Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202348335)

Back to Top

 

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348335

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared owner of the landlord since 1992. The resident’s lease says the landlord will charge her for building insurance.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2023. She was concerned it had included additional services in her service charges as she had noticed the cost rising.
  3. The landlord sent its stage one response on 7 February 2024. It confirmed it had only charged the resident for building insurance. It reviewed the charges levied from 2020-2024. It provided the resident with booklets it previously sent for these years. It offered £25 due to the lateness of its stage one letter.
  4. We have not seen the resident’s escalation request. However, in the landlord’s final response letter, it said she asked it to confirm it was only charging her for building insurance and sought to better understand why it had increased.
  5. The final response letter dated 3 April 2024 assessed the charges from 2015 – present. It again confirmed it had only charged the resident for building insurance. It explained the difference between estimates and actual charges, and the deficits and credits on the accounts. The landlord explained the national and global issues facing the insurance market which resulted in increased insurance costs.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to us as she believes the landlord is charging her for additional services. She would like us to investigate further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We recognise the resident reported this has been an issue since 2018. It is our position, however, that any dissatisfaction with a landlord’s service (or lack of) should be raised within 12-months. In our view, this is a reasonable time for the landlord to fairly consider the complaint and draw on accurate, readily available records. We have referenced the issue from 2018. However, this investigation has focussed on 12-months prior to when the resident raised her complaint in November 2023 and the subsequent events up until its final response.
  2. Additionally, it is our view that a more appropriate Service for dealing with the reasonableness of the resident’s service charges is the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). As such we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the reasonableness of the building insurance increase. This investigation has only considered the landlord’s communication and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident can approach the FTT if she wishes to challenge the cost increase further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.

  1. Following a previous complaint in 2017/18, the landlord identified it had previously charged the resident for services she was not liable to pay. It refunded her for these. It recognised its computer system could not differentiate between charges.
  2. The landlord put notes on the system to remind staff about the resident’s charges. It also suggested the resident contact it annually to ensure she was only being charged for building insurance.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord when she noticed her 2023 service charges had increased. She believed it had included additional services again.
  4. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. It:
    1. Responded in both its stage one and final response letter that it only charged her for building insurance.
    2. Checked accounts for the year she queried and also previous years.
    3. Provided the resident with copies of the accounts booklets it had previously sent.
  5. We have seen a copy of the account booklets. In the section for the description of charges, it says ‘insurance’ with the amount charged.
  6. This was a reasonable and transparent way for the landlord to evidence its charges. The landlord stated it only charged the resident for building insurance, which directly responded to her query.
  7. In its final response letter, the landlord responded to the resident’s query about the reasons for the increase in building insurance. It provided a comprehensive explanation for the rise in cost of building insurance.
  8. The landlord said it tried to ensure charges were competitive. However, there were fewer companies providing the housing sector with insurance due to rising claim costs, changes in building safety requirements, national and world events. Reduced levels of competition resulted in higher charges.
  9. The landlord highlighted insurance is a commercial environment which constantly changes. The landlord was clear in the reasons for the increase and the explanation of this.
  10. The landlord provided the resident with full explanatory responses to her queries. It re-issued the booklets to evidence the charges it made. It also provided a full response for why the building insurance had increased. As such we find the landlord provided reasonable response to the resident’s query.
  11. We note the resident does not accept the landlord’s assurances that she is not being charged for any other services, but we have not seen any evidence to challenge the landlord’s position. As mentioned above, if the resident is unhappy with the level or increase in the building insurance, we advise her to contact the FTT.
  12. In accordance with the Scheme we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiry.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised her concerns to the landlord on 18 November 2023. The landlord responded on 22 November 2023 and advised her to contact its leasehold team. The next communication which the landlord provided us with was its stage one response which it sent on 7 February 2024. The landlord identified this was late and awarded the resident £25 in compensation for this.
  2. We have not seen evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will provide a stage one response in 10 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord should have issued its stage one response letter on 7 December 2023. Therefore, it was 2 months late in doing this.
  3. The landlord acknowledged this delay and awarded the resident £25. This was an appropriate award. As such in accordance with the Scheme we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord continues to clearly state in its annual budget and accounts that it is only charging the resident for building insurance. We also recommend the landlord lets the resident know when it updates its computer system to one which can differentiate between service charges. This may reduce the resident’s anxiety as it previously told her to contact annually.
  2. We would emphasise that we have made the reasonable redress finding on the provision the landlord has either paid or offers again to pay the resident the compensation of £25 for its complaint handling failing. If the landlord does not do this, it would undermine the reasonable redress finding and we may revisit this. We would like to see evidence of the landlord making the payment or offering it to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.