A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202342027)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342027

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

18 July 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled works to the resident’s building, including:
1. Cyclical works.
2. External repairs.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the leasehold owner of the property. The property is a 2-bed first floor maisonette. There are 2 maisonettes in the building. The landlord is the freeholder.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 April 2022 after being told scaffolding would be erected on 25 April 2022. She said she had received no notification of any works, and asked for a breakdown of the works, together with details of the cost. The landlord sent a section 20 (s.20) notice setting out details of the planned works and costs on 26 May 2022.
The resident gave written consent to the works on 30 May 2022, but the landlord did not start the works. The resident made complaints on 17 August 2022, 1 September 2022, 2 November 2022, 27 March 2023, 8 August 2023, 31 August 2023, and 14 September 2023. In her complaints she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s customer service, communication, and delays in carrying out works (both the cyclical works and repairs). The landlord did not respond to any of the complaints prior to the September 2023 complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 November 2023. It said it apologised for delays and inconsistency in its responses. It said it had not carried out the 2022 cyclical works because it did not receive consent from the ground floor maisonette. It said as each flat would be responsible for 50% of the costs it needed consent from both flat owners to complete the works. It added that it had scheduled the works for the 2023-24 cyclical works programme. It accepted its communication had been poor, and offered £155 compensation. This was £100 for its communication, and £55 for a delay in issuing its stage 1 response.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2024. She said the landlord had taken no action since the stage 1 response. She said she wanted it to refund the sinking fund rather than carrying out the works so she could complete the works herself.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 January 2024. It said it had given the incorrect timescale for the works in its stage 1 response. It said the works were actually scheduled for 2024-25. It advised this had been a typing error, and offered a further £50 compensation. It also said it could not refund her share of the sinking fund. It explained this was because:
1. It would be using the sinking fund for 2024-25 cyclical works.
2. A refund would lead to a shortfall the following year, and it would have to invoice her for the difference.
3. Allowing the resident to complete works to the structure, exterior, and communal areas of the buildings could cause problems with its insurance and building warranties. It could also cause liability issues if the repairs were not up to standard.
It said it would not refund the sinking fund and allow the resident to complete the works because of those concerns, and to protect all of the properties and residents involved.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us. She said she wanted the landlord to either complete the works immediately, or refund the sinking fund so she could complete the works herself.

Events post-complaint

The resident has confirmed that the landlord completed the works to her satisfaction between May and November 2024. However, she does not think it has done enough to put things right. She said the cost of the works increased significantly because of the landlord’s delays, and she did not think it should be able to charge the difference through service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The rules which govern our Service say we cannot consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. They also say we cannot consider complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges, or any service charge increase.
The resident’s complaint about the increased cost of the works has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, and relates to the reasonableness of the service charges. As such, we cannot consider that complaint. If the resident is seeking a determination of the reasonableness of the charges, that would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

