From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202327024)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327024

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 August 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:
    1. Enquiries about service charges.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The resident is a shared-owner leaseholder and the landlord is a housing association. There is a separate freeholder and an external management company (MC). The MC is responsible for communal maintenance.
  2. The resident pays a service charge for communal maintenance and repairs. It is calculated annually and the resident pays monthly alongside her rent.
  3. On 28 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it had estimated the service charge for the year of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. It had reviewed the actual costs and there was a difference of £559.75 which the resident was asked to pay.
  4. The resident queried this on 6 October 2022 and received a response on 13 January 2023. The landlord said the estimated costs were largely underestimated, and the MC’s financial year runs differently to its own so there was a delay in identifying the shortfall.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 29 August 2023 about the lack of communication and burden put on her to pay an extra charge. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 3 October 2023 it apologised for any distress caused but maintained the additional charge was correct. It said the discrepancy occurred because of the difference in financial years and budget setting. It offered £130 compensation (£50 for the delay in responding to the original query and £80 for the delayed stage 1 response).
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 October 2023 and the landlord responded on 27 October 2023. It said it did not have control over the charges set by the MC, but it was trying to improve communication and set its budget as close to the real figures as possible. It said it understood the resident’s frustration and would try to prevent future large deficits.
  7. In her referral to us the resident said she wanted the additional charge removed from her account as it was due to the landlord’s mismanagement.

Assessment and findings

Service charge queries

  1. The actual service charge bill sent to the resident on 28 September 2022 was detailed. It gave a breakdown of the costs and explained why there was a difference between the estimated and actual charges. The level of detail and explanation was appropriate and helpful. It is understandable the resident felt shocked at being asked to pay an additional £559.75, but the landlord took appropriate steps to clarify why the charge was being levied.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2022 to voice concerns and said residents should have been informed much earlier. She asked what the new charge was based on and questioned why it was only coming to light now. The landlord acknowledged her email on 10 November 2022 and said it was working through a backlog of queries. It did not provide a full response to the resident’s query until 13 January 2023. This was unacceptable and a failure in service.
  3. In its response the landlord explained that the MC’s financial year and budget runs from July to June, whereas the landlord’s runs from April to March. Therefore, the landlord estimates the service charge and bills the resident before receiving the actual accounts from the MC. The landlord acknowledged there may have been miscommunication that resulted in inaccurate estimates and said it would aim to be more accurate in the future. It was positive the landlord recognised the issue but it was frustrating for the resident who still had to pay an unexpected large additional sum.
  4. We have received a copy of the landlord’s letter to the resident dated 13 January 2023. The resident said she did not receive it until it was forwarded to her on 25 August 2023. On this date a member of landlord staff spoke to the resident over the phone and explained the situation. This was positive to ensure understanding and gave the opportunity for questions. The resident described this phone call as helpful.
  5. While the complaints process was ongoing regarding the 2021/2022 service charge, the resident received another bill on 18 September 2023 for the year 2022/2023. She was understandably frustrated to be asked to pay another £254.27, which was again due to a deficit between estimated and actual service costs.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2023 asking for a breakdown in costs. She was not happy about being asked for more money months after the end of the financial year and believed the landlord should manage its finances better.
  7. The landlord was responsive and replied the following day. It gave a detailed breakdown of costs and offered to explain them in a phone call, which was appropriate. It said it had to rely on service charge amounts from the previous year when billing residents. At that point it does not have the actual figures from the MC and so estimates can never be 100% accurate. The resident said it was unfair for residents to suffer financial burden and uncertainty due to differences in how the landlord and MC manage their finances. Her position was understandable.
  8. The lease is clear that the resident should pay variable service charges. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask for this money and any shortfalls. However it is not fair for residents to be told they have not paid enough, months after the financial period. While the MC’s costs and budget are somewhat out of the landlord’s control, it results in stress and anxiety for the resident. Better planning and communication between the 2 agencies may mitigate this.
  9. The landlord has been responsive to this and promised the resident improvement in communication. This is positive. It said there will be greater transparency and monitoring of budgets to identify any gaps sooner. It said it is monitoring expenditure on a regular basis rather than annually. This should improve the process and ensure the resident is not asked to pay further unexpected large amounts.
  10. Due to the 3 month delay in responding to the resident’s initial concerns, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of her service charge queries. It is noted that the landlord has since been more responsive and has explained the charges and accounts, by email and over the phone. While the landlord did offer £50 compensation for this initial delay, this sum was not quite proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the uncertainty around the large additional charge.
  11. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 previously offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure in service that does not cause permanent impact but causes inconvenience, time and trouble. The delay in the landlord’s initial response meant the resident did not fully know the reason for the discrepancy in service charge, which was to cost her a significant amount of money.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s complaint of 29 August 2023 was not logged or acknowledged until 25 September 2023, which was unreasonable. This contravened the landlord’s policy which says a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
  2. The policy goes on to say that a stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days. While it was issued within this timeframe from the point it was logged, it was 25 working days after the resident complained. This was a failure in service.
  3. The content of the stage 1 response was thorough and the resident described it as ‘thoughtful’. The landlord offered £80 compensation for the delay which was reasonable. That sum is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure that did not affect the substantive issue.
  4. The stage 2 response was issued 10 working days after escalation and within the landlord’s target timescale. The response was detailed and helpful and explained the landlord’s position. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and said how it is working to prevent future large service charge deficits. This was appropriate.
  5. The landlord offered reasonable redress regarding its complaint handling. It is recommended that the landlord pay the £80 compensation offered at stage 1. This is to recognise the failure in service and inconvenience caused by the delay in logging and responding to the formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered) for the delay in responding to the service charge query.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £80 compensation previously offered for its complaint handling delays, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.