A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202334552)

Background

1. The resident lives in a development consisting of 2 blocks of flats. Each block has a communal bin room. She had reported to the landlord that the areas were dirty, needed repairs and were not big enough for the 2 blocks. She was unhappy that she had to pay service charges associated with the areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the communal bin rooms and associated service charges.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:

a.             maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal bin rooms and associated service charges

b.             maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord repeatedly failed to act on its commitments, provide timely updates, and deliver services in line with its obligations. It made some offer of redress, but this did not go far enough in putting things right.
6. The landlord had not responded in line with its complaint policy or the Code. Its offer of redress did not go far enough to put this right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we didn’t investigate

7. The resident was unhappy with the service charge for the communal bin room. She felt the charges are unfair because the landlord has not addressed the reported issues. We cannot decide whether the charge is too high or rule on its reasonableness, as this is a matter for a court or the First-tier Tribunal. Our investigation focused on how the landlord handled her query and whether it provided clear and transparent information.
8. We understand the resident reported issues with the communal bin room since moving in during 2015. For fairness, this investigation focused on complaints and follow up responses made between January 2023 and September 2024. This approach is proportionate and allows us to assess the most recent issues that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have used instances prior to this for context when assessing the landlord’s service.

What we did investigate

Bin room size

9. In the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible to ensure the communal parts, like bin rooms, are fit for use. When the resident made complaint 1 it was proportionate for the landlord to arrange a visit to understand her concerns. It acknowledged the areas were too small and agreed to apply for a larger bin store. This showed its willingness to find a long-term solution. It also agreed to write to residents about fly-tipping as an interim measure, but we have not seen evidence it did this. These actions would have reassured her that it was addressing her concerns.
10. However, the landlord did not provide timescales for the larger bin store or explain the steps involved. Internal emails in September 2023 confirmed that a long-term solution would require merging the 2 existing bin rooms and obtaining a quote. This was not progressed causing further inconvenience as she continued to report issues.
11. In later complaints, the landlord failed to take the opportunity to update her on why this had not progressed. When the resident asked for an update, the landlord gave no information. This was not appropriate and caused her frustration.
12. On 24 September 2024, the landlord wrote to residents to consult on proposed improvements to the bin rooms, including using space from an unused parking area. This reflected a commitment to finding a sustainable solution and raised the resident’s expectations. The resident told us recently, the landlord didn’t follow through with this or give updates. The landlord has not provided evidence of progress either. This left the resident disappointed and reduced trust.
13. In complaint 1, the resident said the council had identified the number of bins needed for the area. The landlord did not respond to this point, which likely caused disappointment. She raised it again in complaint 3, the landlord offered for the team to visit when next in the area, but this lacked clarity on when this would be. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to investigate this further to put things right. It only agreed to follow up on this issue 15 months later, which was an unreasonable delay. However, the resident confirmed the landlord had not made any changes. The landlord has not provided further updates on this either. This caused further inconvenience and frustration.
14. The landlord’s approach to the bin room size was unreasonable. It failed to progress this within an acceptable time and keep the resident updated. She continued to report issues which could be linked to the need for the area to be bigger. This caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to act on its own commitments and to resolve the known issue represents poor service.