How the landlord handled the works – cyclical works delays

We have asked the landlord for a copy of the lease on multiple occasions. It has provided copies of 2 lease extensions, but it has been unable to provide any copy of the lease document setting out its repair and maintenance obligations. It says it does not hold a copy of the document. However, it has not disputed that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property under the terms of the lease.
The landlord sent the resident a s.20 notice for cyclical works on 26 May 2022. That notice said the works in question were essential works it was required to carry out under the terms of the lease. The landlord has confirmed in its email correspondence that it usually takes 6 weeks to complete the process, and that if a property owner does not respond, it will assume that owner is happy for it to proceed.
The landlord did not carry out any works until between May and November 2024. It has provided a series of reasons it says the works did not go ahead. Those reasons are as follows:
1. On 1 September 2022 it said the works had gone ahead a few months prior.
2. On 31 August 2023 it said the works did not go ahead because the resident opted out of them.
3. On 27 November 2023 it said the works did not go ahead because while the resident gave consent, the other property owner did not respond.
4. On 10 June 2024 it said the previous works did not go ahead because a number of residents declined the works.
5. On 17 June 2024 it said the works did not go ahead in 2022 because the resident declined the works.
6. On 6 June 2025 it told us that the works did not go ahead because the neighbouring property did not give consent, and its contractors refused to go ahead with the works without that consent.
7. On 12 June 2025 it told us (after we queried its comments from 6 June 2025) that its contractors never refused any works, and it was a landlord decision not to carry out works.
The various reasons the landlord has provided are contradictory and unsupported by evidence. The resident expressly consented to the works on 30 May 2022, and the landlord has acknowledged that by email. So its suggestion that the resident caused the delays by opting out of the works is clearly incorrect.
The other maisonette was a tenanted property owned by the landlord, so the landlord did not need any consent from that property to start the works. It has recently confirmed to us that it never notified the neighbouring property of any works, as it had not booked any works in. It also told the resident in July 2024 that its process was that a lack of response would be taken as agreement. As such, its suggestion that the works were delayed because it needed consent from the occupier of the other property, and that property did not respond to notification of the works, was incorrect.
The building contains 2 maisonettes. The resident is a leaseholder of 1 maisonette. The landlord owns the other. There is no evidence that any consent for works on the building is needed, beyond that of the landlord and the resident, as there are no other flats in the building. The landlord has also provided no evidence of any reason works on the resident’s building could not go ahead if residents of other buildings declined works for their own buildings. As such, the landlord’s statement that the works could not go ahead because multiple other residents declined works is unsupported by evidence.
The landlord also confirmed on 12 June 2025 that the explanation it gave the Ombudsman on 6 June 2025 was incorrect.
The landlord has not offered any reasonable explanation, supported by evidence, for the significant delays in completing the works. In the absence of such explanation or evidence, we can only reasonably conclude that there was no good reason for the significant delay in carrying out the ‘essential works’. As such, the landlord caused around 2 years of unreasonable delays in carrying out the cyclical works, causing the resident significant distress, inconvenience, and frustration.

How the landlord handled the works – repairs

The resident told the landlord on 17 August 2022 that the guttering leaked in the rain. She provided videos, and said she believed the leak was causing damage, as the water was rotting her window sill. The landlord has accepted it is responsible for the guttering under the terms of the lease. When put on notice of a repair issue with the guttering, it was required to complete repairs within 20 working days under its responsive repairs policy.
In this case, the landlord told the resident on 1 September 2022 that it tried to raise a works order to fix the guttering, but that the works order had been refused. It then asked if the gutters had been replaced when cyclical works took place. It has provided no explanation for why the works order was refused, or evidence of any attempts to investigate this on its systems. It had also not carried out any works in the previous months.
It can be reasonable for a landlord to add repairs to its planned cyclical works rather than treating it as a responsive repair (or to wait for planned cyclical works if those works would resolve the issue). But it would only be reasonable to do so if there are temporary repairs it can complete in the meantime to reduce to impact on the resident, or if the cyclical works are due to start within a reasonable time. As there was no imminent start date for any cyclical works at that time, we would have expected the landlord to progress any repairs as a responsive repair rather than part of cyclical works.
In line with its repairs policy, the landlord was required to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. It did not do so. The resident chased a response on 2 and 28 November 2022. The landlord did not respond. She told the landlord on 27 March 2023 that water poured down the building every time it rained, causing damage. She also said the rendering was falling off the building. It did not respond. She told the landlord on 8 August 2023 that the guttering was almost hanging off the building, and it was causing issues with damp and mould. It did not respond. She chased again on 14 August 2023. It eventually responded on 31 August 2023. It said it would tell the repairs team that the guttering was broken and causing leaks.
The resident told the landlord on the same day that it was not just the guttering, but also the windows that leaked. The landlord responded on 5 September 2023. It told the resident that no cyclical works were due until 2028, and it would not take any action regarding the repair issues until then.
Instead of booking and completing repairs in line with its policy, the landlord ignored the resident’s reports of failing guttering and related water ingress for almost a year, before telling her she would have to wait 5 years before it would carry out any repairs. This was wholly inappropriate, and shows the landlord had a fundamental lack of understanding of its repair obligations.
The landlord only confirmed it would raise a works order in September 2023 after it logged the resident’s complaint. We expect landlords to be proactive in dealing with reported repair issues. A resident should not have to raise multiple complaints before the landlord takes action to comply with its repair obligations.
After telling the resident it would book a guttering repair as part of her complaint, the landlord then did not do so. Instead, it waited until the latter half of 2024 to do the repair as part of cyclical works. This took the delay to around 2 years by the time it carried out the works and repairs. As such, the landlord also failed to learn from the complaint.

