A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202333868)

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333868

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

13 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the level of service charges.
2. Request for information about service charges.
3. Concerns about communal repairs.
4. Concerns about communal cleaning.
5. Concerns about the management of anti social behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat which the resident has occupied since March 2022. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the building.
On 31 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to contact her to discuss her service charges. She said she had requested information from the landlord previously but had not received a response. She wanted to query all her service charges but particularly in relation to the cost of electricity, outstanding communal repairs, and management of an ASB case. The landlord logged this as a service charge query and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 18 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the level of service charges. She said she had requested a detailed breakdown of service charges but the information the landlord had provided was incomplete and unclear. She said the landlord had failed to complete communal repairs in a timely manner, failed to complete communal cleaning on a regular basis, and had not managed an ASB report properly including providing regular updates to the resident. The resident said she had reported these issues to the landlord many times since she moved into the property in March 2022.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed it had received the resident’s service charge enquiry on 3 April 2023. It said there had been some communication between its service charge team and the resident but she remained unhappy with the responses and information provided. The landlord said that there had recently been a change of property manager and it would provide a full response to the resident’s queries by 25 September 2023. The landlord accepted it had failed to deliver on some of its promises in relation to the upkeep of the building. This included delayed and poorly executed repairs and decorative works. In recognition, the landlord said it would investigate the possibility of having the management fees reimbursed. It also offered £100 compensation.
On 6 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she had still not received the information regarding her service charges, which the landlord had said it would provide by 25 September 2023. She said the landlord had completed a small number of repairs which she said the landlord had not completed to a satisfactory standard and had not been cost effective. She said she would like the landlord to complete repairs and works in the communal areas to a satisfactory and cost-effective standard. She also said she would like the landlord to sign off on works so that it did not repeatedly bill for poor work.
On 2 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It provided an explanation in relation to the increased estimated costs of electricity for the period of April 2023 to March 2024, which it said was due to the rise in energy costs across the UK. It confirmed it had moved from longer term contracts to shorter term due to the changing market. The landlord accepted it should have provided this information to the resident sooner and apologised for this. It said it had provided invoices to the resident on 24 July 2023, following which the resident had raised further queries on 15 August 2023. The landlord said it would provide a full response to her additional queries by 24 November 2023. In relation to the day-to-day management of the building, the landlord said its leasehold manager had inspected the building and would follow up on the issues raised. It confirmed it would not charge for any return work or follow-on work where it had not completed the work, or completed it, but not to a satisfactory standard. It said it had spoken to its leasehold team to reinforce the expected service levels and its obligation to provide a good service to residents. It apologised that it had not met its service standards and made an offer of £220 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
1. £100 poor communication
2. £120 delay
In communication with this Service the resident said that she had to repeatedly chase the landlord for information regarding her service charges. When she received the information it was difficult to understand. With regards to the communal repairs and cleaning, she said she had reported these issues to the landlord on several occasions, both in person and via the call centre. The first time being when she moved into the property in March 2022. While the landlord had completed most of the repairs and the cleaning had improved, the resident felt it had not appropriately acknowledged the impact the situation had on her. She explained that she had spent a lot of time reporting issues and chasing the landlord for updates. As an outcome she would like it to increase the compensation to recognise this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

We are not free to investigate every complaint brought to us. The rules by which we operate, called the Scheme, set out what we can and cannot investigate. In this case, the resident had raised concerns around the increase in service charges for 2023/24. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme says:

‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern levels of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.’

In addition, under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the complaint concerns matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) can make determinations on all aspects of liability to pay a service charge, including by who, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. However, we have assessed the landlord’s communication and information provided to the resident regarding the service charges. We have also considered the service provided in relation to communal repairs, communal cleaning, and management of the ASB case and whether this was in line with its policy and procedures.

