A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202421321)

Background

1. The resident paid a variable service charge. In 2022, he raised queries about the increase in his service charge for communal electricity. The landlord agreed it had charged too much and gave a refund. The resident then raised concerns about the landlord basing its charges on estimated readings and the wrong meter. He complained the landlord was taking too long to resolve the issue, was continuing to incorrectly charge and was not keeping him updated. He remained dissatisfied despite completing the landlord’s complaint process.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about his service charge for communal electricity.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries and concerns about his service charge for communal electricity.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord incorrectly charged for block communal electricity over a period of 3 years from 2021-22 to 2023-24. It charged the resident around £2,700 more than it should have. While it gave refunds, it did not explain how it had calculated them or properly explain why it had given them. It did not keep the resident properly updated and did not tell him if it had received a bill based on actual meter readings and what the implications were for his service charge.
5. The landlord missed opportunities to log the complaint at stage 1 and did not tell the resident about its policy to offset compensation. It actively sought to avoid escalating the complaint.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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.

What we did not investigate

6. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. Part of the resident’s complaint is that he believes the landlord’s approach in using estimated bills to calculate its charges resulted in him being charged too much. This is ultimately about the reasonableness of the charge and so we have not investigated it. A court or First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider this part of the complaint.

What we did investigate

7. We looked at how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and concerns about the charges for communal electricity. We considered if it took reasonable steps to resolve the issues found and if it offered sufficient redress.
8. In September 2022, the landlord issued its final reconciliation of the resident’s service charges (the Actuals) for the financial year 2021-22. The resident raised concerns there had been a 428% increase in the actual charge for communal electricity compared with the landlord’s estimated charge.
9. On 7 October 2022, the landlord wrote to all residents in the block saying it had made an “inputting error” when reconciling the costs for communal electricity. It said it would apply an adjustment to their accounts to correct the charge but did not say when it would do so.
10. We can see it applied a credit of £547.08 to the resident’s account on 1 December 2022 but there is no evidence it told the resident it had made the adjustment or explained how it had calculated the refund.
11. In September 2023, the landlord issued the Actuals for the financial year 2022-23. The evidence suggests the resident raised queries because he received an automatic acknowledgement of an email he sent the landlord on 28 October 2023. We have not seen his email but he told us it included concerns about another large increase in the charge for communal electricity and the landlord not updating him on its progress in resolving the matter. There is no evidence the landlord responded to his email.
12. On 9 November 2023 the landlord credited the resident’s account with £1,462.11. Later correspondence confirms this was a refund for the communal electricity charge arising from the Actuals of 2022-23. Again, there is no evidence the landlord had explained how it had calculated the refund or why it had charged the wrong amount. But this time it had told residents, on 17 November 2023, that it had applied credits to their accounts.
13. From 20 November 2023 the resident continued to raise the issues of the landlord using estimated readings, calculating charges using the wrong meter, incorrect charging and not keeping him updated. There is no evidence the landlord responded to his emails but it visited the block and met with him on 12 December 2023.
14. The landlord did not provide a record of the meeting but the resident emailed it on 18 December 2023 confirming the matters discussed. His email said the landlord had seen the 2 meters and the difference in the readings on them and had agreed the supplier’s bills did not match the meter numbers. It said the landlord had agreed to investigate with the supplier to resolve the charging errors.
15. We can see the landlord was communicating with the electricity supplier from 3 January 2024. However, it appears not to have told the resident at the time as he chased for updates on 11 and 16 January 2024. The landlord updated him on 23 February 2024 advising it was trying to arrange a joint visit with the supplier to establish the correct meter for the block usage and take readings.
16. We understand that the timeliness of the supplier’s responses and actions were outside the landlord’s control. However, it should have kept the resident updated of its efforts to resolve the billing issues with the supplier.
17. On 22 March 2024, the landlord told the resident the supplier had visited and would update its records with the correct meter number. It said it would issue any further refunds due. On 19 April 2024, it credited the resident’s account with £451.18 which later correspondence confirms was a refund of electricity charges. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident it had made the refund or explained how it had calculated it.
18. The resident’s complaint of 10 June 2024 said he was not aware of the refunds the landlord had given up to that point. It was appropriate the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged its failure to explain the refunds at the time. It confirmed the refunds given on 19 November 2023 and 19 April 2024. It did not refer to the refund it gave on 1 December 2022 but had attached an account statement which may have shown it.
19. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to properly explain how it had calculated the refunds and why it had given them. This led to the resident escalating his complaint.
20. On 24 October 2024, the landlord wrote to all residents in the block. It said it had given an actual reading to the supplier so the next bill would be based on actual usage. It said it would rectify any resulting overcharge in the next accounts it issued.
21. It would have been helpful if the landlord had said when it expected the next bill and when it would issue the next accounts. Without these, the resident had no timeframe in which to expect resolution. However, it was reasonable the landlord committed to reviewing its historical charges and said it would notify residents of the outcome by the end of the year.
22. On 23 December 2024, the resident chased the landlord for an update on any further refunds due. In its stage 2 complaint response of 10 January 2025, the landlord said it would complete the review of its historical charges and update him by 17 January 2025. It is not clear why the landlord had not updated him sooner if it was unable to meet the timeframe it gave in its letter of 24 October 2024.
23. Further, the stage 2 response failed to address the resident’s escalation point about factual inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. Nor did it address his point that the previous refunds paid so far were not in resolution of the billing issues for his block. This meant the landlord missed another opportunity to clarify why it had given the previous refunds and how it had calculated them.
24. Separately on 10 January 2025, the landlord confirmed the outcome of its review of its historical charges. Its letter confirmed it had reviewed its charges for 6 financial years (2018-19 to 2023-24), gave details of the relevant bills for each year and set out what refunds were due. It was good the landlord attached the relevant bills as this enabled the resident to check they related to the correct meter.
25. The letter confirmed it needed to make further refunds for the financial years 2021-22 and 2023-24. We can see the landlord credited the resident’s account with £197.23 and £55.47 on 5 March 2025. It is not clear if told the resident it had made the adjustments. There is no evidence it explained how it had calculated them.
26. The letter showed the landlord had not charged for block communal electricity in 2020-21 despite incurring costs. It was appropriate the landlord confirmed it would not make any adjustments to recover its costs. This was in line with section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which requires landlords to demand payment within 18 months of incurring service costs unless they have served the proper notice to delay a demand.
27. We have not seen the attached bills but the landlord’s letter said they were all based on estimated readings and these were lower than the previous estimated bills. This means its corrected charges were still not based on actual usage. The letter said it expected to receive a bill using actual meter readings before the end of March 2025. It said this would enable it to bring the residents’ accounts fully up to date.
28. It is not clear from the evidence seen if the landlord’s charges for 2024-25 were based on estimated or actual readings. Further, we have seen no evidence to confirm the landlord updated the resident after its letter of 10 January 2025. It would have been reasonable for it to have told him if it had received a bill using actual meter readings and explained the implications for his service charge.
29. From the evidence seen, the matter of the accuracy of the charges for communal electricity remained unresolved when the resident sold his flat around April 2025.
30. Following its stage 1 response, the landlord paid £340 compensation for its delays in responding to the resident’s queries and his inconvenience up to 10 January 2025. Following its stage 2 response it gave a 25% refund of its management charge for 2022-23. The refund amounted to £87.29 and was for other issues arising from the 2022-23 charges as well as the charge for communal electricity. In our view, this was not enough given the failings identified and inconvenience they caused the resident.
31. The resident wanted the landlord to issue amended service charge booklets for the affected years. In our view, written confirmation will be sufficient.

