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 (202410492)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410492

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. The quality and standard of the repairs during the decant.
    2. The response to reports of damage to personal belongings.
    3. Response to reports of a water leak and the handling of subsequent remedial repairs.
    4. The handling of a decant, including the suitability of the provided accommodation.
    5. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives there with her two young children,
  2. The resident reported a leak from the above property on 14 January 2024. The landlord decanted the resident on 27 February 2024, as the landlord could not repair the leak with the resident living at home.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 20 March 2024. She advised that she had raised the concerns of the leak in January but that the landlord said this was condensation. The resident advised the landlord that she had moved to three different hotels since the decant, and the accommodation was unsuitable for her and her young children. She said that no one had been in touch regarding the repair, since the landlord had decanted her. She said she still had the keys in her possession. She said the landlord had not told her when the works would start or finish. The resident described that the decant was having a significant impact on her wellbeing and that of her two children.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 25 April 2024. It advised that a surveyor’s report from January 2024 stated that there was no leak, and that the residents report related to condensation and mould growth in one bedroom. It acknowledged that it had not raised repairs correctly, since it had identified the leak. It offered £100 for the stress and inconvenience, £100 for the poor communication, £50 for the time taken to do the repairs and £25 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 10 May 2024. She stated that she was still getting poor communication and that she was having to request updates from the landlord. She also stated that the landlord had still not provided her with a schedule of works or a time for the landlord to complete the works. She reiterated the impact this was having on her and her family, and advised the compensation was too low.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 7 June 2024. It advised there was a single point of contact in relation to the decant and that it had provided weekly updates regarding the decant. It stated that work was due to continue on 10 June 2024 and complete on 21 June 2024. It advised that previous work involved removing asbestos and stopping the leak, followed by drying out time. It stated that it had no vacant homes to decant the resident to. It said it had reached out to the council, but that they also could not help. It advised the resident was now in a serviced apartment. The landlord apologised for previous communication and that it had not communicated a schedule of works until now. It increased its offer of compensation to £675. This was £100 for poor internal communication, £100 for poor communication with the resident, £150 for the time taken for the landlord to complete the work, £300 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for the delay in complaints responses.
  7. The resident has since moved back home. She has advised the work is not complete, and that she has continued to experience delays and poor communication. She has described the impact that the decant has had on her and her children and noted that there are a number of personal belongings which have been damaged. She also feels that the landlord should have responded sooner to the leak.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all circumstances of the case as there are sometimes complaints which will not be investigated.
  2. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 response before the resident returned to the property, following a decant. The resident has raised concerns about the quality and standard of repairs completed while she was decanted. As this was after the stage 2 response was issued, the complaint about the landlord’s quality and standard of repairs is out of jurisdiction, as per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  4. We have also reviewed the resident’s complaint about the response to reports of damage to personal belongings. This was not raised as part of the initial complaint and has not been addressed by the landlord in the complaints process. As such, this is out of jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  5. If these aspects of the complaint remain outstanding, the resident should raise a new complaint with the landlord. Once a landlord has issued a stage 2 response for these matters, the resident can approach the Ombudsman again, who will review if it is able to investigate the complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak and the subsequent remedial repairs.

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the resident contacted it in January 2024 to report damp and mould. It said that it conducted a survey on 31 January 2024 and that there was no indication of an active leak. We have seen repairs records dated 14 January 2024. In this the landlord has noted that there was a leak and that it needed to trace this. It noted that the leak was near electrics. A further repairs record showed that on 21 February 2024 the landlord had identified that the leak was coming from the above property but that it could not get access to this. We note that reports of the leak in January, and when the resident was decanted, related to a leak over the front door. The survey related to the bedroom. We therefore consider that the survey report did not relate to the part of the home in which the leak had happened. The landlord’s stage 1 response contradicts with its repairs records. This is likely to have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  2. When the landlord identified the leak, it should have taken action to identify the cause and confirm to the resident what actions it was taking to address the leak. Although there is evidence that the landlord visited the property, the landlord appears to have taken limited actions, until the resident was decanted on 27 February 2024.
  3. The resident feels that had the landlord acted sooner, the damage would not have been as significant. The Ombudsman cannot say whether the damage would have been less had the landlord acted sooner. However, we recognise that the resident is likely to have been frustrated that the landlord was not acting on her concerns.
  4. On raising the complaint, the resident advised she still had the keys to the property and that no one had been in contact with her regarding the works. This was a month since the landlord had decanted the resident. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord found asbestos in the property, which can be a complex matter to resolve and can cause delays. However, the landlord has acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it should have begun works sooner, and that it should have communicated this with the resident.
  5. The landlord did not provide the resident with a comprehensive schedule of works until the stage 2 response. This was more than three months since the resident had been decanted. The landlord advised that some delays had been due to asbestos and it needing to locate and stop the leak and allow the property to dry out. We accept that these actions were likely to cause a delay. However, we cannot see that this was effectively communicated to the resident, prior to the stage 2 response being issued. The landlord has acknowledged in the complaints response that there was poor communication both internally and with the resident and awarded £200 for this. We consider this to be a reasonable offer for poor communication, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  6. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that its actions had led to delays in completing the works. It offered £50 at stage 1 for these delays and increased this to £150 at stage 2, in recognition of further delays. We consider that the landlord has acknowledged the delays and provided a reasonable offer of compensation.
  7. While the landlord has addressed its handling of the repairs in the complaint’s response, we remain concerned that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial concerns that she reported the leak in January. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord was aware of a potential leak, however in its complaint responses it said there was no indication in January 2024, that there was a leak. We therefore consider there to be service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak and the subsequent remedial repairs.
  8. We have considered our remedies guidance and consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate for this failing. This is because we cannot say whether there would have been less damage, had the landlord acted sooner. However, we recognise the response undermines the landlord/resident relationship.

