A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202317836)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317836

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 June 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 reports of a roof leak in the building.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the associated complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a long-term leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord owns the building and maintains the exterior structure and common parts. The resident has informed the landlord that she has an autoimmune disease.
The resident wrote to the landlord to complain about rainwater coming into her flat and causing damage to the kitchen and dining room on 27 June 2023. This email was treated as a stage 1 complaint by the landlord and it acknowledged it on 30 June 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2023. In its response it:
1. Recognised that this has been a longstanding issue for the resident.
2. Committed to sending a Surveyor to investigate for any repairs by 14 July 2023.
3. Informed the resident that staff training had been carried out on record-keeping and it had reminded its contractor of its service levels.
4. Apologised to the resident and offered her £250 compensation for the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 July 2023. She said that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She mentioned that she had a health condition that was being aggravated by mould in the property. She also said that a Surveyor had attended the property, but later than the date the Surveyor had agreed with her.
Between 25 July 2023 and 28 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord numerous times. She chased the repair and her complaint, described the impact the leak and mould was having on her health, that she was struggling to leave her flat as she had to deal with the leak and described issues she had with the Surveyor the landlord had sent. The resident described how the Surveyor had offered advice she did not agree with and that she did not believe the inspections were sufficient.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that its processes had not been followed and so her complaint had not yet been escalated to stage 2 of its complaint process. It apologised and explained that the complaint had now been escalated. +On 19 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. In the response it:
1. Apologised for the delays in its responses and the delay to the repair.
2. Explained it had consulted with the original developers, but they did not rectify the issue in good time. It had then appointed a contractor, but there were delays as the contractor needed a pavement licence to erect scaffolding. It explained that further delays were caused by a gas contractor carrying out works on the same pavement. However, the works were currently underway and due for completion by 27 October 2023.
3. Offered the resident £1,270 compensation for the delays in the works and its response, the stress and inconvenience to the resident, poor communication and the quality of the works.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 20 October 2023 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She did not believe that the repairs were going to be completed in time. She explained that as an outcome she wanted the landlord to clarify what works it would be carrying out, provide a timescale for the works, have an independent surveyor assess the issue and for the landlord to review the amount of compensation it had offered her.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past this date of the final complaint response, which are directly relevant to the issues raised in the complaint.
The resident has said that the landlord’s handling of the roof leak impacted her health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has it) or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident mentioned issues with damp to the landlord on 30 June 2023, before the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2023. The resident subsequently mentioned mould associated with the damp and that she had a health condition that was aggravated by mould. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident that because this was mentioned after the stage 1 complaint, that it would need to be dealt with as part of a separate complaint. Because of this, we have considered the impact of the landlord’s handling of these reports.

