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

Take part in the consultation

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202330432)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330432

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

24 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its concierge service.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block. The landlord provides a concierge service, with the cost of this service forming part of the resident’s service charge.
  2. On 22 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns with its concierge service. The landlord responded on 24 July 2023, saying it would forward his concerns to the concierge’s manager.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 October 2023 about its concierge’s service. He raised concerns such as the concierge never being at his desk and his availability. He requested the landlord hire a suitable replacement and stop charging for this service.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2023. It explained it was following an internal process to deal with the matter. It said it could not disclose further details but once it had completed the process, it would provide a clearer update. The landlord said it would consider the complaint when it reviewed the actual service charges for the 2023-2024 period.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 November 2023, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2023. It explained the actions it was taking regarding the concierge. It said it had only charged the resident £1.82 for the concierge service during the period 2022-2023. It explained it would review the resident’s concierge service charge when reviewing the actual service charges for the 2023-2024 period. On 13 December 2023, the landlord notified the resident that the concierge had resigned.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He told us on 15 January 2024 that the concierge had left but the landlord had not yet replaced them. He said his concerns related to the service charge for this service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence shows the resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2023 to raise concerns about the concierge. He said the concierge was not informing residents when someone had delivered packages. He explained he had 2 packages delivered on Monday, but the concierge had not notified him. He said he had been unable to contact the concierge, as they were not responding to texts or calls when they were meant to be on duty. The landlord replied to the resident on 24 July 2023. It said the concierge manager was having a meeting with the concierge. It said it would forward the resident’s concerns to the manager.
  2. The resident raised further concerns about not being able to contact the concierge on 31 July 2023. The landlord provided the resident with updates regarding the concierge service on 8 August 2023. It said the concierge was absent due to an unforeseen situation and it would arrange temporary cover until their return.
  3. The resident complained about the concierge service on 23 October 2023. He raised issues with the concierge’s availability and professionalism. He said the concierge never informed residents when they had packages delivered and refused to allow residents to collect packages. The resident said this was unacceptable and he would withhold any service charges until the landlord resolved the issue. He requested the landlord employ someone suited to the role and for it to stop charging residents for the concierge service.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 November 2023. It said it was taking the resident’s complaint very seriously and it needed to follow an internal process to deal with the matter. It explained its HR department had told it that it could not disclose any further information about the process. It said once it had completed the process, it would be able to provide a clearer update, but it set the resident’s expectations that this could take months. The landlord said when it reviewed the service charges, it would not charge residents if it identified service failure in the service provided. It explained it would consider the resident’s complaint when reviewing the actual service charges for 2023-2024 period.
  5. The landlord’s response demonstrates it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously by following its internal process regarding the concierge’s performance. It was reasonable the landlord did not disclose the details of a confidential internal process which involved personal, sensitive, and employment information.
  6. While the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response slightly outside the timescales of its policy, there is no evidence this was detrimental to the resident.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 November 2023 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said it had failed to be transparent regarding the concierge. He explained this was a problem for all residents that had been ongoing for too long.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2023. It apologised for the resident having to complain about the concierge service. The landlord explained it was able to confirm it was going through performance management with the concierge, and it had raised the resident’s concerns directly with them. It said it had a plan in place to monitor the concierge performance closely and should they fail to comply with the plan, they would be subject to a formal process. It told the resident the process can sometimes be lengthy, as it had to follow employment law and processes.
  9. The landlord’s response acknowledged the resident had previously raised concerns regarding the concierge in July 2023. It explained the concierge had a long period of absence, but that it continued the performance management of its employee on their return to work. It asked the resident to continue to provide it with examples of where the resident was unhappy with the concierge service.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident had challenged the service charge for the concierge service. It said during the 2022-2023 period the estimated concierge charge was £31,098 but it had only charged residents a total of £295.57. It said the resident’s share of this was £1.82. The landlord explained under the terms of the lease, the resident was responsible for paying for services. However, it confirmed when it reviewed the actual service charges for the 2023-2024 period around October 2024, it would not charge residents if it identified a service failure. It said it would consider the resident’s comments and use any evidence uncovered as part of the ongoing process with the concierge when it reviewed the actual service charges.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response was thorough and reasonably addressed the issues the resident raised regarding the concierge and service charges. The landlord explained the actions it was taking regarding the concierge and set the resident’s expectation regarding the process it had to follow, as well as the possible timescales for this. In addition, it confirmed it would review the service charges for the concierge service when it reviewed the actual service charges for that financial year.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord updated the resident on the concierge situation as agreed in its complaint responses. It emailed the resident on 13 December 2023 to make him aware the concierge had resigned. It said the concierge’s last day would be 11 January 2024 and that it would consult with all residents on the concierge service as this has a direct impact on their service charge.
  13. On 30 September 2024, the landlord provided the resident with details of his actual service charges for the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Analysis of this shows the landlord estimated the concierge charge for this period at £31,098. However, the residents actual charge for this service was £0. Therefore, the landlord did not charge the resident for the concierge service during the above period. It was appropriate that the landlord kept to its agreement in its complaint responses to review the service charges and not charge the resident if it identified a service failure with its concierge service.
  14. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s concerns were reasonable and appropriate. The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and kept to the commitments it made in its complaint responses. This leads to a determination of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its concierge service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with its concierge service.