How the landlord handled the works – communication

The evidence provided shows the resident contacted the landlord about works to the property on 24 April 2022. She said she had not received any notification of any works, and wanted to know whether the cost would be covered by the sinking fund. The landlord told her on 26 April 2022 that the works would not be covered by the sinking fund or service charges, and she would have to contact the income officer to arrange a payment plan. It has since acknowledged that this information was incorrect.
When the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of costs and works, it did not respond until 9 May 2022, after she had chased a response twice. It ignored her queries and told her to make a payment plan. The resident noted that the person who responded was in charge of managing her building, and chased answers to her queries. On 17 May 2022, the landlord’s income team confirmed that the information she had been given about the sinking fund and service charges was incorrect – the sinking fund would be used to cover some or all of the works, with the resident required to pay her portion of any shortfall.
The income team passed the resident back to the leasehold team that day, and asked them to provide a breakdown of the works. It sent a s.20 notice on 26 May 2022, a month after the resident had initially requested a breakdown of the works and costs. The landlord’s communication at this time was poor. It is not reasonable for a landlord to repeatedly ignore queries from residents, and then pass them (incorrectly) between teams.
After receiving her consent to the works on 30 May 2022, the landlord told the resident on 1 June 2022 that it should be able to confirm a start date for the works with the surveyor the following week. However, it failed to do so, or to give her any updates. The resident chased the landlord for updates on 28 June, 8 August and 17 August 2022. In her email of 17 August 2022 the resident said the guttering was leaking, and causing damage to the property. She asked the landlord when it would complete the works, and what was causing the delays.
The landlord’s records show it ignored the first 2 emails, which was inappropriate. It replied to the third email 2 weeks later. It said it had tried to raise a works order to fix the guttering, but it had been rejected. It said it had completed cyclical works a few months before, and asked if the guttering had been replaced at that time. Given that it had not carried out any works, this was demonstrably incorrect. This demonstrates a lack of oversight of its processes and contractors, as well as a lack of appropriate record keeping, which contributed to its poor communication about the works.
The resident told the landlord on 1 September 2022 that it had not completed any works. She said she had been chasing this with the landlord weekly, but it had never responded. The landlord’s records show it ignored this email, as well as multiple chasers from the resident. It did not respond until 31 August 2023 (a year later), when it gave inaccurate information about the reason for the delays in cyclical works. This was clearly inappropriate, and its poor communication compounded its other failings.
Overall, the landlord’s poor communication was wholly inadequate. It repeatedly ignored contact or queries from the resident (on 1 occasion for a year). When it did respond, it unreasonably passed her between departments and provided incorrect information about the works and costs. This was unreasonable, and led to the resident having to repeatedly chase a response and correct the incorrect information the it had provided.

