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 (202341828)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341828

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
    1. Resident’s service charges.
    2. Resident’s reports of faults with the communal door.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord owns the freehold of the block.
  2. There was a fault with the communal front door to the resident’s block. It was failing to lock when closed. The resident said this allowed non-residents to enter the block. As a result, residents experienced harassment, vandalism in the communal area and attempted break-ins.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 12 October 2023. She said she had received a bill for £1,500 to be paid in 30 days. She said the bill failed to provide full details of the charges. She said this had happened the previous year and when challenged most of the charges had to be withdrawn. She challenged its charges for sewerage lighting and communal repairs. She complained that the front communal door had still not been fixed putting residents at risk.
  4. The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 24 November 2023. It said it understood her concerns about incorrect charges following last year’s bill. It agreed to provide the invoices to support the charge for sewerage and communal repairs. It acknowledged repair issues with the communal lighting and provided details on the repairs. It agreed to look into her query on the charges for this and update her on the matter by 22 December 2023. It acknowledged the communal door repair was outstanding. It confirmed a temporary fix was completed on 15 November 2023. It said a new lock was on order and would be fitted on 30 November 2023. It offered her £75 compensation as the service had fallen below standard.
  5. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 30 November 2023. She was not happy that the supporting information could not be provided with the complaint response. It had ignored the large bill and that it was due in 30 days. It had not mentioned that the temporary fix to the communal front door had been carried out by residents and not the landlord. It did not fit the new door lock on 30 November 2023 as agreed. The compensation was insufficient, she would not accept less than £5,000 compensation.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 December 2023. It said it might be possible to pay the service charge bill over an extended period. It had sent the agreed invoices on 20 December 2023. If a delay to fixing the lighting had increased the operating cost, it would compensate or make adjustments for the charges. Its contractors had attended several times to temporarily fix the communal door and would be attending on 5 January 2024 to replace the lock. It said it offered £75 compensation at stage 1 and would increase that offer to £150 for her time and trouble to pursue the matter. It also offered £100 for the personal inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the door.
  7. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She did not think it was appropriate to issue inaccurate service charge bills. She thought residents should be able to pay the ‘actual’ charge over 12 months as a default position. She was not satisfied with the level of compensation it offered her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. Complaints about the level of and amount charged falls under the remit of the First Tier Tribunal. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she may take advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Service charge