The resident’s reports of a roof leak in the building

The lease agreement says that the landlord is responsible for roof and roof structures. The landlords Responsive Repairs Policy says that emergency make safe repairs will be completed within 4 hours of them being reported and an emergency repair will be completed within 24 hours. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation policy says that it “does not carry out damp and condensation remedial works to leasehold properties unless covered by the lease”.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says it will keep residents updated of any changes or delays to a repair appointment. The policy also says it will try and identify the vulnerability of a resident through proactive engagement. It will then assess whether to attempt to fast-track the repair, in line with its Prioritisation Policy. The Prioritisation Policy says priority will be given to those who need additional support to cope in the event of a breakdown in the landlord’s services and details steps the landlord should take to make sure any vulnerabilities are captured.
The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 27 June 2023. In her email the resident mentioned the leak causing “significant damage” and “blown fuses posing a huge health and safety risk”. Given the resident’s description, we believe it is reasonable that the landlord should have looked into whether this should be dealt with in line with its timescales for emergency repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged for someone to attend the property to make that assessment. Based on the evidence, the earliest a Surveyor attended the property appears to be mid-July after the landlord’s stage 1 response notified the resident that a Surveyor would attend before 14 July 2023. This is inappropriate from the landlord and based on the evidence, is a failure of it to adhere to its policies.
In an email on 17 July 2023, the resident mentioned a health condition that she felt was being made worse by damp and mould in the property. She referenced the impact on her health 4 times in correspondence between August and September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns or factored this into any decisions that were made in relation to the handling of the repair. This is not in line with its Responsive Repairs Policy or its Prioritisation Policy as there was no engagement with the resident to establish whether her condition meant that she qualified to be dealt with in line with the landlord’s Prioritisation Policy. It was not appropriate for the landlord to overlook the resident’s report of the impact on her health and not following up with her about this was a failure to follow its own policies and procedures.
If the landlord had made the assessment on whether the resident should have been dealt with under the Prioritisation Policy, this would have meant making an assessment on whether it was responsible for the damp and mould. The lease agreement does not contain reference to damp and mould, so it cannot be said that the landlord is directly responsible for dealing with the issue. However the Prioritisation Policy states that where it does not have a repairing responsibility, it may undertake a repair normally classed as a Leaseholder’s responsibility if it is concerned the resident is at risk. Given the resident’s description of her health condition, it is reasonable to say that this assessment should have occurred if the resident qualified to be dealt with under the Prioritisation Policy. This further highlights the landlord’s failure to follow its own policies.
If the landlord thought it was not responsible for the damp and mould, it is reasonable to expect it to explain that to the resident. This could also involve advice on treating the mould as this is information that it would have readily available. According to the lease agreement, the landlord is also the policy holder for the buildings insurance. It should also have advised the resident on claiming via this insurance policy for any damage caused by the damp and mould. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not to respond to or address the resident’s reports of mould.
The resident mentioned that a Surveyor attended the property, firstly in an email on 17 July 2023. The resident mentions the Surveyor attending more than once in her emails, taking issue with the work and advice from the Surveyor. However no further evidence has been provided by the landlord of the Surveyor attending the resident’s property. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that someone did attend the property, but without the evidence of a report or notes from a visit we cannot conclude that any actions took place as a result of a Surveyor attending the property. The absence of a comprehensive inspection meant that the resident did not have confidence that the landlord was carrying out any action to resolve the leak or the reported damp and mould issues. This was an unreasonable approach from the landlord.
Between the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2023 and its stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023 the resident repeatedly emailed the landlord to chase the repairs and detail the impact that the leak was having on her. She contacted the landlord 12 times between July 2023 and September 2023. While some of these emails were acknowledged by a member of the landlord’s staff, the responses did not provide any meaningful update to the resident aside from saying that the issue was being looked at.
The landlord’s inaction meant it failed to offer the resident reassurance that it was dealing with this issue effectively. It was the resident who continually invested time and effort in chasing the landlord for updates and actions which she should not be expected to do. It is the landlord’s responsibility to manage all repairs through to completion. The resident continued to inform the landlord of the impact the leak was having, including that she suspected that the damp and mould in the property was affecting her health. The landlord did not demonstrate any sense of urgency in completing the repairs despite the potential damp and mould hazard. It did not update the resident or provide a timescale for the repair. This was a failure of the landlord and not in line with its Responsive Repairs Policy which confirms that resident’s will be advised of any delays.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. In its response it apologised and explained the reasons that the repair had been delayed. While it is a positive that the landlord explained the reason for the delays, it should not be relying on its complaint process to provide updates to residents. There is no evidence and no explanation from the landlord as to why it could not have explained this to the resident before providing the complaint response. It represents a continued failure of the landlord to adhere to its Responsive Repairs Policy.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that the repair should be completed by 27 October 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the repair was completed on that date and no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about any further delays. This was unreasonable of the landlord, considering it had apologised for the delays in its responses and informed the resident it would be taking this seriously. It is concerning that the landlord did not demonstrate any learning from its complaint investigation.
We have not seen evidence to confirm that the repair to fix the roof leak was completed. However, the landlord has confirmed in an email to this service on 14 October 2024 that all outstanding repairs were completed on 27 March 2024. The resident has also referred to the repairs being completed in December 2023 in a communication to the landlord on 3 March 2024. Therefore, it is not disputed that the repairs to fix the leak have been completed at some point between December 2023 and March 2024.
There is no evidence to suggest what category of repair the landlord treated the leak as. Its Responsive Repair Policy gives the classifications of emergency repair (24 hour response), standard repair (20 working day response) and a planned and packaged repair (90 day response). Regardless of how the landlord classified the repair, it is clear that it failed to complete the repair within its timescales. The absolute minimum amount of time that the landlord could have completed the repair, based on the evidence, is in just over 5 months. This would mean that the landlord failed to comply with the timescales for repair set out in its own policies.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £1,190 compensation for the delay to the repair, poor communication and the impact on the resident. In the circumstances, we believe this to be a reasonable offer from the landlord. The resident has described the distress and inconvenience this situation caused her and it is clear from her correspondence that the delays and lack of communication further enhanced this.
While we find the level of compensation offered to be in line with our policy and guidance on remedies, we are unable to find reasonable redress here because the landlord did not factor the resident’s reported vulnerabilities into it’s decision making. There is also a lack of learning from the landlord. It’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing this matter and informed her that staff training had been carried out in relation to record keeping. Between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on multiple occasions. This did not happen and so we consider that this amounts to service failure. As a consequence, we have ordered the landlord to conduct a review of its shortcomings on communication and management of the repair.

