A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202427132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427132

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the main entrance door.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom second-floor flat situated in a communal block. The block has a front communal entrance door on the ground floor, which is operated by a door entry system. The resident has fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other mental health difficulties. The landlord has said it does not have records of any vulnerabilities.
In June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her circumstances, having been made aware that she had been affected by domestic abuse. It was at this time that she first reported an issue with the main communal entrance door, stating that it was not secure.
On 11 July 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She was a victim of domestic abuse, and she was “overwhelmed with the lack of acknowledgement” of the severity of her situation.
2. The main entrance door had still not been repaired following her report on 10 June 2024 that it was insecure. This meant the block was accessible by the public and anyone associated with her violent ex-partner.
3. She had received threats to kill her and cause her harm. A lockable front entrance door would delay anyone trying to access her own front door.
4. The repair should have been classed as urgent and responded to within 24 hours given the risk the insecure door posed to her, her daughter, and other residents.
5. She had been “living in complete fear” knowing anyone could access her front door. This had caused sleeping difficulties as well as distress and anxiety.
6. She already suffered from PTSD, anxiety and panic attacks, and the issues with the main entrance door had led to her feeling overwhelmed.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It said it had not identified any service failure and therefore, it was unable to uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It had received an update from its mechanical and electrical team which had confirmed the existing main entrance door and locking system was beyond repair and needed replacing.
2. A surveyor had been due to attend on 17 July 2024. A quote for the replacement door would then need to be approved and the door manufactured. It estimated the entire process would take approximately 14 weeks. It aimed to have the new door installed by 23 October 2024.
3. If the resident wished to be moved temporarily for her security, she would need to discuss this with her Neighbourhood Manager, who was due to contact her that day (18 July 2024).
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 10 September 2024. She said that the landlord’s inaction had caused her emotional distress and health implications. She also felt she had not been listened to or safeguarded. She said the landlord could have considered temporary security measures to the main entrance door considering she was told it would take “months” to fix.
On 7 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the main communal entrance door remained insecure. It upheld the complaint on the basis that its service had fallen below its expected standards. It said:
1. A quotation had been provided for the replacement door by its contractors on 27 July 2024. However, this had been missed due to staff sickness and the approval was not given.
2. It had failed to consider temporary repairs to increase the security of the building at stage 1 of its complaints process.
3. It had conducted a site visit with its contractor on 25 September 2024 to discuss what repairs could be completed to improve the security of the building. A quote had been approved “to fit an electric rim lock, repair the magnetic lock and change the door closer”. These works were scheduled to be completed on 10 October 2024.
4. It apologised for not resolving the repair in a timely manner given the resident had “clearly stated why the works were urgently required”. It accepted it had missed “a number of opportunities to secure her home”.
5. It offered £350 compensation to the resident, made up of:
  1. £150 for personal stress and inconvenience.
  2. £150 for time and trouble.
  3. £50 for poor internal communication.
6. As a result of her complaint, further staff training had been conducted with staff, where they had been “reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records and clear communication”. It had also spoken to its contractor and “reinforced the service levels” that it expected and “the obligation they have to provide a good service”.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 October 2024. She said the main communal entrance door remained insecure. She said she had fibromyalgia which was severely impacted by stress and the situation was affecting her health. She said she wanted her and her daughter to “feel safe”.
On 2 December 2024, the landlord received a quote from its contractor for a replacement main communal entrance door. Its records show the new door was installed on 13 March 2025 and left in full working order.
During contact with this Service in July 2025, the resident confirmed the main communal entrance door had been replaced. However, she said the door remained insecure and so the block was still accessible to anyone. She said she had informed the landlord of this, but no action had been taken. As an outcome, the resident told us she would like the main entrance door to be secured and the landlord’s policy response times to be reviewed. In addition, she asked the Ombudsman to consider awarding compensation for the landlord’s handling of her reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the issues with the main communal entrance door impacted her health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance 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 continued to experience issues with the main communal entrance door after it was replaced. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the landlord’s internal complaints process and the commitments arising from this. We will therefore consider events up to 13 March 2025 (when the communal door was replaced), but the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues that occurred after the door replacement before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required, which she may escalate to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Main communal entrance door

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for doors and door entry systems in communal areas. It states it has 4 repair priorities (emergency, urgent, standard, and planned). However, in line with its prioritisation policy, it says it will “aim to fast-track repairs for customers who are in vulnerable situations”.
The landlord’s prioritisation policy says it will consider safeguarding implications “to enable any relevant support interventions for our vulnerable customers, ensuring effective protection and prevention of harm”. It also states it will “provide faster or extra services and support, depending on the circumstances, the need, and the situation”. It sets out certain repairs where it may work to provide a faster response. It says where there has been a loss of security, for example with locks, doors, and door entry systems, it will respond within 4 hours for those households who may have a higher risk, which includes victims of abuse and harassment.
