A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202344331)

Decision
Case ID	202344331
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of a residential building. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord which covers the maintenance of shared areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for compensation for a broken communal lift.
   2. Reports of misuse of the communal bin store.
   3. Request for information about the cleaning of the gutters.
   4. Reports of a leak in the car park.
   5. Request for information about service charge payments.
   6. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for a broken communal lift.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of misuse of the bin store.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the cleaning of the gutters.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the car park.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about service charge payments.
   6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor in relation to her request for compensation for a broken communal lift.
   2. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of fly-tipping outside of its target timescales, unreasonably delayed the commencement of its monthly spot checks of the bin store, and did not consider all options available to it in preventing the fly-tipping.
   3. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent in relation to her request for information about the cleaning of the gutters.
   4. The landlord failed to resolve the resident’s reports of repairs to the car park within its target timescales, and at the time of our investigation, the issue remained outstanding.
   5. The landlord failed to provide the resident with service charge information in a timely manner.
   6. The landlord’s complaint responses did not appropriately answer all elements of the resident’s complaint and therefore did not go far enough to put things right for her.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 01 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,094 made up as follows: £294 for its handling of her request for compensation for a broken communal lift. This comprises of its offer of £244, plus an additional £50. £150 for its handling of her reports of misuse of the bin store. £100 for its handling of her request for information about the cleaning of the gutters. £150 for its handling of her reports of a leak in the car park. £250 for its handling of her request for information about service charge payments. £150 for its handling of her complaint.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 01 December 2025
3	Order to take specific action The landlord must consider other methods to prevent fly-tipping in the communal bin store. This should include hosting rubbish amnesty events and reviewing the key-fob access data at the times fly-tipping is reported. If the landlord chooses to not do so, it should inform the resident and this Service in writing the reasons for its decision.	No later than 01 December 2025
4	Order to take specific action Provide the resident with a full explanation of the breakdown of her 2022-23 service charges. If receipts, invoices, or other relevant documentation is available, copies and commentary should be provided to show transparency. If such documents are not available, this should be clearly stated and why.	No later than 01 December 2025
5	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the leak in the car park is repaired promptly and in any event by the due date.   If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 12 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to review how it logs and monitors repairs for communal buildings and areas.
The landlord is recommended to remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes and put things right for the resident. It should also consider giving a breakdown of how compensation has been calculated. This will help provide clarity to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said this was because it had failed to provide her with answers “for months” in relation to several communal area issues and service charge payments.
4 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: As the communal lift was out of service between July 2023 and December 2023, it would inform all affected residents about a compensation payment by 12 January 2024. Following complaints about dumped rubbish, it had installed CCTV and fob access to the bin stores. It was unable to undertake surveillance of the bin store but would install signs by the end of January 2024 and commit to undertaking “spot-checks” once a month to deter residents from disposing of refuse incorrectly. It did not have a cyclical works programme in place to clean the gutters, but it was in the process of making changes to the future programme. In the meantime, it was awaiting a quote from its contractor to have the gutters cleaned and would update leaseholders on the cost by 12 January 2024. It was sorry to hear that the leak in the car park had been ongoing for “a while” and would aim to have it inspected by 12 January 2024. It acknowledged its “standards had slipped” and offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience it had caused.
14 January 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because she felt: The landlord’s calculation of compensation for the broken lift was incorrect. The landlord had not taken the appropriate action in relation to the misuse of the bin store. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent regarding the frequency of the cleaning of the guttering. The landlord’s investigation into its handling of the leak in the car park was lacking and did not explain why the repairs had been outstanding for “many years”. The landlord had not provided any response about its handling of her request for service charge information.
7 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about her request for compensation for the broken lift. This was because it had credited £244 to her rent account in recognition of the service failures. In relation to the misuse of the bin store, the action it had already taken, and further actions it proposed to take, were proportionate, sustainable, and made with the aim of avoiding further costs to residents. It upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the guttering and acknowledged that the information it provided within its stage 1 response was incorrect. Specifically, it was unable to include gutter cleaning within its cyclical works programme as the costs were considered too high. However, it would clean the gutters as and when reported by residents, as part of communal repairs. It had raised a repair to inspect the guttering. It could not find any evidence that a leak in the car park had previously been reported. However, the recent inspection found that there was an “ongoing” leak from a waste pipe located along the building’s steel column and a drain specialist was required. It upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. With regard to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the service charges, it had provided her with a copy of the charges and asked her to let it know if she had any questions. It offered the resident £200 compensation (superseding its previous offer of £50). It said £100 of this was in recognition of its communication failures, and the other £100 for the inconvenience it had caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of all the issues she had raised. She said this was because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and felt “abandoned” by it. As an outcome, she wanted all the issues resolved.