Request for information about service charges

The resident was unhappy with the service the landlord had provided in relation to communal repairs, communal cleaning and management of ASB. She felt the service provided was not value for money. The resident requested information in the form of invoices and repair information so that she could refer the matter to the FTT.
Under the terms of the lease, the resident pays a service charge to the landlord which covers cleaning, lighting, and maintenance of shared areas such as staircases and hallways. The service charge also includes a management fee which covers all costs for managing the building, such as conducting site visits, dealing with queries and requests, and preparing service charge accounts.
The landlord’s service charge policy states that it aims to respond to service charge queries within 20 working days. Further to this, the Ombudsman’s Insight Report on Service Charges from December 2023 states that when a resident queries a service charge, landlords should be able to provide the information in a consumer-friendly format.
On 31 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the service charge estimates and summary, which she had received in February 2023. When she did not receive a response she completed a service charge query form on the landlord’s website, which she submitted on 3 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the service charge query on 17 April 2023 and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 16 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that she was still waiting for the evidence in relation to electricity bills and repair evidence, which she had requested 3 months prior. The landlord responded on 11 July 2023 and said it had logged a service charge dispute. The landlord said it was collating the invoices which the resident had requested, and it hoped to send these to her by the end of that week. The evidence indicates that the landlord sent the invoices to the resident on 24 July 2023. This was 77 working days from the resident’s initial request. This was a failure because it was not within the landlord’s timeframe.
In its covering email the landlord explained that the invoices were confusing as the documents were multi lined and did not show individual blocks. This was another failure because the information provided was not in a consumer-friendly format.
On 15 August 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the information was limited and unclear. She set out further queries which she asked the landlord to respond to. Further to this, on 18 August 2023 the resident submitted a formal request, under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the service charge summary.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would provide a full response to the resident’s initial service charge queries by 25 September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord provided this information, which was a failure.
It was reasonable that the landlord provided an explanation in its stage 2 response regarding the increase in electricity costs. However, it should have provided this much sooner. It also referred to the additional queries which the resident had raised on 15 August 2023 and said it would provide a response by 24 November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord provided this information, which was a failure.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s service charge query within its published timescales, failed to provide the requested information in a consumer-friendly format, and failed to provide full responses to the resident’s service charge queries, despite it agreeing to in its complaint responses. The resident has explained to this Service that she spent a lot of time chasing the landlord for this information. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s requests prevented her from referring the matter to the FTT for further investigation.
The Ombudsman considers the failures outlined to amount to maladministration. The landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Communal repairs

The resident said she first reported the communal repairs to the landlord on the day she moved in, in March 2022. While we have not seen evidence of this, we can see that the resident referred to the outstanding communal repairs in her service charge query in April 2023, where she said they had been outstanding for a year. We can also see that the resident emailed the landlord in relation to her ASB case in June 2023 in which she again referred to the outstanding communal repairs to the window, fire door, peeling paint, and the loose cable, she said she had reported these issues 4 times. It is therefore reasonable to assume the resident’s account is correct. The other communal repairs referred to in the resident’s complaint were as follows:
1. Mould and damp in the hallway/stairway.
2. Missing roof ladder.
3. Stairway handrail, plastic covering coming off.
4. Basement fire door was swollen and would not open or close properly.
Under the terms of the lease, and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas.
The landlord’s repair policy does not give a specific timeframe for completing communal repairs. However, it says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s estate service policy says that it will identify maintenance issues as part of its regular estate inspections. It will then report any identified issues to its contractor for action or inspection. The landlord has not provided its estate inspections from earlier than May 2023 and therefore we are unable to establish if it identified any of these repairs as part of these inspections.
We can see the landlord completed a mould wash in the communal area on 14 June 2023. It completed a repair to the ladder, window, and moved the cable in August 2023 and September 2023. With a final repair to the roof ladder completed in October 2023. The landlord replaced the fire door, although, due to lack of adequate records, we do not know when it completed this.
The landlord should have identified the repairs as part of its routine inspections. It should have then completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe and not rely on the resident bringing them to the landlord’s attention. This is because the repairs were in a communal area and under the landlord’s control. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
The resident has informed us that although the landlord put the cable back onto the roof, it had not fixed it securely and the cable came loose again. The cable is still hanging outside the resident’s window. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord rectify this.
The resident raised concerns about the peeling paint in the communal areas and the plastic on the handrails coming off. It is normal practice for landlords to complete internal decoration of communal areas as part of a cyclical maintenance programme. The lease says the landlord will decorate the common parts of the building so often as it considers necessary. The landlord should have provided an update to the resident on when it planned to complete the redecoration works. It did not do this, which was a failure. We have therefore made an order below to reflect this.
The resident also raised concerns that contractors working in the building did not clear up after themselves, leaving mastic and paint on the floor. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord requires its contractors to remove any rubbish and ensure it leaves the area clear and tidy. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs, if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Landlords should periodically review complaints made and share their outcome with contractors.
In summary, it took the landlord approximately 19 months to complete the communal repairs. There is no evidence upon which we can be satisfied that this delay was reasonable. We consider this to amount to maladministration and the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Communal cleaning