Repairs to bin rooms

15. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the communal bin rooms where the resident lived.
16. She reported a bin room door repair in October 2023, and the landlord completed it within its 20-day target. When she later reported the other bin room doors needed replacing, the landlord completed this outside policy timescales. She raised the door repairs in her complaints, but the landlord’s responses were unclear and provided no specific date of when it would resolve the issue. This caused frustration as the repair was linked to the residents ongoing concerns regarding the bin rooms.
17. The resident said she complained about the lack of bin room lights for a prolonged time, but the landlord did not provide records of her reports or its actions. Due to its poor record keeping we can’t be certain what happened. However, we consider it likely the issue with the lights wasn’t resolved in line with its policy as that is what the evidence shows throughout the period. Despite reporting the lights 3 times in her complaints, and the landlord confirming 3 dates for the lighting to be resolved after its stage 2 response, the landlord completed no work. This likely caused further frustration that the landlord failed to act on its own commitment to resolve the lighting issue.
18. She reported blocked drains outside the bin room caused issues with access, but the landlord could not provide records of her reports or its actions. As the records are incomplete, we can’t confirm exactly what happened. Based on the evidence, the landlord didn’t resolve the drainage issue in line with its policy during the period we reviewed. When she raised the drains within complaint 1, the landlord failed to respond. This was a missed opportunity to put things right, and caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. When she raised it again in complaint 2, the landlord confirmed a repair date within its policy timescales, which was reasonable.
19. The landlord failed to meet its repair responsibilities for the bin rooms, which led to delays and uncertainty for the resident. It missed chances during the complaint process to give clear updates or fix the problems. This left the resident unsure if her reports would be actioned and meant she had to spend extra time and effort chasing the landlord.

Cleaning

20. The landlord’s Environmental Services Policy confirms it is responsible for communal cleaning and bulk refuse and fly tipping removal. Its cleaning specification stated its frequency of tasks in relation to refuse disposal facilities. In its complaint responses it repeatedly referred to dates that it had completed cleaning and deep cleans, to show the resident it was following the specification. However, it did not provide records of its attendance in line with this specification to us. Due to its poor record keeping we can’t be certain what services it provided. The available evidence indicates the cleaning did not meet the specification during the timeframe assessed.
21. The resident raised concerns about the cleanliness of the bin rooms in all 4 complaints. Evidence shows her consistently reporting the bin rooms being full and needing to be cleared and sanitized. The landlord highlighted poor cleanliness in an inspection report in September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the issues in its responses, but did not learn from her reports, or take effective action to resolve the problem. Best practice actions could have involved resident engagement, signage or increased cleans but we have seen no evidence this was done.
22. The resident told the landlord twice she cleaned the area herself due to ongoing problems. While the landlord confirmed she was not insured to do so, it failed to address its own responsibility or provide a plan to prevent this. While it reasonably offered reimbursement of cleaning costs, its response was still imbalanced and a missed opportunity for it to put it right.
23. Its Repairs policy required it to attend health and safety risks within 24 hours. The resident specifically complained the delayed bin room clearance in July 2024 included hazardous waste. The delay in the landlord actioning her request to clear the hazardous waste resulted in significant inconvenience and distress as she undertook the cleaning herself. It confirmed in its response that it did not meet the correct timescales, so it was appropriate that it apologised.

Pest control

24. The landlord’s policy at the time stated it would investigate reports of infestations in communal areas. We have not seen evidence of how it responded to the resident’s pest reports, although its initial response confirmed it had logged a job for pest control. While this showed the landlord acknowledged the report, providing timescales or an appointment would have offered greater reassurance, particularly given the wider context of the complaint.
25. When the resident reported a fly infestation on 9 August 2024, she explained the impact this was having. Although the landlord’s Repairs policy did not say how pest reports should be handled, it would have been reasonable to treat this as urgent given the health concerns. The landlord did not arrange pest control until 22 August 2024, which was unreasonable. This delay left the resident to tackle the problem herself, causing significant inconvenience and adding to the distress she was already experiencing.

