From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202228760)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228760

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 May 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property, which is a 1-bedroom fourth floor flat, since 25 January 2016. The resident told the landlord that she had mobility issues and the landlord’s records reflect this. The resident has advised us that she is also vulnerable due to her mental health and this was an issue at the time of the complaint.
  2. On 30 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that a neighbour was using a communal corridor in the block to store personal items during the day. She also said that the household made a lot of noise and the children knocked her door and ran away. The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment which scored the risk as low.
  3. The resident called again on 6 and 14 September 2022. She said the issue was on-going, the children were out playing until after 11pm and running and screaming in the communal area regularly from 6-8pm. She said that they had eaten pizzas and watched television in the communal area, using the communal electricity. The landlord completed another risk assessment on 14 September 2022 which scored the risk as high.
  4. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 17 September 2022 to remind them of their tenancy conditions which stated that children should not play in communal areas and cause a nuisance to neighbours.
  5. The resident contacted this Service for help and we emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023 to ask it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. We told it that the resident had reported the noise to the police and the neighbour’s children had been mimicking her walk. She said she “could not cope” anymore.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It said that:
    1. When the resident had reported the ASB on 30 August 2022 and 15 September 2022 it had assessed the risk as low. Therefore, it had sent her information on how to manage the issue.
    2. On 17 September 2022 it had written to the neighbour to make them aware that the children’s behaviour was causing an issue for other residents and it should cease immediately.
    3. As it had received no further reports since then it had presumed that the problem was resolved. However, now that it knew this was not the case, and that the children were mimicking her disability, her neighbourhood officer would contact her within 10 working days. They would raise a new ASB case, complete a risk assessment, and agree next steps.
  7. On 20 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the neighbour. It said that her children should not use communal areas to play in and that it had been told that they were mimicking neighbours with a disability.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 17 May 2023. She said that:
    1. The neighbour was still making noise in the communal corridor late into the evening and she had recorded it. They were also slamming doors which made her anxious.
    2. The neighbour was storing items including a cot, 8 chairs, and a supermarket trolley in the corridor and she had photographic evidence of this.
    3. She had health issues and the situation was impacting these.
  9. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 May 2023. It said that following her previous complaint it had written to the neighbour. It would investigate the matter further and visit the block again.
  10. The resident contacted this Service for assistance and on 20 October 2023 we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint escalation.
    2. It had found no evidence that the neighbourhood officer had contacted her as promised in the stage 1 complaint response.
    3. It had sent warning letters to the neighbour in March after the resident contacted it.
    4. The next time the resident contacted it was 17 May 2023. Following this email it had dealt with the issue of the neighbour storing items in the communal area. However, it had not actioned the noise nuisance. It apologised for this.
    5. It had spoken to the resident on 11 September 2023 during a door knocking exercise when it told her that she should continue to report incidents to a specified officer. However, that officer had not received any further reports.
    6. It was still dealing with the issue of the neighbour storing items in communal areas and was taking appropriate action. However, it was unable to give her any specific information about this.
    7. She had recently reported a new incident where eggs had been thrown at her front door. It would visit her on 13 November 2023 to discuss this and provide an action plan of the steps it would take next.
    8. It had failed to communicate with her sufficiently on multiple occasions and its standards had slipped. It therefore offered £545 compensation comprising:
      1. £95 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
      2. £50 for the lack of communication after the stage 1 response.
      3. £50 for the lack of communication following its email of 17 May 2023.
      4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience.
      5. £150 for the time taken to reach this point.
      6. £100 “ex gratia” for the delay and inconvenience.
    9. It had also spoken to its enhanced housing management team to reinforce the service levels expected and the importance of good communication.
  12. In May 2025 the resident told us that the neighbour moved out in approximately December 2023.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. There is evidence that the resident reported similar instances of ASB in 2018. Although this provides historical context to the issues experienced in this case, we have not considered the landlord’s response to these reports in this investigation. This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Therefore, our investigation has focussed on the resident’s reports of ASB from August 2022 which was prior to her complaint of February 2023.
  2. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters that we consider would be dealt with more effectively through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact of ASB on her health. We do not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

