident’s complaint prompted the landlord to check whether its contractor had been cleaning the building. It confirmed the building had been cleaned each week, but it recorded it was not up to standard. It told the resident it had raised the issue with the contractor in its stage 1 complaint response. However, when the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord told him that the cleaning had been of a reasonable standard, despite saying areas of the building had not been cleaned. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave inconsistent information by saying the cleaning standard was reasonable, when it had previously said it was not the case.
  15. Although the landlord confirmed it would ensure the standard of cleaning would improve, it did not apologise or offer redress to the resident in either of its complaint responses for the standard of cleaning it found in the building. The landlord’s stage 2 response was confusing and contradictory and did not appropriately address the resident’s complaint. These failures lead to a determination of maladministration. An order for compensation has been made below. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £350 compensation directly to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord may deduct the sum of £100 awarded as part of its internal complaint’s procedure, if already paid. The balance outstanding must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.