A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202330901)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330901

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

14 April 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:
1. Communication regarding the resident’s request to move property.
2. Handling of outstanding repairs, namely:
  1. Faulty windows.
  2. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat on the 6th floor of a high-rise block. He has lived at the property since March 2008 with his wife and children.
In October 2021 the resident’s property was determined to be overcrowded, and he was awarded a priority banding to bid on larger properties. In July 2022, the resident informed the landlord his windows were need of repair. The landlord advised it would complete the repairs during it cyclical works by April 2023. This did not happen. In November 2023 the resident further reported damp and mould in his property and the landlord carried out a survey 2 weeks later.
The resident raised his formal complaint with the landlord on 24 January 2024. He complained about:
1. The lack of contact from the landlord regarding a requested move to a larger property.
2. His reports of damp and mould had not been handled appropriately.
3. The window repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2024. The landlord clarified its position on the resident’s re-banding and the availability of housing and explained the delay in replacing windows. It apologised for this and its handling of damp and mould issues. It offered £975 compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 December 2024. It explained the delays to the damp and mould works and provided updates on the remaining repair issues. The landlord outlined the current state regarding the resident’s rehoming requests and increased its offer of compensation to £1325.
The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In his correspondence with us, the resident states he has been reporting the same issues to the landlord over a period of approximately 17 years. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 24 January 2023 to 9 December 2024. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescsle for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence. However, this report may reference events outside of this timeframe, as context to set our decision making.
The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted on his family. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Communication regarding the resident’s request to move property

When the resident began his tenancy, the allocation of the property size was appropriate for his circumstances. However, over time, his family has grown, leading to the property becoming overcrowded.
The landlord’s allocation policy states it has a nomination agreement with the local authority. This means tenants on the local authorities’ waiting list may get priority over the landlord’s tenants, for properties that become available. This is even if the property was previously occupied by tenants of the landlord. In these circumstances, the landlord does not have control of the allocations process. The resident has been advised to contact the local authority regarding property allocations.
The policy also states the landlord operates a banding system for all properties that fall outside of the local authority nomination agreements. In October 2021 the landlord awarded the resident band A status due to statutory overcrowding. This gave the resident top priority over suitable properties that became available and were not needed by the local authority.
On 18 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him he had been awarded band A status. It told him to register with all of the relevant property transfer systems in order to bid on properties when they became available. It provided advice on other options available to him such as mutual exchange and private rentals. This was reasonable advice for the landlord to give.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord’s notes show consideration was given to offering the resident a direct let. However, this was refused and the notes recorded that more information was needed. The resident states he was not updated with the outcome of this or asked to provide further information. The landlord’s failure to update the resident on the progress of this option was unreasonable.
When the resident made his formal complaint, he specifically complained about the lack of communication from the landlord regarding his request to be moved. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident in the 12 months leading up to his complaint. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, we are unable to conclude the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord met with him on 30 January 2024 and discussed the housing options available. In its stage 1 response dated 9 February 2024, the landlord explained how the nomination agreement with the local authority affected its ability to facilitate a move to a suitable property. It also said it would ask the local authority if it would be willing to reflect the same band priority on the resident’s account with them. But it could not guarantee this would be accepted. The landlord advised the resident to widen his search parameters to increase his chances of securing alternative accommodation. This was reasonable advice for the landlord to give.
The resident continued to bid for suitable properties with the assistance of the landlord but was unsuccessful. The evidence shows the resident regularly reached out to the landlord for updates, but the landlord did not always respond, causing the resident to chase it for updates. This was unreasonable.
Landlord’s notes dated 27 August 2024 recorded a request from the resident to be moved to temporary accommodation, while waiting for a suitable property, due to the outstanding repairs. Further notes dated September 2024 show the request was being considered. However, the resident told us he received no update on this request.
In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 9 December 2024, the landlord said it was aware the resident had not made progress in securing a larger property, but it was supporting the resident by making bids on his behalf. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for “poor communication”. However, it failed to provide the resident with an update regarding his request for temporary accommodation and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make discretionary compensation payments to residents where there has been a service failure. The policy suggests an award of £100 to £350 would remedy moderate disruption and / or customer effort. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the range set out in its policy and was reasonable.
In summary, the landlord provided the resident with the highest priority banding it could as related to his circumstances. It also provided advice on other options and placed bids on behalf of the resident when requested. The landlord’s nominations agreement meant it had to defer to the local authority’s waiting list. Landlords are limited by the stock they hold, and in this case, it was limited further by the demands of the local authority.
However, the landlord’s communication, at times, did not meet resident’s expectations. Significant updates on alternative housing requests were not communicated back to the resident. This caused the resident time and trouble in following matters up. The resident has told us he is still unaware of whether a decision has been made in terms of the direct let or temporary accommodation.
In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £100 may remedy failings such as those acknowledged by the landlord where the failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Given the extent of the landlord’s failings, the apology made, and the compensation awarded, this amounts to a reasonable offer by the landlord to put things right. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s request to move.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s records also show it was aware that some of the people living in the property had vulnerabilities, such as severe allergies and skin conditions. The resident provided the landlord with evidence of this dating back to 2017. The landlord would also have been aware that there 3 children living in the property at the time (aged 12 to 17) at the time of the complaint.

