A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202331913)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331913

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 May 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:
1. the resident’s queries about the deficit charges added to the service charge accounts.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property under a lease dated April 2014. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a second floor flat in a purpose-built block. The resident has not reported any vulnerabilities.
The landlord operates variable service charges. It provided its estimated service charges for financial year 2020/2021 on 12 February 2020. The landlord provided its estimated service charges for financial year 2021/2022 on 10 February 2021. It sent its actual service charges for financial year 2020/2021 including a deficit charge of £468.67 to the resident on 30 September 2021.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called it on 5 April 2022 to discuss his service charges. He said he wanted a breakdown of the service charges from the previous year and to know why they were still on the account. The landlord sent its actual service charges for 2021/2022 on 19 August 2022. This included a deficit charge of £179.22 for that year.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August and 4 September 2022 and 28 February 2023 to dispute the service charges. He said that he had not received the services the landlord had charged for including gardening and repairs. He said he had challenged the deficit charges in previous years, and they were found to be incorrect and removed. However, he had challenged the additional charges for the previous 2 years but had not received a response and they remained on his account. The landlord responded on 31 March 2023 and provided information from a recent webinar on service charge increases.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July and 11 August 2023 and reiterated his concerns about not receiving the service the landlord had charged him for. The landlord raised a complaint on 15 August 2023 and sent its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It summarised the resident’s issues. It upheld the resident’s complaint because it did not respond to his email of 27 July 2023 and apologised for this, offered £35 compensation and outlined its learning. The landlord told the resident that he could expect a further response regarding his service charges by 21 September 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it escalated the resident’s complaint on 25 September 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 19 October 2023. It summarised the resident’s issues and said:
1. following its stage 1 response its records showed that it had not contacted the resident, and it apologised that this did not happen as it had set out.
2. the resident escalated his complaint on 22 September 2023 and following this the landlord called him and discussed his concerns. This was followed up by an email in which the landlord told the resident it would investigate his concerns regarding the service charges for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
3. it recognised that it had not agreed a timescale for response, and it apologised for this. It had reaffirmed its expectations with the relevant team that it should do this to set resident’s expectations.
4. it would provide a response regarding the service charges to the residents in his block by 27 October 2023.
5. by way of apology and for the continued delay in resolving the resident’s queries it offered £180 which superseded the offer made at stage 1 as follows:
  1. £100 for poor communication.
  2. £80 for the resident’s time and trouble.
6. it had spoken with the relevant team and reinforced the service levels it expected and the obligation it had to provide a good service to residents. It had also highlighted the importance of maintaining good communications with residents.
7. it was sorry that the resident had cause to complain and upheld his complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2023. It told him it was currently reviewing the income and expenditure accounts for 2022/2023. It said upon completion of that it would review the previous service charge accounts. It asked the resident to be patient and said it would respond at the earliest opportunity.
In referring his complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 December 2023, the resident has said that the issue has been ongoing for the previous 3 years. He said the large outstanding debt had caused him anxiety and he felt trapped as he was unable to sell his flat because of this. The resident said he wants the landlord to remove the deficit charges from the accounts as it has not responded to his queries regarding this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has asked that the landlord remove the deficit charges from his account. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. This falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding the service charges and whether this was reasonable.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to the landlord adding deficit charges to his service charge account for financial year 2022/2023. This issue has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. The deficit charges for financial year 2022/2023 will only be included in this report for context. New issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed with the landlord directly and progressed as a new complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the deficit charges added to the service charge accounts

