A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202307075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307075

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 July 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:
   1. handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. handling of repairs to external communal doors.
   3. handling of the installation of CCTV.
   4. response to service charge queries.
   5. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident had a shared ownership lease dated 4 April 2008. She moved into the property, a 1-bedroom flat within a block, in August 2018. The block is connected to another one, which the landlord lets out to tenants on a ‘general needs’ basis. The resident sold the property in November 2024.
3. Between May and November 2022 the resident raised concerns about her service charge account, which included a ‘stage 1 complaint’ on 10 October 2022. The main issues were a service charge refund ordered by a tribunal and concerns about people damaging communal areas of the block. She said there was no CCTV, and the landlord was not taking any action to address the issue.
4. In May 2023 the resident made another formal complaint. She said some areas still did not have CCTV, the communal front door was broken, and intruders were still hanging around. In July 2023 she reported that ASB was still happening daily and that people were accessing the communal areas and causing a nuisance.
5. On 23 August 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
   1. There was a delay due to a new contractor, which affected the door repair.
   2. It fixed the door on 9 August 2023, and kept residents informed.
   3. It acknowledged the delays in installing the CCTV and said this would be done as a priority and at no cost to residents.
   4. It had carried out a door-knocking exercise, and 90% of residents said they felt safe in their homes.
   5. It had worked with the police and visited a number of households after identifying people responsible for ASB.
   6. It apologised for not responding to an incident reported in May 2023 and offered £80 compensation in recognition.
   7. A leasehold team member would contact the resident about her service charge concerns.
6. In August and September 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said the CCTV was still not operating fully and that ASB was still happening. She asked for more compensation. On 26 October 2023, following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 2. We explained that the complaint also included concerns about her service charge account. And delays in repairing the communal front doors.
7. The landlord issued two stage 2 final responses on 15 and 23 November 2023. In summary, it said:
   1. It apologised for the late response.
   2. The time taken to install the CCTV was unacceptable, and it had not given the resident clear information about when it would be completed.
   3. The area housing manager would provide fortnightly updates on the progress of the CCTV installation.
   4. It acknowledged that delays in the installation of the CCTV had made it harder to monitor ASB.
   5. Its ASB manager would contact the resident by 24 November 2023 to discuss her concerns.
   6. The resident should also report ASB to the police, and it would send a letter to those living in the area about these issues.
   7. A community partner was working on a youth engagement plan to reduce ASB.
   8. One of the external communal doors could be opened from the outside, and it had raised an urgent repair for this.
   9. It applied credits to the resident’s rent and service charge account in line with the tribunal order at the end of September 2022, and a refund was issued on 19 October 2022.
   10. It would increase its offer of compensation to £250. £100 for time and trouble pursuing this matter and £150 for stress and inconvenience.
8. In her November 2023 referrals to us, the resident said ASB was still happening. She felt that without CCTV, unwanted visitors would continue to access the block. She also said the service charge refund she received had nothing to do with the tribunal order and was for 2021/2022 charges. She recently explained that she felt she had no choice but to sell her property, which caused her financial loss. She said the situation affected her mental health, and she wanted compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. We may not investigate complaints about the level of a service charge. Paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says: ‘The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.’
10. However, we will consider complaints in the context of a member landlord’s management of service charge accounts and handling of enquiries relating to service charges. Concerns about the level of service charges may be more appropriately dealt with by the First Tier Tribunal for arbitration. This investigation will focus on whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns and queries about her service charges appropriately.
11. The resident also said that the landlord’s handling of these matters affected her mental health. In this case, we cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being. This is better suited for a court to decide. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused to the resident.