The landlord’s complaint records indicate that the resident first reported an issue with the main entrance door affecting her building on 11 June 2024, and it responded by raising a repair request. However, there is no evidence of the resident’s initial report in its repair records, which points to a record keeping issue.
The first job the landlord apparently raised for its contractor following the resident’s report was on 20 June 2024, 7 working days later. However, it is noted that this was not in response to the resident’s request but following a report from another resident of the block. The absence of her request in the landlord’s repair records is concerning. Given that the main entrance door was insecure, posing a security risk, and considering that the resident was a victim of domestic abuse, the repair should have been logged and attended to within 4 hours, in accordance with the landlord’s prioritisation policy. It did not do this, which was a failing.
The landlord’s records indicate that a safeguarding case was logged on 21 June 2024 due to the domestic abuse which had been disclosed by the resident. This was appropriate action to take. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord conducted a risk assessment. Its prioritisation policy says it will make “pro-active arrangements” to identify customers’ support needs so that it can recognise where it “should provide or facilitate extra services or support”. It says it will complete risk assessment forms as part of its policies and procedures for dealing with domestic abuse. It apparently did not do this, which was unsatisfactory. The landlord should have assessed the resident’s circumstances to establish her vulnerabilities and the nature of the risk posed by the perpetrator. It should have then used this information to determine an appropriate course of action to mitigate any potential risks to the resident. This would have allowed it to prioritise the repair accordingly.
The landlord’s repairs records show its contractor had attended the block twice in April 2024 following reports from other residents, and found that the door, frame and locking system required upgrading. It requested for a surveyor to attend to provide a quotation for a replacement. The landlord was therefore already aware of the issues relating to the main entrance door prior to the resident’s first report in June 2024. However, upon receiving her report, it did not contact her to explain the actions it had already taken and what it planned to do to put things right, which was not fair or reasonable. It should have updated the resident at the earliest opportunity, which would have avoided additional uncertainty and distress. This gave rise to her submitting her complaint on 11 July 2024, which added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not adequately assess where things had gone wrong. The failings under its prioritisation policy were not acknowledged or addressed. We find the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the severity of the impact on the resident. While it apologised for the concerns it had caused the resident in relation to her safety and made commitments regarding the replacement of the main entrance door, which was appropriate, we consider it did not go far enough. The landlord should have considered raising temporary repairs to the door to secure the building until a replacement could be arranged. It also should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience it had caused.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 September 2024, 65 working days after her initial report. At this stage, the main entrance door remained insecure, which was unsatisfactory. The landlord’s final response on 7 October 2024 evidenced that it had appropriately assessed its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the main entrance door, and it acknowledged the failings identified. It apologised to the resident, offered compensation, and demonstrated learning. It also arranged for repairs to be completed to the existing main entrance door to improve the security of the building, which was a reasonable and proportionate step in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records indicate that a temporary decant was discussed internally prior to issuing its final response. While a decant was not authorised, it was appropriate that the landlord considered this given the resident’s circumstances. In considering the request, the landlord also took account of other information not related to this complaint, which was a suitable approach to fully assessing the situation and the risks involved. However, we are unable to establish that this was communicated to the resident, and therefore if she was aware the landlord had considered the matter and its reasons for refusal.
Following completion of its complaints process, the landlord failed to monitor the progress of the repairs and the security of the building. The resident contacted the landlord twice on 11 October 2024 and 15 October 2024 to advise the main entrance door remained insecure. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord so soon after it had issued its final complaint response. The resident’s Independent Domestic and Sexual Violence Advisor (IDSVA) also contacted the landlord on 31 October 2024 to request an update on the main entrance door, stating that a temporary magnet had been inserted but this did not adequately secure the door. It is reasonable to conclude that this was because the temporary repairs had not been successful.
On 27 November 2024, 19 working days after contact from the resident’s IDSVA, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to attend to look at the main entrance door “urgently due to serious antisocial behaviour”. It asked if it could reinforce the door to make it more secure. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise this job immediately upon notification that the temporary repair had failed. Considering the resident’s circumstances and the commitments arising from her complaint, we would have expected the landlord to handle the repair urgently. However, it did not do this, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that its contractor attended on 2 December 2024 to look at the main entrance door. It found that the lock was working, but the cables were exposed, and the door was damaged. It recommended for the landlord to upgrade the door to a heavy-duty metal one.
On the same day (2 December 2024), the contractor provided a quote to the landlord. It said:
1. The current main entrance door had “no means to lock”. It had had many variations of locks fitted, which had been damaged and vandalised.