  1.  Under the terms of the existing lease, the landlord is required to carry out any necessary work to the building at the expense of the leaseholder. The leaseholder is required to pay the landlord a service charge for the provision of services set out in the lease. It stipulates the charges should be paid in equal monthly payments on the first day of each month.
  2. The lease also requires that the landlord calculate the service provision before the beginning of any account year (estimated costs). Then, as soon as practicable after each account year, it must “determine and certify” the amount the estimate referred to and provide a copy of that certificate (actual costs). On receipt of the certificate, the leaseholder must pay “forthwith” the specified proportion of any deficit.
  3. The landlord provides full details of its service charging process, which aligns with the terms of the lease, and what its service charges are for on its website.
  4. On receipt of the landlord’s ‘actual charges’ bill in September 2023, the resident complained it asked her to pay £1,500 in 30 days. She requested it recover the charges by automatically allowing payment in 12 monthly instalments.
  5. We acknowledge the recent rising cost of goods and services has resulted in many residents receiving higher than expected service charge bills. This can be a source of stress and anxiety for residents who might struggle to pay them. However, the resident’s lease sets the terms for the service charge payments, which require ‘actual charge’ deficits to be paid immediately. The landlord had therefore, acted in accordance with the lease in requesting payment of the bill within 30 days.
  6. The landlord’s ‘actual charges’ letter and its leaseholder’s website information advise residents to contact them immediately if they think they will have difficulty paying their service charge bill. If residents are in financial difficulty, its income team can agree affordable ways to make the payment, which can include a monthly payment plan.
  7. The resident said her previous year’s actual service charge bill from the landlord (2021-22) was significant compared to the estimated charges bill. When she challenged the landlord about the amount, its investigation found there were 5 incorrect charges included. These totalled £3174.33, which had to be removed from the bill. This error understandably made the resident mistrustful about its calculations. Errors are unfortunate, and while frustrating for the residents, it has to be accepted they will occasionally happen.
  8. The resident on receipt of her actual charges bill, for 2022-23, raised concerns about whether the calculations were correct. She felt the charges for lighting were high. She asked the landlord if it had considered an earlier fault with the lighting where it was on constantly and had taken it months to fix. She did not feel residents should be liable for the resulting electricity costs.
  9. The landlord’s response on 24 November 2023 acknowledged a repair was raised for the faulty lights on 17 May 2023. It said while its operatives attended on 4 occasions to address multiple problems, it did not get the issue resolved until 9 October 2023. It agreed to review the charges, and consider the total spend for this period and the time taken to complete the repair. It agreed to respond to her on this matter by 22 December 2023, which was reasonable.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint before this date on 30 November 2023. It was not clear whether the landlord updated the resident on this date as agreed. However, its stage 2 response said that if the lighting was operating unnecessarily, it would compensate or adjust the charges accordingly.
  11. An update from the landlord confirmed that following investigations with its mechanical and electrical team it determined the lights were faulty for 5 months. It later offered the resident a 30% reduction on the lighting costs for the time of the fault. The calculation was based on guidance from the government’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Technology List. The resident argued that this was an underestimation. The landlord increased the reduction on lighting costs by 80%.
  12. The resident also questioned the landlord about the charges for sewerage plant and pumps. She said this was because it charged residents for sewerage maintenance for another block the previous year. In response, it acknowledged her concerns and offered to send her all the associated invoices by 20 December 2023. Its actions to evidence the charges with the invoices were reasonable and showed transparency.
  13. The resident in part escalated her complaint because she was not happy that she had to wait for the invoices. She thought that this showed the landlord may have calculated a charge without having the relevant invoices for works available. If that was the case, she believed this would make the charging illegal.
  14. The delay in providing the invoices was down to the administration. The landlord needed time to access the payment system, download the relevant invoices, print and send them out. Internal communication highlighted that demand for its service increases dramatically when service charge bills go out. To allow 4 weeks for the administration of the process to send the invoices was not unreasonable.
  15. The resident also took issue with the landlord charging for communal repairs as a total sum, without breaking down what the charges were for. She said she had raised this issue the previous year and was unhappy it had not addressed this. It agreed that the heading for communal repairs was broad. It explained this was because the list for repairs was vast. It agreed to send her the relevant invoices within the next 20 days to evidence the charges.
  16. The landlord’s response to send the invoices was reasonable. However, some invoices do not provide clarity on what they relate to. For example, several invoices seen give the amount, say £15,050, with the description ‘for works as per valuation’. This does not adequately explain what the residents are paying for. If it is going to rely on invoices like this as evidence, it needs to attach the valuation with it.
  17.  While it is not a service failure to total the bill for communal works, residents need to understand what the charges are for. It does not seem practical for the landlord to send out all the invoices that make up the charges when residents ask, when it could simply better break them down.
  18. It was necessary for the landlord to amend the resident’s ‘actual service’ charge bill for 2022-23. It had to remove them as with the previous year’s bill. While it is reasonable to accept that occasional errors occur, repeated errors indicate a more significant problem. It was remiss that this happened for a second year running. It needs to improve the level of scrutiny in its initial billing process. To keep getting the charges wrong will create a level of mistrust with residents. Any lack of confidence in the process will generate more queries and more work.
  19. Overall, in this case the landlord demonstrated that it managed the residents service charge account in accordance with the terms of the lease. Apart from grouping communal repair costs together, its general communication via its billing and leaseholder information (website) in relation to service charges was clear. While it was remiss that the service charge bills were incorrect, it investigated and acknowledged the errors in its charging and rectified those mistakes. Despite the requirement of the lease for charges to be paid forthwith, it has a safety net in place, via its income team, who will assist residents in financial difficulty. This had led us to a finding of no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s service charges.