Handling of reports of ASB

12. When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures and what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB within a reasonable timescale.
13. The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 10 October 2022. She said that ‘intruders’ were causing damage to the communal areas and to the stairwell lighting. She said she had reported this before, but it is unclear how many times or when. Still, the landlord responded promptly to this report. It asked her for the time and dates of the incident to check the CCTV footage and identify who was responsible. This was a reasonable initial response. The landlord tried to gather more evidence and also told the resident to contact the police. In the circumstances, these actions were appropriate.
14. On 24 April 2023 the landlord sent a letter to residents in the block. It said it would carry out a survey on 29 April 2023, asking residents how they felt about their neighbourhood. Although it is unclear what prompted the landlord to carry out this survey, given the past issues, this was a fair approach.
15. From May to July 2023, the resident kept reporting the same problems. It appeared that in response, the landlord sent a warning letter about loitering and damage to the communal areas. This was reasonable. It followed its ASB policy, which includes warning letters as a tool to resolve ASB. There is also evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment, which was appropriate.
16. The landlord also met with residents in June 2023, listened to their concerns and gave out a newsletter in July 2023. This newsletter explained the issues, what was expected of residents, and what action the landlord was taking. These were fair and proportionate steps.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had carried out a door-knocking exercise and found that 90% of its residents felt safe in their homes. These results were likely linked to its April 2023 survey. However, we have seen no evidence to support this. The landlord also said it worked with the police and visited several households to speak to those responsible for ASB. While these were appropriate actions to take, we have not seen evidence that supports this, which indicates issues with the landlord’s record-keeping. However, we have made no orders in this respect. This is because we have made a number of record-keeping orders for the landlord and have seen that it has taken steps to improve this.
18. The landlord also acted appropriately by acknowledging in its stage 1 response that it had failed to respond to an incident in May 2023 and offered £80 compensation. This was fair.
19. The resident suggested she felt forced to sell her property because of the ASB. We understand this situation caused her distress. However, the landlord was not directly responsible for this decision. On the whole, it took reasonable and proportionate steps to deal with the issues. We also found that it followed through on its commitments made in its November 2023 final response by trying to contact the resident to address her concerns, as well as working on a youth engagement plan.
20. In its final response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £150 for stress and inconvenience. This appeared to be in recognition of its handling of ASB and delays in installing CCTV. However, it is unclear how it was apportioned, which was confusing. Nevertheless, we consider the total amount was fair given its shortcomings. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of ASB.

Handling of requests for repairs to external communal doors

21. The landlord failed to deal properly with the resident’s requests for repairs to the external communal doors. On 3 May 2023 the resident said she had asked for an urgent repair nearly 2 weeks earlier because the communal front doors were not locking. The landlord agreed this was an urgent matter. It responded on 15 May 2023 and said the repair had been open for some time. It said its contractor was supposed to attend on 12 May 2023 and return the next day to secure the doors. However, there is no evidence that this happened. This caused frustration to the resident, who felt the landlord was lying to her.
22. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord’s stage 1 response suggested the doors were fixed following an inspection on 9 August 2023, more than 3 months after the resident raised this issue. This was considerably outside the landlord’s policy timescales.
23. Even after August 2023 the doors continued to be a problem. Its records showed that multiple residents made numerous complaints about the communal doors over many years. And it appeared to still be an issue after the landlord’s final response. The resident regularly mentioned that ‘intruders’ were accessing the block. This concern was supported by the landlord’s final response, in which it said that one of the external doors could be opened from outside and that it would raise an urgent repair. This would have caused distress to the resident who was concerned about people accessing the block.
24. It is also unclear if the landlord kept to this urgent repair commitment. Its repair records only showed that the job was ‘financially complete’ but gave no date or details of what work was done or when. Overall, it failed to meet its own timescales, and it allowed problems with a key access point to continue. This showed a lack of care for the resident’s safety and security.
25. This amounts to maladministration, and we have awarded £150 compensation to put things right. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 should be considered for failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Handling of the installation of CCTV

26. The landlord failed to carry out its commitments to install additional CCTV in the block. On 5 April 2023 it said that it would install additional CCTV by 5 May 2023. This did not happen. As of July 2024, more than a year later, the new CCTV was still not in place.
27. In its stage 1 response in August 2023 the landlord said it would treat the issue as a priority. It also said it would finish its checks by 8 September 2023 and let the resident know when the work would begin. It did not keep to these promises and the resident had to chase for updates. The landlord responded on 19 September 2023, saying it was still waiting on its CCTV contractor but gave no clear timeline or action plan.
28. The landlord’s November 2023 final response acknowledged that the delays were unacceptable. It also said it had not given the resident clear or regular updates and recognised that the lack of CCTV made it harder to deal with ASB in the block. It also said it would update the resident on the progress of the CCTV installation every 2 weeks. However, there is no evidence that this happened.
29. Overall, the delays were unacceptable, and the communication was poor. The CCTV was meant to help improve safety and help the landlord deal with ASB. However, the resident spent time chasing the landlord for updates, and she was left in the dark, not knowing when the work would happen. The landlord failed to manage this situation adequately, which caused frustration to the resident.
30. The landlord offered £150 for stress and inconvenience. This appeared, in part, to relate to delays in installing the CCTV. However, we do not know how much. In any case, this offer does not reflect the adverse effect caused to the resident by the failings identified in this report. The landlord failed to keep to multiple commitments, and the CCTV was outstanding for at least 14 months. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt less secure in her home. Indeed, she felt that without CCTV, unwanted visitors would continue to access the block. It also made it harder to deal with ASB, which the landlord itself admitted.
31. This amounts to maladministration, and we have awarded £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 should be considered where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Response to service charge queries

