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 (202317948)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317948

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

1 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 repairs to a balcony.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 3–bedroom flat, on an assured shorthold tenancy since 2019. Her daughter has acted as her representative in both the complaint made to the landlord and to us. Unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, both are referred to in this report as ‘the resident’.
  2. In May 2022 there was a leak from the resident’s balcony into the property below. After both properties were inspected, a job was created on 23 August 2022 to replace the membrane on the resident’s balcony.
  3. In September 2022 the landlord received an estimate for carrying out the works. However it appears additional work was required and a further estimate was approved on 7 November 2022. A repair was then carried out on 16 December 2022.
  4. On 7 April 2023 the resident complained that, following the repair, the decking had not been replaced and she was unhappy with the time things were taking. She asked when the work would be completed and said she had made a complaint over the telephone in November 2023 but had heard nothing further.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 26 April 2023 it acknowledged it had taken from August to December 2022 to repair the membrane. It apologised that the job to replace the decking was not raised until 7 March 2023. It accepted there had been a delay and a breakdown in communication and promised the work would be completed by 30 June 2023. It offered £250 compensation (£50 for the breakdown in communication, £150 for the time taken, and £50 for stress and inconvenience).
  6. The resident accepted the compensation the following day and it was paid on 16 May 2023.
  7. On 5 July 2023 the resident chased the landlord as the balcony flooring had not been replaced. Further, she had been contacted by a contractor to arrange a visit, but they had referred to assessing the bedroom instead of the balcony. She was concerned about the misunderstanding and how long things were taking.
  8. On 29 September 2023 the landlord confirmed that, when it rained, water was still leaking from the resident’s balcony onto the balcony below.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 October 2023. It apologised that works raised in March 2023 could not be completed as:
    1. Water was still penetrating from the balcony into the flat below.
    2. The leak was still under investigation to determine the exact location.
    3. The waterproofing contractor had been instructed to have the leak repaired by 20 October 2023.
    4. The decking contractor was seeking a more durable decking and it anticipated that this would be installed by 24 November 2023.
  10. The landlord apologised for not meeting the 30 June 2023 deadline given at stage 1 and accepted it was due to poor internal communication. It offered a further £550 compensation, as follows:
    1. £50 for external communication (in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1).
    2. £100 for internal communication and poor ticket management.
    3. £50 for inconvenience (in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1).
    4. Ex gratia payment of £300 for the length of time it was taking to resolve the issues and inconvenience caused.
    5. £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint actioning the stage 2 request as the resident had made it aware in July 2023 that works were still outstanding.
  11. The £550 was paid on 5 October 2023.
  12. On 6 February 2024 the waterproofing contractor confirmed the leak was repaired, and replacement decking was then installed on 21 February 2024. The landlord has said it offered an additional £100 compensation on 8 March 2024 for delays and this was paid on 15 March 2024. It has confirmed there were no further issues reported and the resident moved out in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a balcony

  1. The occupancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including balconies. The landlord’s repairs policy says a standard repair should be completed within 20 working days.
  2. According to information provided by the landlord, it took 3 months from first identifying a leak in May 2022 for a repair to be recorded. While the 2 properties were inspected during that time, it is not clear why this took so long. Once a repair was logged in August 2022 the landlord then failed to carry out the works for nearly 4 months. It therefore failed in its obligations under its repairs policy and it accepted this in its complaint response.
  3. It is good to see that the landlord acknowledged this delay, and the further delay in creating a job to replace the decking. It was therefore appropriate that it offered the resident compensation to recognise this and the inconvenience caused. However, having promised to complete the decking by 30 June 2023, it then failed to do adhere to that timeframe.
  4. Further leaks from the balcony delayed the replacement of the decking, but the resident found it necessary to chase the landlord and escalate her complaint in order to receive an update. This indicated the job was not being actively monitored and there was a lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord had acknowledged this was an issue at stage 1 but then failed to learn from its earlier mistakes and change its approach.
  5. While it was sensible that the landlord increased its offer of compensation to recognise the additional delay, it did so while work remained outstanding. Therefore, it could not fairly assess the overall impact on the resident. It was therefore appropriate, having offered a further £500 compensation for the impact caused by delays and poor communication, to re–evaluate its position again later. Once all repairs were completed in February 2024 the landlord offered another £100 compensation to recognise the further delay.
  6. Overall, the landlord has paid the resident £850 compensation to remedy the issues. This far exceeds the amount it recommends in its compensation policy, which says that where there has been extensive poor service, compensation of between £350 and £750 should be considered. There were delays by the landlord and the resident was caused frustration and inconvenience for some time. However, the landlord acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right. The poor service had no permanent impact and the compensation offered sufficiently addressed the detriment to the resident due to the delays and inconvenience caused. Taking that in to account, we find that the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure said it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and that it had a further 10 working days to issue a response. It is not clear if or when the landlord did acknowledge the complaint. However, it issued its stage 1 response 13 working days after receiving the complaint. This is in line with the total 15 working day allowance and was therefore reasonable.
  2. The complaints procedure does not stipulate a time frame for when a complaint can be escalated, but it was in July 2023 that the resident made it clear she remained unhappy. The landlord accepted this as an escalation request and, in accordance with its procedure, it correctly arranged for a stage 2 director review. However, it took nearly 3 months to issue its response, which did not comply with the 20 working day timescale set out in its procedure.
  3. The landlord acknowledged this failure and, in its stage 2 response, offered the resident £50 compensation. Its compensation policy says that where the complaint handling has been poor but there is low impact, compensation of around £50 to £100 is reasonable. It says it would warrant more compensation if there was an effort to progress the complaint. That is not the case here, as there is no indication the resident chased the landlord between July and October 2023 to respond to her concerns.
  4. There was a shortfall in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, but the offer of £50 was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right. The compensation offered sufficiently addressed the modest detriment to the resident due to the delays. Taking that in to account, we find that the landlord has made an offer which is reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. Repairs to a balcony.
    2. The formal complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £900 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised a deficiency in the way it dealt with the handling of repairs to the balcony and the service failure in its complaint handling. The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.