The lease states that:
1. the service provision shall consist of a sum comprising the expenditure estimated by the authorised person as likely to be incurred in the account year by the landlord.
2. the leaseholder is to pay the service charge during the term by equal payments in advance at the same time and in the same way in which the rent is payable.
3. the service provision in respect of any account shall be calculated before the beginning of the account year.
4. the service provision shall consist of a sum comprising the expenditure estimated by the authorised person as likely to be incurred in the account year by the landlord.
5. as soon as practicable after the end of each account year the landlord shall determine and certify the amount by which the estimate had exceeded or fallen short of the actual expenditure account. It should provide the leaseholder with a copy of the certificate of the specified proportion of the excess or deficiency. The leaseholder shall pay immediately following receipt of the certificate of the specified proportion of excess.
6. the parties agree that the provisions of sections 18 to 30b of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and part 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 all of which regulate service charges shall apply to the provisions of this lease.
7. if in the reasonable opinion of the authorised person it shall at any time be necessary or equitable to do so the landlord may increase or vary the service charge.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling published in September 2020 recommended that landlords should provide information on service provision and charges to residents upon request. This is in accordance with sections 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
On 12 February 2020 and 10 February 2021, the landlord sent the estimated service charges for financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this. This is because the lease says that the landlord would calculate the estimated service provision before the beginning of the account year.
The landlord sent the actual service charge for financial year 2020/2021 with a detailed explanation to the resident on 30 September 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this. This is because the lease sets out that the landlord could increase or vary the service charge. The lease also says that the landlord should send the amount by which the estimate had fallen short of the expenditure account as soon as practicable at the end of the account year.
The resident called the landlord on 5 April 2022 and requested information regarding his service charges. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any information or contacted the resident back regarding this. The landlord should have provided information or contacted the resident and ascertained what information he required in accordance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s failure to do this was unreasonable.
The landlord sent the actual service charge for financial year 2021/2022 to the resident on 19 August 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this as the lease says that it could increase or vary the service charge. The lease also states that the landlord would provide the amount by which the estimate had fallen short of the expenditure account as soon as practicable at the end of the account year.
The resident called the landlord on 24 August 2022 and emailed the landlord on 4 September 2022 to dispute the service charges on his account. Other than acknowledging the email the landlord did not respond to the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord had not provided information to the resident as recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
The resident called the landlord on 28 February 2023 and continued to dispute the service charges. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2023. It is unclear what this was in response to. However, the landlord attached a booklet containing generic information about service charge increases. It did not answer the resident’s specific queries regarding his service charges. This was not appropriate as the Ombudsman’s spotlight report states that landlords should provide additional information on service charges upon request.
The resident continued to dispute the service charges in emails to the landlord on 27 July and 11 August 2023. He requested an update, but the landlord did not respond. This was unreasonable as the landlord did contact the resident to confirm what he was disputing and did not provide additional information to the resident as recommended by the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
In its stage 1 response sent on 4 September 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s email of 27 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident’s other queries and disputes. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not answer the resident’s query in its complaint response. Instead, it passed this to another department to deal with. This was inappropriate as the landlord failed to resolve the issue in line with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Additionally, in its stage 1 response the landlord said he could expect a response by 21 September 2023 however it did not send a response. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not act as it said it would or in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report to provide information to the resident.
The landlord spoke with the resident and emailed him on 28 September 2023. It apologised again for not responding to his queries regarding the income and expenditure accounts for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. It agreed to investigate this and report back to all leaseholders in the resident’s building. While it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and agree to investigate the resident’s concerns it did not provide a timescale. This was unreasonable as it did not manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord apologised again and acknowledged that the timescale of 2 years to provide a response to his queries about the service charges was not acceptable when it emailed the resident between 5 and 9 October 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this, although it was still to provide a response about this.
In its stage 2 response dated 19 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged that it had not contacted the resident as set out in its stage 1 response and apologised for this. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. The landlord also apologised for not providing a timescale to respond to the resident’s queries about his service charges for 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. It said that the resident would have a response by 27 October 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2023. It said it was currently reviewing the income and expenditure accounts for 2022/2023 and upon completion of this it would review the previous service charge accounts. It asked the resident to be patient.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a response to his specific queries regarding the additional charges on the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 service charge accounts as stated in its stage 2 response or its email of 26 October 2023. This was not appropriate as the landlord has not acted as it said it would or in line with the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
The resident said he accepted the £180 compensation on the understanding that the landlord would look at his concerns regarding the deficit charges. However, he has received no further communication from the landlord about this. This was a further failure to deal with the resident’s enquiries. This caused distress to the resident and negatively affected the landlord and resident relationship.

Summary and Conclusions

In summary we have found that there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries relating to the deficit charges on the service charge accounts because:
1. the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s communications over a 17-month period despite repeated contact from him.
2. the landlord’s complaint responses at stage 1 and stage 2 did not address or answer the resident’s complaint.
3. the landlord did not address delays in its communication and offered £180 redress but failed to learn from this and continued to make the same failings.
4. the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about his service charges. Despite assurances given by the landlord, the resident is yet to receive a response to his queries.
The resident demonstrated his distress with the lack of response from the landlord and the inconvenience this was causing him in his emails to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should pay additional compensation to the resident to recognise how its failures impacted him.
Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £150 in addition to the £180 already paid. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s queries about deficit charges added to the service charge accounts.
The landlord should also write to the resident and set out its position on whether the service charge deficit for financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 is correct and whether it needs to make any refunds to his account. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the provisions of the code.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had intermittent contact with it from April 2022 to August 2023. Although the call in April 2022 was to discuss his service charges during this period the resident increasingly demonstrated his dissatisfaction with his service charge accounts. The landlord failed to raise a complaint. This was inappropriate as the Code states that a resident does not have to use the word complaint for an issue to be considered as such.
In its stage 1 response dated 4 September 2023 the landlord noted the resident’s email of 15 August 2023 to its complaints team. The landlord has not provided a copy of this email to the Ombudsman. Additionally, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This is inappropriate, as the Code says that landlords must keep full records of a complaint and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any relevant supporting documentation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accurately outlined the resident’s issues, what he wanted to resolve the complaint and what it had learned to stop this from happening again. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its delay in raising a complaint. Considering the length of time the resident had been raising issues about his service charges, this was unreasonable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 October 2023 and said it had escalated his complaint on 25 and 26 September 2023. Its stage 2 response also says the resident escalated his complaint 22 September 2023. This caused confusion and the landlord has not provided a record of the escalation on 22 September 2023. This is poor record keeping and is inappropriate.
As the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 25 September 2023 it had until 20 October 2023 to provide its stage 2 response. The landlord provided this on 19 October 2023 which was appropriate. Although the stage 2 response identified the resident’s issues and acknowledged the landlord’s failings when handling them it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures. This was unreasonable.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the initial delay in raising a complaint was outside its control or necessary to answer the complaint. On this basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code. The landlord has also failed to provide records of its correspondence with the resident regarding his complaint.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord failed to keep proper records and delayed raising a complaint which prolonged the resident’s complaint seeking redress through us.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the deficit charges added to the service charge accounts.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident £300 which it must not offset against any arrears, consisting of:
  1. £150 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the deficit charges added to the service charge accounts.
  2. £150 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
3. the landlord should pay the £180 offered to the resident if it has not already paid.
4. the landlord should also write to the resident and set out its position on whether the service charge deficit for financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 is correct and whether it needs to make any refunds to his account. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns about the service charges in subsequent years. It is also recommended that if necessary the landlord provides a written response to the resident regarding these concerns.