Summary – handling of the works

As set out above, there have been repeated and prolonged failings in the way the landlord handled the works at the property. This led to significant delays in both the cyclical works and responsive repairs at the property. The “essential” works identified in 2022 did not go ahead until 2024, after extensive and unreasonable delays.
The landlord provided multiple conflicting explanations for the delays, none of which were supported by evidence. The evidence indicates the delays in the cyclical works were due to a lack of oversight or supervision of the works, as well as a fundamental lack of understanding of its repair obligations. This was then compounded by its poor communication, when it either ignored the resident’s emails for significant periods of time, or gave incorrect or conflicting information.
When the landlord started to take steps to put things right (by raising a works order in response to the complaint), it then repeated its previous failings. Despite telling the resident in September 2023 that it had raised a works order for the guttering, it failed to complete the works until the latter half of 2024. This was because it included the guttering as part of the cyclical works rather than carrying out a responsive repair. As set out above, it was unreasonable to do so in this case. The landlord had already ignored the repair for over a year by that stage, and there were no cyclical works scheduled to start within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord recognised that some of its communication had been poor. It offered the resident £100 compensation. However, this was inadequate for the level of distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord has also failed to acknowledge any failings in its handling of the repairs, and during our investigation it continued to give inaccurate and inconsistent information about the reasons for the delay. It has also not shown it has learned from this complaint.
The landlord’s handling of the cyclical works and responsive repairs was so poor it warrants a finding of severe maladministration. We have therefore considered what it needs to do to put things right.
The resident says the cost of the works has increased by around £2,000. The landlord told her this was because of inflation and increased costs of materials. She said she should not have to pay higher costs when they only increased because the landlord unreasonably delayed the works.
While we can generally consider any financial losses caused by a landlord’s failings, any consideration of the increased costs would be an assessment of how reasonable the charges were. As set out above, we cannot consider the reasonableness of service charges. That would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings.
The evidence provided shows that the resident had to spend significant amounts of time chasing the landlord for responses, or correcting inaccurate information it provided. Its poor handling of the repairs led to a 2 year delay in the works being completed. During that time, the resident had to live with leaking gutters pouring water down the side of her home when it rained, as well as water ingress to her property, which she said caused damp and mould around the window. It is apparent from the evidence provided that this caused distress, inconvenience and frustration over a prolonged period of time, and the landlord’s poor communication only exacerbated this.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, we consider that the landlord should pay the resident £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time. It must also issue a written apology to the resident.
As the failings in this case are indicative of systemic issues, we also consider that a senior management review of the case is necessary, together with staff training, to prevent a recurrence of the failings set out in this report. Orders to that effect are set out below.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must log expressions of dissatisfaction with its service as a complaint. It must log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request.
In this case, the resident made 7 complaints. Those were on 17 August 2022, 1 September 2022, 2 November 2022, 27 March 2023, 8 August 2023, 31 August 2023, and 14 September 2023. The landlord ignored the first 2 complaints, acknowledged the 2 November 2022 complaint on 8 November 2022 and then failed to take any further action, and ignored the following 3 complaints. It only responded to the September 2023 complaint. This was inappropriate and demonstrates the landlord did not take its obligations related to complaints seriously.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 response (15 months after the resident first made a complaint, and 2 months after the September 2023 complaint), its response was factually inaccurate. It said works did not go ahead because it needed consent from the other flat, and it had not received a response. As set out above, this was not correct. And while it said it would raise a guttering repair job, it gave no explanation for its failure to do so until that point. As such, it has not shown it appropriately investigated the complaint.
While the landlord issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request, it again failed to appropriately investigate the complaint. While it gave a reasonable explanation for why it would not return the sinking fund, it repeated the inaccurate information from its stage 1 response. Its response also made no mention of the guttering works it promised in its stage 1 response. This was nearly 3 months after it said it had raised a works order for the guttering. It also failed to respond to the queries the resident raised about the contents of its stage 1 response, or to address the whole of her complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling failings can be summarised as follows:
1. Ignoring 6 complaints made from August 2022 onwards until November 2023, causing a delay of 15 months.
2. Unreasonable delays in its response to the complaint it logged in September 2023.
3. A failure to respond to all parts of the resident’s complaint.
4. A failure to appropriately investigate the complaint.
5. Giving the resident factually inaccurate information in its complaint responses.
6. Failing to carry out the works promised in its complaint response within a reasonable timeframe.
This was a series of complaint handling failures over a prolonged period of time. The landlord’s poor complaint handling caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary frustration, as she had to repeatedly chase the landlord regarding her complaints. It also prevented her bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman for a significant length of time.
The landlord offered £105 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was £55 for the delays in its stage 1 response and £50 for giving incorrect information about the planned works year in its stage 1 response. While it did offer a small amount of compensation, this did not reflect the level of delay at stage 1 or address the other failings identified. Based on the level and number of the landlord’s failings, we find there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
To put things right, the landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but have no permanent impact. For the avoidance of doubt, this is inclusive of the compensation offered as part of the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from a member of the landlord’s executive leadership team.
2. Pay the resident £1,600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is inclusive of the £205 offered during its complaints process, and is broken down as follows:
  1. £1,200 for its poor handling of the repairs and cyclical works.
  2. £400 for its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a senior management review of this case to identify the underlying causes of the failings identified in this report and how it will prevent a recurrence of those failings in future. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its review report and resulting action plan.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange refresher training for all staff who deal with repairs, cyclical works, or complaints, using this complaint as a case study, to avoid a recurrence of its failings in future.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders in the timeframes set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reassess whether it believes its charges for the works are reasonable in light of the failings set out in this report. It should do so within 4 weeks of the date of this report and write to the resident to confirm its decision and reasoning in this regard.
The landlord should write to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.