Windows

The repairs to the windows were first reported to the landlord in 2021. It is noted that the repairs were cancelled at the request of the resident. The repairs were re–raised in July 2022. A survey of the property by the landlord determined that new windows were required and would be replaced during its programme of cyclical works. This was due for completion by April 2023.
The landlord’s records do not record why the windows were faulty. The resident has told us that the locking mechanism on the windows did not work, and they were unable to close the windows. He also said that during winter months, he had to secure the windows with duct tape.
The landlord has provided little evidence surrounding the window repairs and it is unclear exactly when the following events occurred. At some point it was identified that urgent work was needed to address the fire cladding on the block. Because of this, the window replacement was moved to the 2024/2025 cyclical works, so all repairs could be completed together. This decision was not communicated to the resident and this was unreasonable.
While the windows needed replacing, the resident had reported some of the windows could not be securely fastened. The resident said this caused his energy bills to increase due to the draughts, particularly in winter. It also created a potential health and safety issue given the property was on the sixth floor and there were 3 children living there.
The landlord’s current window restrictor policy states that while window restrictors are not legal requirements, it will install restrictors to all windows above the first floor when replacing windows. It further states that it will consider fitting restrictors to existing windows above the ground floor on a case-by-case basis. The landlord’s failure to consider fitting restrictors, or even temporary repairs to prevent the draughts, until the replacement could be carried out, was significant, given the presence of children in the property.
The resident has told us he chased the window repairs on several occasions and received no response. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, we are unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it had failed to complete the window repair sooner, after the planned works were moved to 2024/2025, and its communication was poor. However, its response, dated February 2024, informed the resident the window repairs would be completed by April 2025. This meant the resident would be waiting a further 14 months for any resolution to the issue. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 9 December 2024, echoed its stage 1 response, and said the window repairs would be completed in 2025.
The resident could have reasonably expected his window repairs to be completed by April 2023. When this did not happen, the landlord did not update the resident that he faced a further wait of up to 24 months, nor did it try to address any temporary repairs to negate draughts and potential health and safety issues.
The window repairs remain outstanding at this time and the landlord has taken no steps to mitigate any draughts or potential hazards. While it was reasonable for the landlord to delay the window replacement as part of its cyclical works, its obligation to carry out repairs remained and was not acted upon. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this has left the resident with faulty windows for 32 months. This was unreasonable.