What we found and why

5. 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.
6. As mentioned above, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation as a way of putting things right for her. However, it’s unclear how much compensation is apportioned for each complaint definition. We are therefore unable to fully assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s offers of compensation. The orders of compensation we have made replace any compensation offered by the landlord and have been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for a broken communal lift
Finding	Service failure

7. Over the period of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had 2 compensation policies. Both versions say that where a communal lift fails for at least 7 days, the landlord will compensate affected residents for each day thereafter that it remains out of service. The second version of the policy (applicable after 1 November 2023) sets out that after the seventh day of a broken lift, it will pay a resident who lives on the third floor of a building £3 per day compensation.
8. The evidence suggests that the lift was out of service between 3 August 2023 and 9 October 2023. On 12 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it planned to award £60 compensation to each resident in the block. As the landlord’s applicable compensation policy does not stipulate how much it would pay per day for an out–of–service lift, we find its offer of £1 per day reasonable.
9. On 16 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she believed she was entitled to a total of £136, as it had been 61 days (and therefore £61), plus an additional £75 for “service failure”. The resident requested an update from the landlord on 20 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged her email on 4 November 2023 and said that the matter had been raised with its complaints team, which would “advise on the appropriate level of compensation”. It is not clear what target response times the landlord was working towards at this time. Despite this, we find a timeframe of 15 working days to acknowledge the resident’s email unreasonable. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations about the timeframes for a response and confirm which of its teams would be contacting her with an update. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
10. The resident requested an update again on 6 November 2023. The landlord responded 8 working days later (on 16 November 2023) and advised it would provide an update “as soon as it had one”. It did not provide any documentary evidence to show that it raised or discussed the compensation internally at this time, which indicates a lack of proactivity and/or poor record keeping.
11. On 24 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update again. The landlord responded 4 working days later (on 30 November 2023). It said that as the lift was out-of-service again, it would recalculate the compensation payment once it was fixed, which was fair.
12. The lift was fixed on 5 December 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident 27 working days later (on 15 January 2024), to confirm that she would receive £244 compensation. Within both complaint responses, the landlord clearly explained how it had calculated its offer of compensation and evidenced that it had done so in accordance with its updated compensation policy. However, it did not appropriately assess its handling of the resident’s request for compensation. Had it done so, it may have identified that its communication with her (specifically between October 2023 and November 2023) was lacking.
13. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation to put things right for her.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of misuse of the communal bin store
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

14. The resident told us that the issue with the bin store had been ongoing for several years. While we do not dispute this, our Scheme says we may not investigate issues that were not raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time (usually 12 months). As such, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the issue in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint in December 2023.

