From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202319987)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319987

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

21 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the increase in his service charge.
    2. Concerns about the ground maintenance service being provided.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a flat, which began on 3 August 2021. The resident’s flat is within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord is a housing association.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between August and October 2022 about the increase in his service charge and the grounds maintenance services being provided.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 8 February 2023. He said:
    1. The landlord had not responded to his complaint from February 2022 about the increase in the ground maintenance part of his service charge for 2022/2023.
    2. He had received the notice of rent and service charges for 2023/2024 and the ground maintenance was being increased again.
    3. He said very little maintenance was being carried out and asked the landlord how it could justify the increase.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. It said:
    1. Its estate service team and contractor had checked the grounds maintenance fee and said it was correct.
    2. The increase reflected the consumer price index (CPI) at the time and 20% VAT.
    3. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor communication and the delay in it accepting a complaint. 
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It said it reviewed the cost for ground maintenance and the amount showing on the rent and service charge review letter was correct.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that some of the resident’s complaint issues are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the increase in his service charge. Specifically, the level and reasonableness of the ground maintenance service charge and the associated increase for the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 financial year. We cannot consider complaints which concern the level of rent or a service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase (paragraph 42.d of the Scheme).
  3. A dispute in respect of the level or reasonableness of a fixed service charge should be referred to the court. The First Tier Property Tribunal cannot consider fixed service charges as these charges are a contractual obligation between the landlord and the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ground maintenance service being provided

  1. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for my findings are below.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states he pays a fixed service charge as part of his rent. It says the landlord will review this once a year, and residents will be told about any increases in the notice increasing the rent.
  3. The landlord’s records show it tendered for a company to provide grounds maintenance under a 5-year contract. The contract began in January 2021. The grounds maintenance service includes the cleaning of external communal areas and the maintenance of landscaped areas.
  4. The landlord had provided an annual rent review letter to the resident, which advised him what he pays as a breakdown of rent. The landlord provided the level of service charge in the service charge breakdown, which is reasonable and all it is obliged to do in relation to a fixed service charge.
  5. Although the resident told us he raised concerns about the grounds maintenance services from February 2022.This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from August 2022, as this is 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint.
  6. Between August and October 2022, the resident raised concerns to his landlord about the increase in his 2022/2023 service charge. On 7 October 2022 he asked the landlord why the grounds maintenance part of his service charge had doubled. The landlord inspected the estate on 7 September 2022. However, it failed to provide evidence of the outcome of this inspection. It’s records state it was going to contact the contractor to see if the costs were correct. However, there was no evidence the landlord obtained this information or contacted the resident to discuss his concerns. This was not customer focused.
  7. This resulted in the resident making a complaint to the landlord on 8 February 2023. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance until it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023, 9 months later. This was an unreasonable delay.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the contractor and its estate management team had checked and said the costs and the areas covered in its grounds maintenance agreement were correct. The landlord failed to explain to the resident what areas of the estate were covered, and what works were carried out under the contract. If the landlord had of provided this information it may have resolved the complaint at an earlier opportunity.
  9. On 15 May 2023 the landlord agreed to visit the resident to discuss the agreed works and costs under its grounds maintenance contract. The resident chased the landlord for an update on this visit on 21 June 2023. He was told it had tried to visit but he was not home at the time. There was no evidence the landlord notified the resident of this visit. There was also no evidence the landlord attempted to rearrange the visit.
  10. The resident told the landlord he felt the grounds maintenance services were not being provided as often as they should be. The landlord provided us with evidence from it’s contractor that showed it attended the estate and completed the grounds maintenance every 2 weeks. This is in line with its environmental services policy. This policy states the landlord will conduct regular estate inspections. The landlord did not provide any evidence of how it monitors the ground maintenance contract or that it carries out regular estate inspections.
  11. The resident also told the landlord he felt the services being provided were not value for money. It is generally acceptable for service charges to include activities that do not require frequent or routine completion or are completed on an as-needed basis. While the resident’s comment that there was not always work to be done is appreciated, it is sufficient that the landlord made arrangements in case works to the estate were needed. The landlord failed to consider this in its complaint responses. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether it is able to review the service and consider whether it is value for money.
  12. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. It is our opinion that the landlord failed to maintain adequate records, which impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This has been highlighted at various points throughout the report. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping practices.
  13. In summary there was a significant delay in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about the frequency and value for money of the grounds maintenance services. It also failed to arrange a visit as promised. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint procedure. It did not show it had learnt from the complaint or that it took steps to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for my findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy state says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
  3. The resident made another complaint to the landlord on 8 February 2023. The landlord failed to keep a record that it acknowledged the complaint in writing. It’s records show it contacted the resident on 26 April 2023 and 3 May 2023. This was outside the 5 working days its policy states it will respond by. The landlord said it would contact the resident with an update once it had investigated the complaint. There was no evidence the landlord did this before issuing it’s response. This was not customer focused.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. This was 3 months after the resident made his complaint, this was significantly outside the 10 working days it’s policy states it would respond by.
  5. The resident told the landlord he never received a response to his complaint in February 2022 about the increase in his service charge. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not accept a complaint about increases to service charges or their reasonableness. However, there was no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident or gave reasons why it did not take a complaint from him at that time. 
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 8 July 2023, 2 months later. This was outside its target response time of 5 working days. The landlord’s records show it tried to contact the resident 3 times in July 2023 to discuss the complaint. It discussed the complaint with the resident on 1 August 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 September 2023. It had told the resident it would respond by 28 August 2023. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain why there was a delay. In its response the landlord failed to delete example paragraphs from its template letter, so there was missing information about what outcome the resident wanted.
  8. In summary there was a delay in the landlord accepting the complaint, acknowledging the complaint and escalation, and issuing its stage 1 and 2 response. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation for it’s poor communication and delay in its accepting a complaint. However, it failed to acknowledge the other failings identified in this report. It did not show it had learnt from the complaint, and the redress offered did not reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the increase in his service charge is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (paragraph 42.d of the Scheme).
  2. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service being provided (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
  3. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This is broken down as:
      1. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the grounds maintenance service being provided.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his associated complaint.
    3. Following feedback from the resident, contact him and discuss:
      1. The areas of the estate the resident’s service charge for ground maintenance covers.
      2. The work which is carried out under the grounds maintenance contract. The landlord should consider whether it asks the contractor to sign an attendance sheet to show it is attending fortnightly, which can be viewed by all resident’s within the block. 
      3. Whether it can review the grounds maintenance services provided and look at whether they are value for money. The landlord should state whether this could be done now or when it retenders for the contract.
      4. How it is monitoring the grounds maintenance contract and how often it is carrying out inspections of the estate.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices. If it has not done so already, it should consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
  2. The landlord should consider if any future grounds maintenance contract should provide an indication of the number of hours in the specification.