The landlord’s record keeping

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of our Scheme require landlords to provide copies of any information we consider relevant to the complaint. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord has provided records of its communications with the resident, but it has not provided any evidence in relation to the repairs undertaken and Surveyor inspections. This raises concern around the landlord’s record keeping and makes it difficult for us to determine if the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies.
Without evidence, we are unable to conclude if a landlord carried out a certain action. The landlord has provided repair records for 2021 but has not provided any repair records for the period of the resident’s complaint. It seems apparent that the roof leak was fixed so it is a record keeping failure of the landlord that this repair was not recorded within its systems.
There is no evidence that the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities after she mentioned them on 17 July 2023 and 4 times after that. The landlord confirmed to us on 14 October 2024 that it does not have any vulnerabilities on record for the resident. The landlord’s Prioritisation Policy says its staff should keep records updated if a resident’s needs change. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that resident’s vulnerabilities need to be accurately recorded. If the resident’s vulnerabilities were recorded here, then it is more likely that the landlord would have adhered to its Prioritisation Policy in considering whether the repair should have been prioritised and whether to accept responsibility for the damp and mould. As such, it is a record keeping failure that the landlord did not record the resident’s vulnerabilities at any of these points.
The landlord’s record keeping caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, it had an impact on how she was kept updated on the repairs and meant that her health condition was overlooked. We find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping when it comes to this complaint and we have ordered the landlord to conduct a review of its record keeping failures. Given the impact on the resident, and considering our policy and guidance on remedies, we believe it is appropriate for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaint Procedure says that a complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2 should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 complaint response should be sent to a resident 10 working days from the acknowledgement. A stage 2 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 20 working days of the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s Complaints Procedure and the Code describes how landlords should address all points raised in the complaint definition of its responses.
The resident submitted her complaint on 27 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 30 June 2023 and sent its response on 4 July 2023. These communications from the landlord were within its stated timescales and so not a failure.
However, the landlord did not address elements of the residents complaint. The resident had mentioned her washing machine was not working due a blown fuse because of damp in the property. The landlord did mention damage to the flat in its stage 1 response, but did not go into detail or explore with the resident what damage had occurred and what resolution could be found. It specifically mentioned the damaged washing machine in its stage 2 response complaint definition but did not offer a response about it. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure and the Code says that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition. The landlord did not do this and so this is a failure to follow its own procedures and the Code.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 17 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, within its policy timescales for acknowledgements. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. This was 68 working days from the acknowledgement and so is a failure from the landlord as it is not in line with its policy on response timescales.
Between the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the resident mentioned in multiple emails the concerns she had with the landlord’s Surveyor. The landlord did not address these concerns in its stage 2 complaint response, though its complaints policy does say that it will not consider issues introduced after its stage 1 complaint response. However, even if the landlord was choosing not to include this element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response, we would still expect the landlord to explain this to the resident. It is a shortcoming that there is no evidence that this was explained to the resident.
While the landlord apologised and recognised its failings related to the delay to its stage 2 response, it did not address all of the points raised by the resident within the stage 2 complaint definitions. We consider that this amounts to service failure from the landlord.
The landlord offered the resident £80 compensation specifically for the delay in its stage 2 response. Given the landlord did not address all of the resident’s complaint, and taking into account our policy and guidance on remedies, we believe it is appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £70 compensation to the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to explore whether she has any outstanding issues in relation to the complaint. This should include whether she still has any concerns in relation to her washing machine and the landlord’s Surveyor if it has not addressed these issues in a separate complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £1,190 for its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak in the building.
2. Paid the resident £150 for its record keeping in this matter.
3. Paid the resident £150 for its handling of the associated complaint.
4. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord for this element of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint specifically for this element of the complaint.
5. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.
6. Written to the resident to explore whether they need to record any vulnerabilities on their systems in relation to her.
7. Written to the resident to request a breakdown of any complaint points that the resident believes are still outstanding from this complaint. It must clearly ask for any information it needs to make a decision on this matter and specifically mention the resident’s washing machine and her complaint against the Surveyor (if the complaint against the Surveyor has not already been addressed).
Within a further 4 weeks of the resident’s response, the landlord must provide evidence that it has provided the resident with a written response to her outstanding complaint points, clearly explaining the reasons for its decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Conducted a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It must set out what went wrong and why, and detail what actions it will take to make sure the same failings are not repeated. This must include, as a minimum, consideration of the way it communicated updates about repairs to the resident and the record keeping failures.