ASB

  1. It is evident from speaking to the resident that the situation she complained about was distressing for her. It is not our role to determine whether the nuisance she reported amounted to ASB. It is also not our role to determine whether any ASB took place. Our role in such cases is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its policies and procedures, in response to the reports made.
  2. The assured tenancy agreement used by the landlord says that tenants must not leave rubbish, belongings, or unwanted household furniture in any of the communal areas, including landings. It also says that assured tenants are responsible for the behaviour of every single person (including children) that live or visit the premises, including on the stairs and landings.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any persons. It says that it will use a range of non-legal and conciliatory methods to resolve problems which may include mediation, warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, and parental control agreements.
  4. The resident reported incidents that were potentially breaches of tenancy conditions. Therefore, the landlord should have investigated these in accordance with its policies. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered any intervention other than sending letters to the neighbour.
  5. As there was a history of the same issue occurring in the past the landlord would reasonably be expected to consider using some of the other tools mentioned in its ASB policy such as mediation or a parental contract agreement. However, we have seen no evidence that it considered these. This failure to follow its policy and consider all options available to resolve the issue cost the resident time and trouble because she had to contact the landlord numerous times. It is also clear from her correspondence that it caused her distress.
  6. When she complained, the resident said that the neighbour’s children were mimicking her disability, playing in the corridor, kicking a ball against her door and knocking and running away. She said that the neighbour shouted at her if she tried to discuss it with her. The landlord said this behaviour was not acceptable and that a neighbourhood officer would contact her within 10 working days to open a new ASB case and agree appropriate action with her. However, as confirmed in the stage 2 complaint response, this did not happen. This failure to open a new case and carry out any action caused the resident further distress and cost her further time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
  7. In the landlord’s email of 17 May 2023, it told the resident that a manager would contact her directly. This was to discuss the issue and identify actions it would take to prevent the behaviour continuing and prevent potential health and safety risks to those living in the block. However, as confirmed in the stage 2 complaint response, this promise was not fulfilled either. This cost the resident further time and trouble contacting this Service and the ongoing situation caused her further distress.
  8. The resident reported issues over several months and the landlord failed to complete the actions it promised and its communication was poor. We have also seen no evidence that it considered her vulnerabilities and how the alleged ASB would affect these.
  9. The landlord recognised that it had not handled the residents reports of ASB as it should and offered her £450 compensation to reflect its failures. However, this offer did not consider the time and trouble taken by the resident, and that it had not considered how the resident’s vulnerabilities might be affected by the alleged ASB. It also only made this offer following this Service’s intervention and request for a stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of her reports of ASB and we have ordered it to pay £500 compensation to reflect this. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of correspondence and action taken. Good record keeping is vital to evidence that it has taken appropriate steps and given appropriate advice.
  2. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had sent the resident information on how to manage the issue herself. However, we have not seen copies of this information to decide whether the landlord communicated clearly what the next steps were and what action it could take. This record keeping failure means that we have been unable to fully assess the advice given to the resident at that stage.
  3. The landlord also said in the stage 2 complaint response that an officer had been in contact with the resident about the ASB case in March 2023. The officer concerned told the complaint handler that she had visited the site in March 2023 and spoken on the telephone with the resident and the neighbour. However, we have seen no notes taken regarding this visit or these conversations. It is important that officers take notes when the actions occur to ensure accuracy of details and timeframes. However, as this was anecdotal evidence we have seen no record of what was said in the conversations.
  4. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had taken forward the issue around the neighbour storing items in the corridor and was dealing with it. However, we have seen no evidence to confirm this was the case. This further record keeping failure means that we have been unable to fully investigate how it handled the alleged storage of belongings in the corridor.
  5. As detailed above, the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records of actions taken and communication throughout the period of the complaint amounted to maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint (the Code) said that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
  2. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the neighbourhood officer would contact the resident within 10 working days. However, it did not check to make sure it followed this action through to completion. This meant that it did not use the complaints process to ensure it resolved the issue. Therefore, the resident had to take time and trouble to report the issue again. It also meant that she lost faith in the complaint process.
  3. The Code said that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days unless it agreed an extension with the resident, which should only be in exceptional circumstances.
  4. The landlord took 125 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request which meant that she took time and trouble contacting this Service for assistance. This unacceptable, lengthy delay, and failure to follow the Code caused the resident further distress. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  5. The Code also said that complaint handlers must consider all evidence and information carefully.
  6. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the risk assessment completed in September 2022 scored low. However, this was not the case. Had the landlord considered the evidence more carefully it might have concluded that it had not handled that report of ASB appropriately. This further failure to follow the Code meant that the landlord may have missed an opportunity to put things right via the complaints process.
  7. The Code also said that landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needed to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
  8. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord identified that it had made errors on multiple occasions. However, it only identified these as communication-based errors and said that it would remind the team to communicate better. We have seen no evidence that it looked further into why the errors occurred. It had failed to follow up on promised actions on several occasions. Therefore, it should have reviewed how this had happened and whether its systems were adequate and being used correctly by staff to remind them of outstanding actions. This failure meant that it did not learn from the failings so that they would not occur again.
  9. Due to the landlord’s failure to follow the Code as identified above there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered her £95 for the delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response. However, this did not consider the other complaint handling failures identified above and therefore was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident. We have therefore ordered it to pay £200 compensation to her to reflect this. This replaces its previous offer and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
    2. Record keeping.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £700 compensation comprising:
    1. £500 for the distress, time, and trouble caused by its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. £200 for the distress, time, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £545 which should be deducted from the £700 if already paid.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to confirm all her vulnerabilities. It should then record these on its’ systems so that it can adjust how it delivers its services if appropriate.
  4. The landlord must review this case within 10 weeks of the date of this report. It must provide a report to identify how its failings in this case will inform and implement changes to avoid the following errors re-occurring in the future:
    1. Record keeping failures.
    2. Failure to consider alternative options for resolution of ASB as per its policy.
    3. Failure to follow up on promises made both during and outside the complaints process.
    4. Communication failures.
  5. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.