32. In May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request a refund of her service charge based on a tribunal’s decision earlier that year. Overall, the landlord responded to her queries promptly and within its 20-day service charge policy timescale. However, at times, its responses were confusing. For example, instead of addressing the tribunal order directly, it referred to an unrelated credit from November 2021. This caused time and trouble for the resident who had to ask again for clarification.
33. The landlord then provided the resident with a settlement schedule and said she should already be aware of the refund due. However, it still did not confirm when the refund would appear on her account. This email placed the onus on the resident to interpret the figures rather than providing a clear explanation or update.
34. In January 2023 the landlord provided a statement showing that credit adjustments had been made in September 2022 and a refund applied in October 2022. It confirmed that these were linked to the tribunal decision. The evidence suggested this was the first clear explanation of how the refund had been applied. However, we have seen a copy of the resident’s service charge statement and note that it does not mention the tribunal. Nor is there a covering letter that clearly confirms a refund was made in response to the tribunal order. This meant the resident could not easily verify that the refund related to this.
35. The landlord did provide relevant information, including the settlement schedule and confirmation of refund credits. However, it could have done this sooner. And its responses lacked clarity, causing unnecessary confusion and effort. While we consider the effect of these failures was minimal, the landlord’s response to a service charge query amounted to service failure, and orders are made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

36. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint properly, according to its own complaints policy. The resident first raised a ‘stage 1 complaint’ on 10 October 2022. The landlord responded within a reasonable timescale, but did not treat it as a formal complaint. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy, which says that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. This clearly applied in this case.
37. In May 2023 the resident made a ‘stage 2’ complaint. However, the landlord had not yet responded to the resident’s concerns at stage 1. It issued its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023 – about 3 months later. This was contrary to its stage 1,10-working-day timescale. These delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She believed the complaint should have been at stage 2 by then. It also caused time and trouble for the resident who had to approach our Service for assistance.
38. The landlord failed to acknowledge its errors in its stage 1 response. There were also more delays at stage 2. This was partly because the landlord initially refused to escalate the complaint when the resident asked on 25 August 2023. The landlord said it had to wait for the ‘promise date’ of 8 September 2023 to pass and for the outstanding actions to be completed. This was inappropriate. And its policy clearly says that residents do not need a reason to escalate a complaint.
39. The landlord also failed to meet the commitment it made for 8 September 2023. After that date, the resident again expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. However, the landlord still did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. This meant the resident had to contact us again for help. The landlord issued its final response on 15 November 2023 – more than 2 months after the resident’s initial escalation request.
40. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It initially failed to respond to the resident’s complaint formally, missing several chances to do so. It took over 12 months for the landlord to complete its complaint process, with delays throughout. The landlord also consistently failed to follow its policy. This caused delays in resolving matters. And likely prevented the resident from bringing the complaint to us for investigation sooner.
41. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble pursuing the matter. However, we consider that this does not fully reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report. These failures amount to maladministration, and we have ordered further compensation below.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of requests for repairs to external communal doors.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of CCTV installation.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to service charge queries.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

47. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £625 comprised of:
       1. £100 as offered in its November 2023 final response for the time and trouble pursuing the matter, if it has not already done so.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to external communal doors.
       3. A further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the installation of CCTV.
       4. £50 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s response to service charge queries.
       5. A further £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Provide a clear written explanation to the resident and this Service of the total amount refunded to the resident’s service charge account following the 2022 tribunal order. This should include the dates when the credit was applied and confirmation that these related to the tribunal decision.

Recommendation

48. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for stress and inconvenience as offered in its stage 2 final response, if it has not already done so. This Service has found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, based on it paying this amount.