The resident complained that the landlord’s contractor was not completing the communal cleaning on a regular basis and to an acceptable standard. The evidence indicates that the resident reported this to the landlord on 28 June 2023.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
We have not seen the landlord’s communal cleaning policy or procedure and therefore we cannot fully assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy.
The landlord’s estate service policy says that it has an effective system of performance monitoring and it will conduct regular inspections. There is only evidence that the landlord completed one inspection, which was in May 2023. The landlord marked the internal areas as satisfactory or poor standard. The landlord noted that there was only 1 cleaner assigned to the resident’s block.
We can see the landlord completed weekly cleaning visits between April 2023 and November 2023. However, there should be a way that the landlord can evidence what work it completed. Such as completion of work slips. If the landlord was doing this it would know if its contractor had completed the communal cleaning properly because there would be a paper trail to that effect. It would also mean that when it paid an invoice the contractor had completed the work. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
Further to this, the landlord has a duty to ensure value for money in service charge expenditure and it cannot achieve this it is it not monitoring the work properly.
We consider the failures identified to amount to service failure.
We understand that since the resident’s complaint the landlord has put up a cleaning specification sheet in the communal notice board, which sets out what cleaning should take place and how often.

Management of ASB case

The resident complained that the landlord had not managed the ASB from a neighbouring property effectively. She also said that the landlord had not provided her with regular updates.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will:
1. Take a victim centred approach to investigating ASB and may complete a risk assessment with those who have reported the issue.
2. Aim to respond to reports of ASB within 48 hours to take the details and, where possible, agree an action plan.
3. Aim to keep fortnightly contact with all complainants in live cases.
4. Use a variety of remedies to tackle ASB including preventative and enforcement measures.
The policy goes on to explain that, where possible, the landlord will use a range of non-legal remedies to resolve the problem. This may include acceptable behaviour contracts, warnings, offering of support and working with other agencies, such as the police. If the problem persists the landlord may take legal action based on the type of ASB and level of evidence available.
We can see the resident first contacted the landlord in relation to the ASB on 15 August 2022. The report related to noise from neighbours shouting and arguing. The landlord appropriately logged the report and completed a risk assessment, which it recorded as low. The landlord closed the file on the same date, marking it resolved. Due to lack of adequate records we are unable to establish what the landlord did and why it considered it reasonable to close the case at this point. This was a failure.
The resident reported another incident on 31 August 2022. The landlord appropriately logged the case and completed a risk assessment, which it recorded as high. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 22 September 2022 but she was not available, so it sent a text. This was 16 working days after the resident had made her report. This was not appropriate because it was not within the landlord’s timeframe. This was especially concerning because the landlord had marked the risk assessment as high, which meant the landlord should have dealt with the case as a priority. It did not do this which was a failure.
The records indicate it was 4 months before the landlord attempted to contact the resident again in January 2023. This delay was unreasonable, particularly given the risk assessment score.
The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets. This was a reasonable approach because it gave the resident a structured way of recording further incidents. However, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed an action plan with the resident at this time.
Action plans are an important part of managing ASB cases. They provide the resident with details of who will investigate their case, how often the landlord will contact the resident and by which method, what steps the landlord will take to investigate the report and what information the landlord requires from the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did this which was a failure.
It was appropriate that the landlord used a variety of non-legal remedies to try and resolve the ASB. This included speaking to the neighbour, issuing a formal warning, and offering an acceptable behaviour contract.
In April 2023 the landlord appropriately updated the resident that it was consulting with the police and had escalated the case to its legal team to consider what legal action it could take. It was also appropriate of the landlord to discuss supporting the resident by offering to arrange target hardening at her property.
However, the landlord’s policy states that it will aim to maintain fortnightly contact with complainants in live ASB cases. Although we can see that there was some contact between the landlord and the resident during the case, it appears that this was mainly when the resident had initiated contact. There is not enough evidence to show that the landlord proactively updated the resident on a fortnightly basis, as required by its policy. This was a failure.