The handling of a decant, including the suitability of the accommodation.

  1. The initial property the landlord decanted the resident to did not have a fridge. This was a necessary item, due to the age of the children and their nutritional needs. We recognise that when an emergency decant is required, that the availability of properties can be limited. The landlord moved the resident to an accommodation with a fridge, on 6 March 2024. We understand that the time the resident spent in unsuitable accommodation would have been difficult. However, it is encouraging that the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and took action to move the resident to a more suitable property.
  2. The resident had further disruption as following a week in the second accommodation she had to move rooms and again was left without a fridge. The landlord subsequently moved her to a third hotel. The resident raised concerns in her initial complaint regarding the impact the decant had on her and her children. At the time of the decant her youngest child was weaning and having no cooking facilities made this more challenging. She also advised her children had no space to play, and that being in a hotel room for the length of time she had been, impacted on her mental wellbeing. We are aware that the landlord reimbursed the resident for food costs and laundry costs, as well as parking charges. Whilst we recognise that the situation is likely to have been distressing for the resident, the landlord has supported the resident with any additional costs incurred due to the decant, as per its decant policy.
  3. The landlord moved the resident to a serviced apartment on 5 April 2024. This was due to the resident again, raising concerns that the property was impacting on hers and her children’s mental health. We consider that a serviced apartment was an improvement on accommodation, given the resident’s needs. We believe that it may have been beneficial for the landlord to consider this sooner. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it did not consider longer term accommodation earlier, due to delays in it handing over the repairs works to the correct team. We recognise this impacted on the resident.
  4. The resident advised that she regularly had to request an update regarding her temporary accommodation as she was not given timescales as to how long she needed to be decanted. We have seen emails where the resident has advised her accommodation was ending within a day or two. We consider the landlord should have been proactively updating the resident when her accommodation was ending rather than the resident contacting it when she became aware of this. She advised she had less than 24 hours to move from her temporary accommodation each time. We consider that the number of moves would have had an impact on the resident, and that this is likely to have caused distress.
  5. The resident raised concerns that all her children’s toys and clothing were in storage, meaning they did not have access to their belongings. We have seen that the landlord paid for the removals and storage of the resident’s belongings. While we consider that not having access to her belongings over a number of months would have been challenging, we consider that this was an unavoidable consequence of the decant. We consider the landlord acted appropriately in paying for the storage and for the removals.
  6. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will pay for gas, water and electric, for the time the main home is vacant. We have seen evidence that the landlord arranged reimbursement for these costs, in line with its policy.
  7. The landlord’s decant policy states that a void property can be considered when a decant is necessary. We have seen evidence that this would have been a preference for the resident. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it did not have available void properties at the time of the decant. It also said it had spoken with the council but that they were unable to help. We find that the landlord explored a void property as an option, but that due to no availability this was not possible.
  8. The landlord offered £300 for the distress and inconvenience while the resident was decanted. The Ombudsman recognises that this would have been a difficult period for the resident and her family. We also understand that there are challenges with temporary accommodation and availability, which are not always in the landlord’s control. We have noted that the landlord followed its policy in relation to the decant, and provided reimbursements for food, laundry and parking. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a decant including the suitability of the accommodation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 25 working days, which is out with the timescales in its policy.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord responded within this time frame.
  3. The landlord offered £25 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. Given the delay was for a short period of time, we consider this to be appropriate. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are out of jurisdiction.
    1. The quality and standard of the repairs during the decant.
    2. The response to reports of damage to personal belongings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a water leak and the handling of subsequent remedial repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1.  Complaint handling.
    2. Handling of a decant, including the suitability of the provided accommodation

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 to the resident. This is for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge when the leak was first reported. Evidence of compliance with this order should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations.

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £675 compensation awarded in its complaints process.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord ensure future complaints responses reflect on all relevant records to ensure they are thorough and accurate.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and discuss any outstanding complaints since the resident returned home from the decant. If appropriate, the landlord should raise a new complaint.