32. The landlord logged a complaint on 10 June 2024 after the resident contacted it saying he had complained by email on 20 November 2023. We have not seen a record of the contact that caused the landlord to log the complaint. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
33. The resident’s email of 20 November 2023 said he was raising “queries” after receiving invoices and receipts supporting the 2022-23 Actuals. While his email said he was disappointed with progress regarding the communal electricity charges, he was asking the landlord to meet with him and other residents to discuss various queries arising from the 2022-23 Actuals. In our view, it was reasonable the landlord did not consider the email to be a complaint but it should have responded to it.
34. However, the resident’s further emails of 4 December 2023 and 16 January 2024 included clear expressions of dissatisfaction about its handling of his concerns about its charges for communal electricity. The landlord should have logged the complaint in line with its Complaints Policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Alternatively, it should have explained its reasons for not accepting the complaint. There is no evidence the landlord did either.
35. After logging the complaint on 10 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged it and gave its stage 1 response within the timescales required by its policy and the Code.
36. After receiving the stage 1 response on 21 June 2024, the resident replied saying he did not accept the response or compensation offer. He asked the landlord to call him but there is no evidence it did so. This was a service failing and meant the landlord missed the opportunity to consider if it should escalate the complaint.
37. The resident then emailed on 15 July 2024 explaining why he disagreed with the stage 1 response. The landlord should have recognised this as an escalation request. Instead, it told the resident it had passed his concerns to the service area to respond to. The resulting email exchange with him should have left the landlord in no doubt he wanted to escalate his complaint.
38. The failure to escalate when it should have caused the resident inconvenience because it led him to ask us to intervene. It also delayed him in completing the landlord’s complaint process and in being able to ask us to investigate.
39. There was a further delay because the landlord did not receive our initial request of 12 December 2024 for it to escalate the complaint. This was not the landlord’s fault and it acted appropriately after we sent another request on 20 December 2024. It gave its stage 2 response within the timescale it gave to the resident in its acknowledgement of 24 December 2024. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
40. There was a failing in the landlord’s payment of compensation following its stage 1 response. Its letter asked the resident for his bank details but did not refer to its policy of offsetting compensation if a resident’s account was in arrears. The resident chased payment on 25 October 2024 and the landlord asked him again for his bank details which he gave.
41. The landlord then told him it had paid the compensation to his service charge account. While this was in line with its Compensation Policy, the landlord should have made the resident aware of this sooner. It was not necessary for it to ask him for his bank details the second time. Doing so caused him further inconvenience and mismanaged his expectations.
42. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £175 compensation for its handling of the complaint at stage 2 and inconvenience caused. We have ordered it to pay additional compensation to reflect the failings we have identified in its handling of the complaint at stage 1.

Learning

43. The landlord’s complaints process did not work effectively in this case. It should consider if its current policy and procedure are being applied correctly. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord’s record did not give a complete record of events because there were no records of telephone calls or meetings with the resident, and it did not provide some of the emails it had exchanged with him.

Communication

45. The complaint arose because the landlord did not keep the resident properly updated. It often failed to respond to his emails and its responses often lacked relevant information.