A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202450029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450029

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym.
2. Service charge queries.

Background

The resident lives in a first floor flat under a lease agreement dated October 2022. The block of flats is newly built and contains a commercial unit on the ground floor that is occupied by a gym company. The landlord is the freeholder and is a housing association.
In August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to complain that he was being disturbed by excessive noise from air conditioning units that the gym had installed in the commercial unit on the ground floor.
On 28 October 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about general noise disturbance from the gym. He said he did not believe that sufficient noise prevention measures or testing was carried out during the build process. He also complained about the increase in the block’s service charges and a lack of information provided to evidence the increase.
On 13 November 2024 the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response informed the resident that it was working with the local council’s environmental health officer (EHO) to investigate the noise complaint. It also stated that it was seeking legal advice over the air conditioning units that had been installed by the gym. The landlord advised the resident to email his service charge queries to the leasehold team to obtain the relevant information.
On 16 December 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because he believed the landlord should have been more proactive to resolve the noise issue, and to provide the receipts and invoices that he had requested. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was provided a month later and stated that the EHO’s investigation was taking longer than expected. The landlord apologised that its communication had not been adequate and offered the resident £150 compensation.
In mid-February 2025 the landlord sent the resident the information relating to his service charges. The resident queried the information with the landlord because of charges he said had been applied incorrectly. Four months later, in June 2025, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had removed some of the charges he had queried and apologised for those errors.
When bringing the complaint to us, the resident stated that he wanted further compensation for his distress and inconvenience. He also wants to be compensated for any loss in market value due to having to disclose the EHO noise investigation to a potential buyer. Alternatively, he wants the landlord to buy back the property from him. The resident is seeking reassurance that the landlord will more accurately calculate service charges in the future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with us, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The resident has also informed us that he is seeking compensation from the landlord for loss of value to his property as a result of having to disclose the noise nuisance investigation to a future seller. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury, liability and financial losses. This is largely because independent experts are appointed to give evidence, and oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman would not consider the effect on health or determine liability for financial losses, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about his service charges. It is not within our remit to determine whether service charges were payable, or the reasonableness of the charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) (Property Chamber). The resident is advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym

The commercial unit on the ground floor is owned by the landlord, let to a managing agent, and sublet to a gym. When the resident was purchasing his flat from the landlord, the gym was not yet open.
The noise from the gym has been described by the resident as shouting and loud music from fitness classes, noise (and heat) from air conditioning units installed by the gym in its internal bin store, and thuds (and vibrations) from weights dropping.
Our role is not to establish whether the noise transference from the gym was a statutory nuisance or not. It is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its actions were fair in the circumstances of the case.
In his stage 1 complaint the resident said he had assumed when buying the property that the building had noise prevention measures incorporated during the build, and sufficient sound testing carried out. Enforcement of building regulations is the responsibility of the local council, not the landlord. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided assurance to the resident of the property’s compliance with building regulations.
Contracts for new buildings have defect liability periods (typically 12 to 24 months) within which the landlord can ask developers to repair any inherent defects that are discovered (a fault or defect in the construction of the property because of a fault with the design, quality of materials, or poor workmanship). It is not clear in the evidence whether the building was still within the defect’s liability period at the time that the resident raised his first concerns to the landlord. The evidence indicates that the property’s developer has since gone into administration.
The resident’s property will likely be covered by a warranty (e.g. NHBC or Premier Guarantee) that lasts 5 to 10 years. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident that he could raise an investigation through his building warranty into a possible structural defect.
As the freeholder, the landlord has the responsibility to ensure that lease obligations are being followed. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it would work with the EHO to ensure that recommendations from its investigation were implemented. This was a reasonable approach.
On 28 November 2024 the EHO recommended that the landlord employ an acoustic consultant to carry out a noise impact assessment. The EHO also recommended that the landlord seek advice from a Chartered Institute of Building Services (CIBSE) approved contractor, and an architect. There is no evidence that the landlord considered implementing these recommendations.
In November 2024, January, March and May 2025, the landlord had contact with the EHO about the progress of its investigation. However, between October 2024 and January 2025, the landlord sent no updates to the resident other than its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that its communication had not been in line with its standards. The landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation for its communication delays and the stress and inconvenience caused by this. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that a discretionary offer of compensation can be made if the complainant has suffered stress or inconvenience. The landlord’s offer of compensation was increased to £175 before the stage 2 response was sent. This amount was credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
The resident stated in his first complaint to the landlord in October 2024 that he had asked for support from its wellbeing team, and since communicated frequently the impact the situation was having on his mental health. However, the landlord’s wellbeing team first attempted to make contact with the resident 8 months later in June 2025.
The resident’s escalation request described how he felt the landlord should provide a way out for him to leave the property. He said living in the flat was affecting his health but he did not feel able to sell the property because of having to disclose the EHO investigation to a potential buyer. For this reason, the resident asked the landlord if it would buy back his property.
It is rare that a landlord buys back a resident’s property. It has discretion to do so in exceptional circumstances. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised the resident how to start the resale process. It did not address the resident’s request that it buy back the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to this point so it was clear on the action he would need to take if he wanted to move.
The resident had also asked the landlord to provide further information on subletting his property. It provided this information the following month. The subletting guide states that shared ownership leases do not generally give customers the right to sublet their homes. However, permission can be granted for a limited period in exceptional circumstances. The guide specifies that there is a non-refundable administration fee of £144 when applying to sublet, regardless of the outcome.
On 10 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord if it could provide free advice on whether an application to sublet his property was likely to be approved. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. However, the landlord was under no obligation to provide this information to the resident free of charge.
This investigation has identified additional steps that the landlord could have taken. It did not provide the resident with advice about investigating a defect through his building warranty, or reassurance about the building’s compliance with building regulations. It responded to the resident’s enquiry about subletting but did not explain why it was unable to purchase the property back. The landlord delayed contacting the resident to provide wellbeing support despite it being requested. Further, the landlord did not act on the recommendations of the EHO to instruct independent surveyors to investigate. We cannot say with any certainty that, had the landlord taken the above action, this would have changed the resident’s situation. However, it would have meant that the landlord was taking a more proactive approach to address his concerns.
The landlord’s offer of £175 compensation to the resident was an attempt to acknowledge failings and put things right but was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In accordance with our remedies guidance, we find there has been maladministration in this case and an appropriate set of orders are set out at the end of this report. The additional compensation we have ordered reflects the likely disappointment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries

The resident’s lease states that the service charges should be calculated before the beginning of the accounting year, or as soon as possible after.
On 28 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the increase in his service charge, which he said he received without any evidence or explanation. The next day the landlord sent correspondence to all affected residents stating that it was putting together a commentary to explain the amendments.
On 8 November the landlord updated the resident that he would receive the service charge information the following week. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response a week later did not provide the information but advised the resident to email the leasehold team. This did not help to resolve the resident’s complaint.
On 16 December the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because he was still waiting for the information. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 24 January stated that it would send the service charge information within a week. In mid-February the resident received the invoices and information that he had requested.
The landlord’s service charge policy states that it aims to respond to service charge queries within 15 working days. The landlord states in other evidence that it aims to respond within 20 working days. Either way, the landlord’s responses in this case were not timely. The resident first requested information about his service charge in October 2024, and he received the information 4 months later.
The lease states that service charges can be adjusted if additional sums are to be collected. In this case, the service charges were adjusted a number of times due to errors on the part of the landlord:
1. On 14 November 2024 the landlord wrote to inform residents that it had identified charges that should not have been recharged and would be removed. It apologised and said that feedback would be provided to staff to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
2. On 17 February 2025 the landlord made an adjustment for works that were the responsibility of the developer but had been charged to the residents in error.
The resident raised queries with the landlord after receiving the information he had requested. He questioned the accuracy of 6 items on the charges, including for MVHR filter kits and clearing bin contamination.
1. A week later the landlord agreed to remove the charge for MHVR filter kits and acknowledged this had been charged in error.
2. Four months later the landlord removed the charge for clearing bin contamination after the resident evidenced that the photograph taken showed a different block of flats.
Because of these errors the resident had concerns about the accuracy of the charges. Therefore, he withdrew payment for the service charge until the issue had been resolved. Before the adjustments were made, the resident also communicated to the landlord his concerns about the affordability of the increase.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not apologise or acknowledge the delay in sending out the information to the resident or offer to send the information more quickly. It did not offer to compensate the resident for the time and trouble he likely experienced when chasing for information. For this reason, the landlord’s complaint responses did not put things right for the resident. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of his right to approach the FTT with his complaint.
Overall, the resident waited approximately 80 working days for the information he had requested. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the target timeframe set out in its policy. The delay to provide the detailed information also meant that the resident was not able to raise specific concerns about inaccuracies for several months.
On 12 June 2025 the landlord apologised to the resident for the multiple errors highlighted in the accounts. The landlord stated that it was introducing additional training and measures to ensure that charges are accurate in the future. This demonstrated learning and reassured the resident that it had corrected the accounts. However, the landlord has not compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience that he likely experienced through these failings.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, we find that the landlord has failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident or fully put things right. Therefore, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries and an appropriate order is set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay direct to the resident (and not to his rent or service charge account) further compensation of £275, made up as follows:
  1. £125 compensation for the likely disappointment and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring gym.
  2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble caused by its response to the resident’s service charge queries.
2. Seek an update from Environmental Health on the progress of their investigation into the noise from the gym and provide an update to the resident in writing.
3. Set out its position on buying back a shared owner’s property, providing any relevant policy and procedure.
4. Consider arranging a noise impact assessment to be carried out by an independent acoustic consultant as recommended by the EHO. The landlord should write to the resident and us with the outcome of that decision. If it decides to go ahead it should take the following action:
  1. Within 2 weeks of the assessment the landlord should send a summary of the report in plain English to the resident and provide a copy to us.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the assessment the landlord should outline its position on the recommendations in the report, explaining clearly if it is unable to meet the recommendations and why.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The evidence provided by the landlord and resident indicates that other residents in the block are experiencing the same noise transference issue. The landlord should consider communicating the update from the EHO and the noise impact assessment (if it takes place) with other affected residents in the block.