A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202418458)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418458

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

10 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 5 May 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat with a shared communal garden.
  2. It is clear there has been a long standing issue with the garden maintenance at the property which led the landlord to agree, some years prior to this complaint, that it would only mow half of the lawn leaving the other half to grow as a wild meadow.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 April 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. She contacted the landlord every year about her dissatisfaction with the upkeep of the communal areas, for which she was paying a service charge.
    2. The garden was not being maintained properly with contractors attending and completing half the work, including only mowing half the garden and not completing additional garden works.
    3. As a resolution she requested the landlord have clear communication with the contractors to define the necessary works and to clarify the expectations of residents in the block.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 April 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed its property services contractor attended fortnightly to carry out an array of grounds maintenance.
    2. The contractor attended on 17 April 2024 but only cut half the grass due to the ongoing concerns between different resident’s but confirmed all areas were litter picked and swept, and it provided images from the day.
    3. It had consulted all residents on the use of the shared garden and whether they would like the whole area mown in line with its specification, or left as it was with the back half of the garden left as a wild meadow. The residents had until 8 May 2024 to respond.
  5. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 20 May 2024, and the landlord provided its response on 18 June 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. It had completed 3 consultations with all residents with regards to the mowing of the lawn. Only the resident responded and therefore without a majority it could not make a change to its service.
    2. It did not uphold the complaint and advised the resident if she was unhappy with the consultation she could discuss the issue with her neighbours directly.
  6. In referring the complaint to us, the resident said she wanted the contractors to complete all the garden maintenance as per the agreed specification and that the landlord provide support to the contractors to complete the works without disruption. She also requested the landlord undertake a site visit to engage with residents to work towards resolving the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said she had reported ongoing issues with the garden for over 7 years. However, we may only consider complaints which we were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the issue around the time of the complaint from April 2024 until the stage 2 response in June 2024.
  2. In referring the complaint to us, the resident said the issue with the garden maintenance had an adverse impact on her mental health. We do not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a causal link between the garden issues and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.

  1. The resident raised concerns about the garden maintenance to the landlord on 19 April 2024. This was due to ongoing concerns about the maintenance company only mowing half the lawn. As a direct consequence of the resident’s concerns, the landlord reached out to all residents in the block to consult on a change in the current mowing process. Given the concerns raised, it was reasonable of the landlord to consult all the residents in the block on the issue to decide whether it should amend its gardening provision or not.
  2. The landlord undertook the consultation 3 times and after each occasion the only respondent was the resident. After the first response, concerns were raised about the inability of some residents to reply using the form given and so the landlord helpfully sent out 2 further consultations using different methods. Firstly, it was appropriate of it to reissue the consultation following accessibility concerns. Secondly, undertaking the consultation 3 times gave all resident’s ample opportunity to respond.
  3. It was therefore reasonable that after 3 consultations and only 1 response, the landlord concluded that without a majority asking for change, the agreement to only mow half of the lawn remain in place.
  4. Furthermore, it helpfully advised the resident, in its stage 2 response, that if she was unhappy with the outcome, she could discuss the issue with the neighbours herself.
  5. In investigating the complaint, the landlord also confirmed that the contractor was attending as per its speciation, fortnightly and that it was completing the works needed. It also helpfully provided photographic evidence from the contractor to confirm that it had completed the works.
  6. Furthermore, we can see from the evidence provided that the contractor was attending and completing works. It provided evidence to the landlord following each visit and so therefore the landlord was entitled to conclude that its contractors were completing works as it requested them to do so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.