What we did investigate

15. The landlord’s environmental services policy says that it will provide services on its housing developments that offer value for money for service charge payers. This includes communal cleaning and fly–tipping removal. If “bulky items” such as discarded furniture, white goods, large appliances are dumped in communal areas, it may:
    1. Identify those responsible for dumping the items and take the appropriate action against them.
    2. Report any bulky items to the relevant contractors, which may result in the cost of removal being charged to residents. The items will be collected within 5 working days.
    3. Consider rubbish amnesty events, where it will provide a skip on a specific estate for several days free of charge.
16. Between 19 December 2022 and 9 August 2023, the landlord attended the building on 9 occasions to remove fly-tipped items from the communal bin store. It was unable to provide evidence of who had made several of these reports. However, the records show that on 12 July 2023 and 30 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord via telephone to report fly-tipping within the bin store. In response, the landlord attended the building on 2 occasions (on 13 July 2023 and 9 August 2023). Although not considered an excessive delay, the latter appointment was slightly outside of its target timescales (8 working days against a target of 5 working days).
17. On 16 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to confirm if it had identified those who had misused the bin store and what actions it had taken. On 4 November 2023 and 16 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident that moving forward, due to workload capacity, it could only review the CCTV footage once a month. While it is reasonable for residents to expect investigations where possible, the landlord explained that it was unable to identify individuals due to technical limitations of the CCTV system and the absence of specific times or incidents. The landlord reasonably chose not to review extensive footage without clear indicators, which would have been disproportionate. Although reviewing CCTV might have helped identify those responsible for the fly-tipping, the landlord’s approach—encouraging residents to report specific instances with dates and times—was fair. The landlord was not unreasonable in requiring clearer evidence before allocating resources to investigate specific allegations.
18. On 17 November 2023, the landlord wrote to all the residents in the building, reminding them of correct bin usage and warning against improper disposal. We acknowledge the resident’s comments that previous similar warnings had not deterred residents from fly-tipping. Despite this, we find this was a proportionate step by the landlord to attempt to address the issue without unjustly accusing individuals in the absence of evidence. As confirmed by the landlord within its stage 2 response, it also sent a further letter to residents in mid-February 2024.
19. On 30 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to remind those responsible for collecting the rubbish to close the doors to the bin store properly. This was because following the rubbish being collected that morning, there were rubbish bags on the floor and the doors had been left open. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her.
20. The landlord’s commitment to the resident on 4 January 2024 (within its stage 1 response) to install additional signage to include warnings about fly-tipping was a positive step in raising awareness and attempting to address the resident’s ongoing concerns. The evidence suggests the additional signs were installed on 16 February 2024.
21. It was also appropriate that the landlord committed (within its stage 1 and stage 2 responses) to carry out monthly inspections to the bin store. This demonstrated an effort to ensure the block remained a safe and well-maintained place to live. However, the landlord’s repair records show that these regular spot-checks did not commence until June 2024, approximately 4 months later. This was an unreasonable delay.
22. The landlord did not demonstrate that it explored all avenues available to it to resolve the issue with fly-tipping, including hosting a rubbish amnesty event at the building. Also, as the evidence suggests that the bin store could only be accessed using a key-fob, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to consider reviewing the data within its key-fob management system when the resident made reports of fly-tipping. Additionally, although not obligated to do so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to work in partnership with the local authority’s fly–tipping enforcement team to identify the perpetrators.
23. As the resident informed us in October 2025 that the issue with fly-tipping is ongoing, and taking into account the observations above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an appropriate amount of compensation, which reflects the high level of effort required from her throughout the case.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the cleaning of the gutters
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s website states that as the freeholder of the building, it is responsible for maintaining the roof and the main structure, as well as any shared areas. This includes gutters. However, from the evidence provided, it is unclear how often the landlord is obligated to clean the gutters.
25. On 16 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to confirm how often it cleaned the roof and guttering of the building. It is relevant to note that, although we do not dispute the resident’s comments (that she had already asked the landlord to confirm this information earlier in the year), we are unable to make any further assessment on the matter due to the lack of documentary evidence available.
26. The following day (17 October 2023), the landlord requested its contractors to provide a quote to clean the gutters. This was not what the resident had requested of the landlord, and we therefore find its actions confusing.
27. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 October 2023 for an update. The landlord responded 11 working days later (on 4 November 2023) and said that once it had received the quote for the gutters, it would arrange a meeting with all residents in the block to discuss the costs involved. Again, this was not what the resident had asked the landlord. The resident’s feelings of being misunderstood are highlighted.
28. On 6 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord again to confirm the last time the roof and guttering were cleaned, and mentioned that it had previously informed her that the cleaning was done frequently. The landlord responded on 16 November 2023. It said the gutters came under its cyclical works programme; the last time they were cleared was in 2013/14 and they were due to be cleared again in 2024. It further stated that it understood there was a need for it to be done more frequently, and it would share the quote when it received it, but there would be a charge to residents. However, the landlord’s repair records show that the contractor had already provided it with the quote on 26 October 2023. This is evidence that the landlord had poor oversight of the communal repairs.
29. On 17 November 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy it had previously informed her that the gutters were cleaned frequently and would not be accepting a charge. The landlord responded on 30 November 2023 and said that to have the gutters cleaned would inevitably involve a cost to be applied. This was a fair comment and in line with the lease agreement.
30. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (on 4 January 2024), it said that it did not have a cyclical works programme in place to clean the gutters, but it was in the process of making changes to the future programme. In the meantime, it was awaiting a quote from its contractor to have the gutters cleaned and would update leaseholders on the cost by 12 January 2024. As mentioned above, the landlord had already received the quote from its contractor 10 weeks earlier.
31. Within its stage 2 response (on 7 February 2024), it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed its stance in relation to the frequency of gutter cleaning. However, this was approximately 16 weeks after the resident had first requested the information. Its apology to the resident was therefore welcomed. However, as explained earlier – that it is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation was in recognition of its failings for this specific issue – we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
32. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the car park
Finding	Maladministration

