A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202345567)

Decision
Case ID	202345567
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	30 June 2026

 

Background

1. The resident pays a variable service charge. He asked the landlord for a breakdown of the external managing agent’s (EMA) charges and raised concerns about a barrier installed on communal land. He complained the landlord had not responded to him or raised his concerns about the charges and barrier with the EMA. He also complained that new external lighting was disturbing his sleep. He remained dissatisfied after the landlord’s complaint process because he felt it had not resolved his concerns or addressed them with the EMA. He was also unhappy with its handling of his complaint.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about service charges and acts of the external managing agent.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about service charges and acts of the external managing agent.
   2. Complaint.

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

 

Reasons

4. The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

 

Queries and concerns about service charges and acts of the external managing agent

5. The EMA which provides services to the resident’s block is not appointed by the landlord or another member of our Scheme. This means we will not make findings on its acts or omissions. Our role is to assess if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s queries and concerns.
6. The resident complained he had asked the landlord for a breakdown of the EMA’s service charges during the sales process before he bought his flat. The events during the sales process are not within the scope of this investigation. However, the landlord did not address this point in its later complaints responses which could suggest it did not investigate this complaint point.
7. The resident asked for a breakdown of his service charge on 26 June 2023. The landlord sent him a copy of the estimated service charge booklet it had issued to the previous owner before the start of its service charge year (1 April 2023). This was reasonable but the booklet only gave details of the EMA’s overall service charge and the landlord’s management fee. This led the resident to ask for a breakdown of the EMA’s charges on 1 July 2023.
8. As there is a superior landlord in this case, section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applied. This means the landlord should have made a written request to the superior landlord or EMA for information it needed to respond to the resident’s request. There is no evidence the landlord did request the information at the time. It took the landlord until 31 October 2023 to acknowledge the resident’s request for a detailed explanation of his service charges. While it said it would respond to his query “shortly”, there is no evidence it did so.
9. Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord investigated or contacted the EMA when the resident raised concerns, on 13 July 2023, about a barrier. He said the barrier prevented him from accessing parts of the communal grounds which he believed he should have access to. We would have expected to see the landlord had checked if the barrier did affect the resident’s access to the communal areas which he was entitled to access under his lease. If so, the landlord should have raised the matter with the superior landlord or EMA and kept the resident updated.
10. On 5 February 2024, the resident complained the landlord had not responded to his queries about the service charge or concerns about the barrier. He also complained about external lights installed in December 2023 which, he said, disturbed his sleep. He felt he should have been consulted before they were installed.
11. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 3 April 2024. It gave a comparison of its estimated charges compared with its actual costs for 2017-18. It explained the costs were more than expected because it had underestimated the EMA’s charges. It apologised for not giving him the breakdown he requested but did not explain why it had not done so. It said it would send him the further breakdown he wanted but did not give a timeframe. The landlord said it had not installed the external lights and did not address the resident’s concerns about the barrier.
12. The stage 1 response did not refer to any steps the landlord had taken to get information from the EMA or address the resident’s concerns about the lights and barrier with it. As such, it was not an adequate response. The landlord’s failure to address all the complaint points or provide the breakdown of EMA charges led the resident to escalate the complaint.
13. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 2 July 2024. It said it had received a breakdown of charges from the EMA which it was reviewing. It said it would send the breakdown to the resident by 12 July 2024 but did not meet this timeframe. We can see it sent him the breakdown on 26 July 2024 which means it took over a year to respond to the request for the breakdown. Over the period, the resident chased the landlord for the information multiple times which would have been inconvenient. The landlord did not keep him updated until 12 July 2024 when it told him it would send the breakdown by 26 July 2024.
14. The stage 2 response did not address the matters of the communal lights or barrier despite them being part of the resident’s escalation request. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any steps to address to investigate or address the matters with the superior landlord or EMA at any point. The landlord’s failure to address the matters caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
15. Through its complaints process, the landlord apologised for delays in sending the service charge breakdown and offered £405 compensation. In our view, this was not enough given the extent of delays and its failure to act on the resident’s concerns about the barrier and lighting.
16. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £500 compensation, inclusive of its previous offers. This sum is in line with our Compensation Guidance and recognises the impact and duration of the failings identified. The landlord must also investigate the resident’s concerns about the barrier and external lighting.
17. While not part of our assessment, the resident sent us a fire risk assessment (FRA) commissioned by the EMA in 2026. The FRA found the barrier impeded access to fire escape routes. The landlord should take this into account during its investigation.

Complaint

18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 5 February 2024 in 2 working days. This was quicker than the 5 working day timescale required by the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. It gave its stage 1 response 39 working days later on 3 April 2024. This was longer than the 10 working day timeframe required by the Code. It was appropriate the landlord apologised for the delay in its response. It was reasonable it offered £25 compensation which was in line with its Compensation Policy at the time.
20. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation request of 8 May 2024 within 5 working days. It took 24 working days to do so on 12 June 2024. Although the landlord gave its stage 2 response 15 working days after acknowledging the escalation, it took 39 working days overall to deal with the complaint at stage 2. There is no evidence to explain the cause of the delay in acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord did not recognise it in its stage 2 response.
21. The delays at both stages and the landlord’s failure to recognise the failing in its stage 2 handling led to our decision of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £75 compensation, inclusive of its previous offer, which is in line with our Compensation Guidance. We recommend it investigates the causes of the failings we identified to prevent similar failings in future.

 

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 and is meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £575 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his queries and concerns about service charges and acts of the external managing agent. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his 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 paid through its complaint process.	No later than 29 July 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must investigate the resident’s concerns about the barrier in the communal grounds and external lighting. This includes assessing if the barrier obstructs or limits the resident’s access to communal areas which his lease gives him the right to access. It must write to the resident by the due date setting out: What communications it has exchanged with the EMA and what the outcomes were. Its view on whether the barrier prevents the resident from accessing parts of the communal grounds which his lease grants him a right of access to. The landlord must explain the reasons for its conclusion. Its view on the findings in the EMA’s fire risk assessment of 2026 regarding the barrier. How it intends to take forward any rights that may have been infringed by the installation of the barrier.	No later than 20 August 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord investigates the causes of delays in its complaints handling and takes any necessary actions to prevent similar failings in future.