We understand the ASB was resolved following action by the Police and the neighbour has since moved out.
In conclusion, the landlord:
1. Failed to keep adequate records in relation to the resident’s report dated 15 August 2022.
2. Unreasonably delayed in contacting the resident following her report on 31 August 2022.
3. Failed to discuss an action plan.
4. Failed to maintain regular contact with the resident throughout the ASB case.
The Ombudsman considers these failures to amount to maladministration. The landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. Failed to provide service charge information in a timely manner and in a customer friendly format.
2. Delayed in completing communal repairs.
3. Failed to ensure its contractor completed the communal cleaning to an acceptable standard.
4. Failed to manage the ASB case in line with its policy.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by it apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the poor service she had received. It demonstrated learning by highlighting to its staff the importance of good communication, effective management of repairs and ensuring repairs are completed to the expected standard.
The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by attempting to complete the communal repairs and by offering the resident compensation of £220.
Further to this, the landlord accepted that its communal maintenance had not met its expected standards. It said it would investigate the possibility of having the management fees reimbursed to all residents due to the delayed and poorly executed repairs and decorative works to the communal areas. It explained that it would need to complete this outside the complaint process as reimbursement could not be just issued to the resident. While this was a reasonable response, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord completed this investigation or that it confirmed the outcome to the resident. We have therefore made an order that the landlord provide the resident with an update on this.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £1200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At both stages it will acknowledge and log the complaint within 5 working days. At stage 1 it will provide its response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) is applicable to all member landlords. It sets out how landlords should deal with complaints and the response timescales it should keep to.
The resident made her initial complaint on 18 August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, which was a breach of its policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Code. It sent the stage 1 response on 12 September 2023, which was 18 working days later. This was another failure because it was outside the landlord’s timescales and a breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the escalation, which was a breach of its policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Code. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 2 November 2023 which was within the landlord’s timescale.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing communal repairs and it had not met its service standards in relation to the upkeep of communal areas. However, it did not provide a full explanation about why the failures had occurred and what it intended to do to resolve them. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
Further to this, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to all parts of the resident’s complaint. For example, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. The landlord did not refer to this in either complaint response. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
In summary, there were failures by the landlord in its complaint handling as follows:
1. Failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
2. Delayed in sending its stage 1 response.
3. Failed to acknowledge the escalation of the resident’s complaint at stage 2.
4. Failed to provide a full explanation about why the failures had occurred and what it intended to do to resolve them.
5. Failed to respond to all parts of the resident’s complaint.
We consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
Having considered our remedies guidance, which is available online, a fair level of compensation would be £200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level of service charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its management of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this case.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1400 which is comprised of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s request for information on service charges.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of communal repairs.
  3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of communal cleaning.
  4. £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the resident’s report of ASB.
  5. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaint process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent or service charge account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
Provide the resident with an update on when the building will be added to its cyclical maintenance programme and what works this will include.
Provide the resident with an update in relation to its investigation into the possibility of having the management fees reimbursed for all residents. This should include the outcome of any such investigation.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, remove or secure the loose cable which is hanging outside the resident’s window.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take from it.