33. The resident informed the landlord and this Service that she and other residents had reported leaks in the car park “for years”. However, we are unable to make an assessment on this due to the lack of documentary evidence available. Nevertheless, we note that in the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it was “sorry to hear [the repair] had been going on for a while”. This indicates that the landlord accepted the resident’s version of events.
34. Despite this, within the landlord’s stage 2 response in February 2024, it said it had reviewed its repair records and could not find any record of a leak in the carpark. This is confusing, as the landlord provided us with evidence that it had logged a repair on 17 March 2023 for a “pipe leak in the basement carpark”. However, it is unclear who reported this repair, which is a shortcoming in its repair record keeping.
35. The landlord’s communal repair records show that following the report in March 2023, it undertook works to the affected area on 22 June 2023. Based upon the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it is not clear what response time this repair would be categorised as (20 working days for “standard” repairs or 90 calendar days for “planned and packaged” repairs). Nevertheless, it exceeded both timescales, as it took 98 calendar days to complete the repair.
36. Although the date is not known (which again indicates poor record keeping), the evidence suggests that the resident had informed the landlord about the leak in the car park. This is because on 30 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that during its recent visit to the building it had identified the leak in the car park and had subsequently raised a repair. However, we have seen no evidence that any repair was undertaken.
37. The landlord’s stage 1 response in relation to the leak will be assessed within the complaint handling section of the report.
38. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (on 7 February 2024), it advised the resident that it had raised a repair and that a drain specialist would attend to recommend remedial actions. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that shows this work was completed. This is supported by the fact the resident informed us in October 2025 that leaks were still occurring in the car park.
39. The fact that the landlord said it ‘upheld’ this element of the resident’s complaint indicates that it acknowledged some failings in its handling of this issue. However, as explained earlier – that it is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation was specifically in recognition of this – we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
40. Based on the findings explained above, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about service charge payments
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

41. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charges. Complaints of this nature are best suited for consideration by the First–Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which can make a decision on whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Accordingly, this report will not consider whether the resident’s service charges were reasonable or payable. However, we will consider the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

What we did investigate

42. Where residents request additional information about service charges, such as invoices, landlords must respond in line with sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as follows:

43. The landlord’s service charge policy says that it aims to respond to service charge queries within 20 working days.
44. On 23 August 2023, the landlord issued the resident with a notice of the actual service charge costs incurred for the financial year 2022-23. Within the correspondence, the landlord appropriately provided the resident with a calculation breakdown of the costs.
45. On 7 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to express her concerns about the increase in service charge costs. She asked the landlord to review its calculations and contractor invoices. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s email 4 working days later (on 13 September 2023) and advised her that it would provide a response by 2 October 2023. It also appropriately provided links to its website that gave answers to frequently asked questions about service charges.
46. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 3 occasions (6 October 2023, 16 October 2023 and 20 October 2023). This was an inconvenience and expenditure of her time and effort which should not have been necessary.
47. On 4 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident a copy of the service charge breakdown. This exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s service charge policy (41 working days against a target of 20). It confirmed that there were “no identifiable errors”. We have not had sight of this breakdown and are therefore unable to make an assessment on it.
48. The resident responded on 6 November 2023 and asked the landlord to resend the documents in a different format as she was unable to access them. The landlord resent the documents 8 working days later (on 16 November 2023). However, the following day (on 17 November 2023), the resident informed the landlord that she was still unable to access the information. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her. The resident’s feelings of being ignored are again highlighted.
49. The landlord’s lack of investigation into the resident’s concerns about its handling of her request for information about the service charges will be assessed within the complaint handling section of the report.
50. On 25 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to express her frustration that on the previous day (24 January 2024) she had received a “bunch of invoices with no explanation on how they justify the service charge costs”. This was unreasonable, as it was approximately 10 weeks after the resident had requested the landlord to provide the documents in an alternative format. As before, as we have not had sight of the invoices, we are unable to make an assessment on the appropriateness of the information provided by the landlord. Regardless, as the resident had requested an explanation of the information, we would expect the landlord to provide it to her in an accessible format. The landlord responded to the resident via its stage 2 complaint response (on 7 February 2024) and appropriately advised her that it would arrange a meeting with its service charge officer if she had any queries.
51. The evidence suggests that during a residents’ meeting on 10 April 2024, the resident raised with the landlord that she had not yet received an explanation from it about the service charge costs. The landlord provided a response 15 working days later (on 1 May 2024) and said that the “query had already been addressed by issuing [the resident] with all the invoices and commentary”. The resident responded the same day and said she disputed this and asked the landlord to review all the information and provide her with an update. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord provided her with any response.
52. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

53. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints policy, which is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). This states that at stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The landlord will then respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
54. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. It also stipulates that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for their communication to be treated as such. On 17 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy that it had previously informed her that the gutter cleaning happened frequently and would not be accepting a charge for the service. This was an expression of dissatisfaction. We therefore find that the landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to treat the matter as a complaint.
55. Although not considered an excessive delay, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 6 working days (against a target of 5) on 19 December 2023.
56. The content of the landlord’s acknowledgement email is of concern. This is because it set out that it would “either provide [the resident] with a full resolution to the complaint or with information on how it intends to progress the complaint with a plan of action to resolve any outstanding matters”. This is evidence it operated a protracted complaints practice at the time and was not in line with the approach endorsed by the Code.
57. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it did not provide a response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of her request for information about the service charges. This was inappropriate, as the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so.
58. We find the landlord’s investigation into the other substantive issues poor. This is because while it provided an update on what it was going to do to resolve the issues, it failed to appropriately review its handling of the matters.
59. The landlord’s complaint process at both stages failed to effectively monitor and ensure completion of the some of the actions it had committed to. This is evidence of poor complaint handling as the landlord should monitor agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident if there is expected delays. Examples of this included:
    1. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would provide an updated offer of compensation for the broken lift by 12 January 2024. Although not considered an excessive delay, it did not do so until 15 January 2024.
    2. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord:
       1. Committed to repairing the leak in the car park but has not evidenced that this was completed.
       2. Stated that it would commence a monthly spot check of the communal bin store. This did not happen until 4 months later.
60. It was positive that the landlord apologised for its handling of some of the substantive issues within its complaint responses. However, it did not evidence that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint, as it did not explain if it was going to implement any service improvements as a result of its investigation.
61. As mentioned earlier in the report, while not obliged to do so, it is good practice for landlords to explain to its residents how much they have awarded for each investigated complaint point. The landlord’s lack of transparency in this case caused the resident to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It also made it impracticable for us to assess the appropriateness of its compensation offer. Additionally, the offer was not proportionate to the failures it ought reasonably to have been aware of during the complaints process.
62. For the reasons summarised above, we have made a finding of maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

63. The landlord’s record keeping was generally poor. It was unable to provide evidence of who had reported issues with fly-tipping and the leak in the car park. It also did not provide us with evidence of the service charge invoices it had issued to the resident. This made it difficult for us to make an assessment on these aspects of the case. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

64. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the handling of the substantive issues was overall lacking and inconsistent.