Damp and mould

On 21 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report he had damp and mould within the property. The landlord attended the property 5 December 2023 and completed a survey, which noted:
1. “Significant” damp and mould in the bathroom.
2. Damp and mould in both bedrooms.
3. Extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. Further investigation was needed to check for leaks.
The landlord raised the repairs on 31 December 2023. When the resident made his complaint on 24 January 2024, the landlord had not completed any repairs or carried out a further investigation.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will investigate the cause of damp and mould within 14 days of a report being made. While the landlord carried out a survey within this time, the full investigation had not been complete and this was unreasonable.
The policy also states if the investigation indicates a hazard that poses a significant risk to the health and safety of the resident, it will begin repairs within 7 days of the survey being issued. Given both bedrooms contained damp and mould, and there was little other space within the property for sleeping due to overcrowding, it would have been reasonable in these circumstances to expect the landlord to begin the repairs within 7 days in line with its policy. The landlord’s failure to start the repairs for over a month was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged the delay and apologised. This was reasonable. The landlord said the repairs would be started by the end of February 2024.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 February 2024 to book in the repairs. The landlord’s records noted the resident refused access as he stated it would be impossible for him to clear the rooms for the repairs to take place. The notes also recorded the landlord could work on one room at a time if a decant was not an option.
Photographic evidence provided by both the resident and the landlord shows the property to be overcrowded with belongings, with little room to move things around. There were 6 people living in a 2-bedroom flat.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024, he told the landlord that previous surveyors had stated fitting an extractor fan was not possible and he reiterated the repairs could not take place while his family were living in the property due to the overcrowding.
It is unclear what action the landlord took following the escalation request. Its notes from 19 September 2024, recorded the damp and mould case had been closed in error and the resident may require a decant for the works to take place. Further notes suggested if the resident was suitable for a category 1 urgent decant, it could begin the process. This information was also communicated to the resident. Despite this, the landlord did not complete a further survey of the property until 11 November 2024. The survey report did not comment upon whether the resident was suitable for an urgent decant and this was unreasonable.
The landlord has a decant policy, but it does not cover this situation. However, given the number of possessions within the property, and the difficulties it would cause the resident to move the items to allow the repairs to take place, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have identified the difficulties to undertake the works with the family in situ. Whilst there was no policy position on the matter, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken a flexible and pragmatic approach and to have considered decanting the household. While it is accepted the landlord had no suitable properties available, its decant policy allowed hotel accommodation to be used. The landlord’s failure to consider a decant, was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response dated 9 December 2024, the landlord said the resident had refused to allow the damp and mould works to take place, and he was unable to move his belongings out of the way. It said it had asked the resident if he could clear one room at a time, and when this was refused, it had closed the job. The landlord’s response was unreasonable given it had identified the circumstances may require a decant as early as February 2024. Furthermore, it was also aware of the vulnerabilities of the children living in the house.
The response also noted that the resident’s concerns regarding the extractor fans were being assessed, with a view to finding an alternative solution. The resident had raised these concerns 9 months earlier. The delay in addressing these concerns was unreasonable.
The evidence shows the landlord was slow to raise the damp and mould repairs following the first survey. When the resident highlighted that the repairs could not realistically take place with his family in the property, the landlord appeared to consider other options, such as decant. However, the repairs were mistaken closed down and no action was taken to support the resident. This was a failing given the report of “significant” damp and mould, and the history of similar issues within the property.
Furthermore, and despite the landlord’s reassurances, the resident’s concerns regarding ineffective solutions to the problem were not acted upon when he raised them and have not been addressed to date. The landlord’s failure to act in this situation has left the resident living in unreasonable conditions due to damp and mould, undoubtedly made worse by overcrowding, for an extended period.

Summary

The resident’s communications with the landlord regarding the repairs have highlighted the distress, frustration, and inconvenience he has incurred and is still experiencing, due to the repairs remaining outstanding.
The landlord’s complaint responses did acknowledge some failings. However, the responses failed to acknowledge:
1. The landlord was obligated to repair the resident’s windows regardless of the delay to the cyclical works.
2. The faulty windows caused the resident’s energy bills to increase and left him living with a potential health and safety hazard for 28 months.
3. The landlord had failed to apply its decant policy to support the resident in getting the damp and mould works completed.
4. The damp and mould repairs were overdue by almost 1 year and there were people living in the property with vulnerabilities.
The landlord offered the resident £1,050 compensation, made up of:
1. £750 for the length of time to complete the repairs.
2. £300 for stress, inconvenience, and increased heating costs.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it can award compensation of “£350 to £750 and above” for extensive disruption and / or customer effort. The policy also states that consideration will be given to the length of time the landlord has taken to put things right. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its policy for extensive disruption, it was disproportionate to the prolonged period of time the resident’s repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord’s complaint process failed to provide an effective resolution to the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the lack of effective management and organising to put things right for the resident within a meaningful timeframe was a significant failing.
This leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £2,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inability to effect meaningful repairs over the prolonged period identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a series of significant failings has caused a detrimental impact on the resident over a significant period of time.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days.
4. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
On 24 January 2024, the resident made his formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day, in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2024, in line with its policy. Despite this it offered the resident £25 compensation for a delay to its response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 December 2024, over 8 months later. This was an unreasonable delay and far beyond the timescales expected by the landlord’s policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 December 2024.The response acknowledged the delay and offered the resident a further £150 compensation.
In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £175 may remedy failings such as those acknowledged by the landlord where there was a significant impact on the resident. Given the extent of the landlord’s failings, the apology made, and the compensation awarded this amounts to a reasonable offer by the landlord to put things right. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a chief executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,000 compensation for its failings in handling repairs.
3. Provide the resident and us with a schedule of works required to address the outstanding repairs to the damp and mould and the windows, with associated timescales in which the repairs will be completed and the steps it will take to support the resident. This should include:
  1. The provision the landlord will put in place to allow the works to commence in light of the overcrowding at the property, such decanting the resident.
  2. Any temporary repairs or window restrictors that may be required if the cyclical works are further delayed.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the sum of £275 compensation awarded as part of its complaints process for poor communication and complaint handling if it has not already done so.