Service charge

26. The resident repeatedly raised concerns about service charges and bin room costs. The landlord failed to respond to her queries promptly, including requests for receipts, despite its policy requiring replies within 20 working days.
27. It only clarified in September 2024, 11 months after her initial request, that receipts were not provided to general needs residents, which was an unreasonable delay.
28. Poor record keeping meant we cannot confirm what services the landlord delivered, but evidence shows it did not meet the specification. It acknowledged an error in service charge calculations and explained bulk refuse costs, which was reasonable. The delays and unclear communication caused prolonged inconvenience and frustration, requiring the resident to escalate complaints and chase responses repeatedly. The uncertainty over charges and lack of progress on the wider bin room issue likely reduced her confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage services effectively.
29. Overall, the landlord failed to meet its responsibilities for maintaining and cleaning the bin rooms, addressing pest issues promptly, and responding to service charge queries within reasonable timescales. Poor record keeping and lack of clear communication led to delays, uncertainty, and repeated escalation. These failings caused significant inconvenience and frustration for the resident. She had to chase responses and take action herself which would have undermined her confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage services effectively.
30. Across the 4 complaints it was appropriate the landlord offered a total of £700 compensation to recognise the impact the issue had on the resident. However, we are aware the resident is still waiting for a long-term solution to the bin room issues. There has continued to be a prolonged delay since the landlord first identified what it needed to do to put it right in June 2023, which has caused further frustration and distress for the resident.
31. This shows a continued failing by the landlord to do what it said it would during the complaints process. The landlord failed to learn from its previous mishandling of the issue, and in doing so further undermined the landlord and resident relationship.

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Both the 2020 and 2024 Codes are relevant Code in this case. Our findings are:
33. The landlord has a published Complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales. Its Compensation policy allowed payments for failure to follow its complaint policy or procedure.
34. The resident submitted 4 complaints between January 2023 and August 2024.
35. The landlord acknowledged complaint 1 within its policy timescales, but it took 16 working days to provide a response. It did not acknowledge this delay or offer any redress, which was not appropriate.
36. Despite 5 requests by the resident, it refused to escalate complaint 1, as it said its policy said it would not investigate new issues at stage 2. This was not proportionate as the resident’s escalation reasons included matters that the landlord investigated at stage 1. This caused frustration as her concerns were not being fully addressed. For this reason, the decision not to escalate the complaint was unreasonable and not in line with the Code.
37. The landlord acknowledged complaint 2 within 9 working days, which was outside its policy timescales but responded within 8 working days. However, it took 19 working days to acknowledge the resident’s request for escalation, and a further 64 working days to issue its response. These delays were unreasonable and not in line with its policy. The landlord did acknowledge the delays and offered £100 for the inconvenience caused, which was reasonable.
38. The landlord acknowledged complaint 3 within 2 working days, but took 16 working days to provide a response. When the resident requested escalation of her complaint it took 68 working days to acknowledge this. It took 15 working days to provide a response. These delays were unreasonable, and not in line with its policy. It acknowledged the delay in escalation and offered £25 for the inconvenience caused.
39. The landlord acknowledged complaint 4 within 4 working days, it took 1 working day to respond. It took 8 working days to acknowledge her stage 2 request and took 18 working days to respond. Although there were delays, the impact on the resident would have been minimal.
40. The landlord’s policy says it will address all the points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord’s responses were often incomplete, resulting in the resident having to escalate her concerns, continue to chase for updates and log new complaints. This caused significant frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
41. The landlord’s complaint handling, when considered as a whole, amounted to maladministration. The £125 compensation offered for its complaint handling delays does not reflect the adverse impact this had on the resident therefore, in line with our remedies guidance we have made an order for further compensation.

Learning

42. It is important for landlords to adhere to both its complaint handling policy and the Code. Failing to do so resulted in delayed responses, and it impacted the resident in this case.
43. Where the landlord commits to an action to resolve a resident’s query, it should complete this. Failing to keep the resident updated on its commitment to increase the bin room size undermined the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord either did not keep, or did not provide us with, sufficiently detailed records of its cleaning schedules, pest control visits, and repairs. As well as hampering our investigations, inadequate record keeping can limit its ability to resolve complaints. It should have maintained clear and accurate record of these events. As such, the landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices, with consideration being given to our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

45. The landlord should communicate clearly and promptly with residents. Delays and lack of updates caused unnecessary inconvenience in this case.