Communal Front Door

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This includes keeping common or shared parts of the building in repair even when the tenants have not notified it. It should also complete any repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on the 3 October 2023 that the front communal door was broken. She said non-residents were getting in, making a mess and causing damage. On the same day, her neighbour reported 4 adults in the corridors behaving suspiciously and an attempted break in at their flat. They said they had called the police. Understandably, this made the resident anxious about her safety.
  3.  In her complaint on 12 October 2023, the resident reported again that the communal door had still not been fixed. She said the landlord was putting residents at risk.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delay in getting the door repaired. It said a temporary repair was carried out on 15 November 2023 and it had ordered a new lock which it would fit on 30 November 2023. It offered the resident £75 for the failings in its service standard.
  5. In the resident’s escalation request on 30 November 2023, she said residents completed the temporary fix, not the landlord. It had also not fitted the new lock today, as agreed. She said it was putting money ahead of safety.
  6. It was not appropriate for the landlord to agree on a remedy in its complaint handling process and not follow through with it. If it could not complete the job, especially for reasons outside of its control, it should have contacted residents to explain so. Doing nothing was a service failure.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 27 December 2023 did not explain its failure to change the lock on 30 November 2023, as agreed. Neither did it deny the resident’s claim that they had temporarily fixed the door on the 15 November 2023. It said its contractors had attended several times and would now replace the lock on 5 January 2023.
  8. The resident reported the fault with the door on 3 October 2023. The landlord provided no repair records, and it was not clear what its policy response time is for a repair to a communal front door. As it affects security and several residents, most social landlords provide an emergency response. The expected completion date of 5 January 2024 meant its response time was 3 months, which was not reasonable.
  9. The landlord disputed the resident’s claim that it was putting money ahead of safety. It gave several reasons for access control systems to break down, but not the reason for this one. It said it was working with its contractors to improve response times and complete jobs in a timely manner. However, this was not always possible because of the availability of some of the required parts.
  10. It is important for landlords to communicate with residents if there are any delays in getting a repair responded to. It should keep them appraised of the fault, why there is a delay, what it is doing to address the delay, and an estimated completion time. There was no evidence it did so prior to the complaint.
  11.  Furthermore, we rely on contemporaneous evidence when considering complaints. While we have noted the landlord’s account and comments regarding its actions to repair the communal door, we have seen no evidence to support it.
  12. Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It also assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of the building, monitoring outstanding works and providing accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
  13. The landlord acknowledged there were failings in its handling of the repairs to the communal door. It apologised to the resident and revised its offer of compensation from £75 at stage 1 to £150 for her time and trouble pursuing the matter. It also awarded a further offer of £100 for inconvenience, making a total offer of £250.
  14.  The offer of £250 was reasonable. It was within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. In determining whether a landlord’s offer is fair and reasonable, we consider its need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
  15. While the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal door was not good, it acknowledged its failings. Its efforts to put this matter right amounted to providing an apology, putting in a plan of action that led to the works taking place and making a proportionate offer of compensation. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in its handling of this matter.

Complaint

  1. From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Our duty to monitor against it became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
  2. The Code requires all landlords to have no more than two stages to their complaint process. Stage 1 and 2 complaints should be responded to within 10 and 20 working days respectively from acknowledgement of the complaints. Any extensions to this must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling policy aligns with the Code.
  3. Following her stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord on 23 October 2023 that it had not acknowledged her complaint. Both the Code and its complaint handling policy require that it acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At the time of her chase up email, 8 working days had passed, and she had not received an acknowledgement. Although not excessive, this was a failing and could have been remedied by an acknowledgement and apology.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2023. This was a response time of 32 working days, which significantly exceeded its policy response time of 10 working days and was not Code compliant.
  5. Furthermore, there was no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to discuss the delay or agree on an extension. This did not comply with the Code.
  6. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had adhered to its complaint handling policy or the Code in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It again failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delayed response. As such, we have made a finding of service failure in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faults with the communal door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. For the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling:
      1. Provides a written apology to the resident.
      2. Pays the resident £50 in compensation.

 

Recommendations

  1. The determination of reasonable redress for the landlords handling of repairs to the communal door, is dependent on the landlord paying the £250 previously offered. The Ombudsman recommends it pays the resident the £250 if it has not already done so.
  2. The Ombudsman agrees with the resident that if errors were found in the original bill and amendments have been made, revised bills should be sent to reflect this. We recommend the landlord send a revised bill to the resident reflecting the correct charges.