2. Due to the poor condition of the door, the contractor “would not be providing an alternative to replacement on this occasion”.
3. It had notified the landlord in previous quotes that the door needed to be replaced.
Following the contractor’s findings, the landlord’s internal records suggest that a letter was sent to the block’s residents about damage to the main entrance door and how they could order fobs, if required. Given the vandalism identified, this was a pro-active measure to take. However, a copy of this letter has not been provided to us and as such, we are unable to verify its contents and assess whether the landlord’s response appropriately addressed the issues raised.
On 11 December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again to advise the main entrance door remained insecure. She said due to feeling unsafe, she would consider a temporary transfer until she was able to permanently relocate. It was not appropriate or fair that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update, especially given her circumstances. This also added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved.
On 19 December 2024, the landlord responded to the resident to confirm it had received the drawings for the replacement main entrance door, which would be authorised that day. It advised the door was on an 8-to-10-week lead time and it estimated that it would be installed by 13 March 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it addressed the resident’s request for a temporary transfer, which was unsatisfactory. It would have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to have reviewed its position regarding a temporary decant and to have updated the resident accordingly. It did not do this, which added to her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records indicate that the main entrance door was successfully replaced on 13 March 2025. From the date the repair was reported, it took approximately 9 months for the door to be replaced, and a long-lasting resolution to be achieved. It is acknowledged that some of the delay was due to the manufacturing of the door, which was out of the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, it is our view that there were failings in the landlord’s actions in the events leading up to the door being ordered, which unreasonably delayed the process.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged that 5 repair requests were raised for the main entrance door between May and August 2024, but the contractor had closed the orders as it had provided the quotation to upgrade the entry door. In September 2024, the landlord again instructed its contractor to complete temporary repairs but failed to progress the replacement door at the same time. This was despite previous notes from its contractor which stated that the door was beyond repair. This resulted in the quote for the replacement door not being approved until December 2024. The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We find the landlord should have had greater oversight of the case. It should have processes in place to monitor the progress of outstanding repairs through to completion. Instead, its inaction allowed the repair to go unresolved for an excessive period.
The resident said she had PTSD, anxiety and experienced panic attacks which were exacerbated by her concerns regarding the security of the main entrance door. The landlord was aware, from the time of her first report, that she had been affected by domestic abuse. During the landlord’s complaints process, the resident frequently told it that she did not feel safe. She expressed concerns regarding her ex-partner being able to access her building due to the insecure main entrance door and how this was affecting her mental health. We find the landlord should have acted with more urgency. It should have identified the resident as vulnerable and prioritised her case on this basis in line with its prioritisation policy. The length of time the resident was left waiting for the landlord to progress the repair was unreasonable given her circumstances.
When we asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities or special circumstances, it responded to say it had none recorded. The landlord’s prioritisation policy says it will “keep information updated as household support needs change”. It did not do this, which was unsatisfactory. This demonstrates poor record keeping in respect of updating the resident’s vulnerabilities, which resulted in the landlord failing to respond appropriately to her concerns about the security of the main entrance door.
The lack of effective communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings. Up until the door was replaced in March 2025, it was largely left to the resident to initiate contact and seek updates from the landlord. Considering her vulnerabilities and history of domestic abuse, we would have expected to see the landlord checking in with the resident at regular intervals and providing regular updates. If it had done this, it may have avoided additional uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
Overall, there were a series of significant failures which had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. There were unreasonable and unexplained delays resulting in the main entrance door taking 9 months to replace. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve her complaint through to completion. It held information about the resident’s vulnerabilities, including a history of domestic abuse. However, it did not make appropriate use of this information in its decision making, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the security of the main entrance door.
The landlord offered £350 compensation to the resident at stage 2 for distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and poor communication. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out “assessment categories” which calculates awards by the disruption caused to residents and the amount of effort taken to resolve the issue. It categorises these into minor, moderate and extensive, and offers varying payments from £50 to “£350-£750 and above” dependent on these categories. It states it will also consider the length of time it has taken to put things right when awarding compensation.
While the landlord tried to put things right in terms of financial redress for the resident, we find its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case, which would fall into the higher end of the categories set out in its compensation policy. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of £1,000 or above would be considered appropriate where there were a series of significant failures which have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident.
We consider an additional payment of £650 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified in this report. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident for distress and inconvenience to £1,000. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the main entrance door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a member of its executive team. Its letter should also set out what it has learnt from our report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her concerns about the security of the main entrance door. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
3. Share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
4. Contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding repair issues associated with the main communal entrance door. If there are, the landlord should address these in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
5. Contact the resident to ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her current household circumstances.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts refresher training on its domestic abuse and prioritisation policies with its staff, if it has not done so recently.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide her with an update on its position regarding her management move and application for rehousing.