A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202447121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447121

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

14 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak from the bathroom and subsequent damage to the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord’s records indicate she resides at the property with 3 of her children, 2 of whom are disabled.
On 15 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to complain there had been an ongoing leak from the bathroom which was affecting the ceiling of her living room below.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. It accepted it had previously attempted to repair the leak in September 2023 and November 2023, which had not resolved the issue. It said it had raised a further appointment to resolve this and any follow-up repairs. It offered her £100 for the inconvenience from the leak returning.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 January 2025. She stated the landlord’s operatives were not resolving the leak and kept repeating the same repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 February 2025. It told the resident it had become aware she had installed a new bathroom herself without getting its consent. It said it would be her responsibility to arrange the repairs to resolve the leak. It said its previous offer of £100 remained open if she wished to accept it.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated that the leak had been ongoing for a long period of time and she was concerned about further damage to the property as it was refusing to repair this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told this Service the bathroom leak had been ongoing since 2021. She provided a copy of a previous stage 1 complaint she had received from the landlord on 18 May 2022. She told us this previous complaint was about it not replacing the bathroom, in response to her reports of leaks. She confirmed she made arrangements to replace the bathroom herself in 2022 and no longer wanted it to carry out a bathroom replacement, only to resolve the ongoing leak. However, she said she remained unhappy it did not arrange to replace the bathroom in 2021 to 2022 and with its offer of compensation at the time. There is no evidence she escalated that complaint with the landlord at the time and she did not contact this Service about it until February 2025.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst 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. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on the events from 15 May 2023, which is 12 months before her later complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the leak from the bathroom

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records about its handling of the leak, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord says that she may make improvements, alterations or additions to the premises, provided she first gets its written consent and any other relevant permissions. It goes on to say a failure to comply with these conditions can be considered a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says in relation to plumbing and “heating & hot water” it is its responsibility to repair leaks from pipes inside the property for non-leasehold residents. The exception to this is for “any hot water or heating system [the resident has] fitted” which is recorded as their responsibility to repair.
As mentioned previously, the resident told this Service she arranged for the bathroom to be replaced in 2022 due to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s earlier handling of the repairs for the leak. She acknowledged she did this without asking the landlord and said she was not aware she needed to get its consent at the time. We note as part of an email she sent to it on 8 June 2022 she said she had arranged repairs to the bathroom herself. There is no indication it acknowledged this information at the time or responded to her.
From the available records the resident next contacted the landlord about a leak from the bathroom on 19 October 2023. She said that the leak was causing damp on the living room ceiling and reiterated she had previously needed to “outsource and get someone to fix the leak” as it had failed to resolve it. There is a lack of contemporaneous records to show how it responded to this repair request and whether it noted her comment about having arranged repairs to the bathroom herself. In our view there was a further missed opportunity for it to have advised the resident she would have responsibility for repairing any hot water system she had installed herself.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2024 about the leak from the bathroom. Though she told this Service the leak had been an ongoing issue since 2021 she did not give this information to it as part of her complaint. The landlord’s acknowledgement the following day said its understanding of the complaint was the leak had happened despite several attempts from its contractor to resolve it.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord contacted its contractor on 20 May 2024 to ask whether it had carried out any works to the property recently. The contractor responded on the same day that:
1. It had attended “in September 2023 and November 2023”. It had repaired under the shower tray and later fitted a new plinth.
2. No other repairs had been raised with it since November 2023, so it assumed the leak had not been ongoing without being reported.
3. It had previously seen that there was non-standard tiling in the bathroom which was in poor condition and there may have been an issue with the flooring not being sealed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 May 2024 noted the resident’s concern there was a reoccurring leak from the bathroom which it had not resolved. It:
1. Outlined the work that its contractor had carried out since September 2023 but said that due to changes in contractors it was unable to see records of any repairs before these.
2. Said it had booked an appointment to investigate the leak in the bathroom. It said it would complete any follow-up actions to repair any damage from the leak by 28 June 2024.
3. Acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the leak returning following its previous repairs in 2023 and offered her £100 as compensation.
It is of concern that the landlord did not retain repair records after it changed contractors to remain aware of any historical issues that had been reported. It could have asked the resident if she could provide a copy of previous repairs she had reported so it could consider what had happened before it issued its stage 1 response, but there is no evidence it did so. Nevertheless, based on the limited information given by her in the complaint we consider the actions it said it would carry out in its stage 1 response were reasonable overall.
The landlord created a work order for its contractor to investigate the leak from the bathroom as a standard priority repair. Its responsive repair policy does not specify a timeframe for standard repairs, saying that these will take place at the “next available appointment convenient with the customer”. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
In this instance the landlord initially scheduled the repair to take place on 24 May 2024, 7 working days after the resident raised the repair request. It then moved this appointment to 31 May 2024 at her request. This was a reasonable timescale and in accordance with its policy.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 31 May 2024 as agreed with the resident. It recorded it inspected the shower and there was no evidence of a leak from the shower drain. It noted the seal around the shower tray had come away, resealed this and advised her to leave it for 24 hours to see if the leak resolved.
On 24 June 2024 the landlord told the resident its understanding was it had resolved the leak on 31 May 2024 but that there was an issue with the electrics in the living room as a result of the leak. It offered to arrange an inspection for 28 June 2024 to assess this, which was consistent with the actions it said it would take from its stage 1 response. From the available records there is no evidence she responded to it at the time.
There are no further records in relation to the leak until 6 August 2024 when the landlord raised a further work order to investigate a leak from the bathroom. We have not seen a copy of any repair request the resident made to it. Its contractor attended on 9 August 2024, 4 working days later. From the limited information available our view is it inspected the leak in a reasonable timescale and in accordance with its responsive repair policy.
The contractor’s inspection of 9 August 2024 recorded that the source of the leak was likely behind the concealed shower in the bathroom based on the location of the damp in the living room. It said it would be necessary to carry out further repairs to deconstruct the shower cubicle to inspect the pipework and this repair may take up to a week. It also noted that the resident had installed this shower herself. There is no evidence the landlord raised a further repair from this inspection or asked for further information about the resident installing the shower herself. This was unreasonable and delayed addressing the leak.
The landlord’s planned maintenance team visited the property on 28 August 2024 as part of a separate issue for a kitchen survey. It recorded the resident said the main lighting in the living room had been out of use since she had called out an emergency repair due to water coming through the light fitting. Due to the landlord’s limited records it is unclear if this was related to the repair order it created on 6 August 2024. It asked for a work order to be raised to repair the lighting.
Again, we have not seen evidence of how the landlord responded to the request to repair the water-damaged lights in the living room. A note in its internal emails states that it completed works on 28 November 2024, 65 working days after it requested the repair. However, no details are given of what work was completed, the reason for any delay in carrying out the repair or any information given to the resident during this time. In our view it did not handle this repair in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord created another work order on 8 January 2025. Though it did not include details of the initial repair request it is our understanding this was in response to the resident reporting the ongoing leak from the bathroom. Its contractor attended the property on 14 January 2025, 4 working days later..
The contractor recorded they renewed the sealant around the shower cubicle and advised the landlord that the bathroom flooring needed renewing. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day stating that its contractors were only repeating work it had previously carried out and not resolving the leak. She said that the leak was affecting the living room ceiling and wall and that she was concerned that the shower felt unstable.
The landlord amended the repair order on 17 January 2025, noting the findings of the inspection on 9 August 2024 that the leak was likely coming from the pipework for the shower. It requested this repair to be prioritised due to the resident’s disabled children and as she had reported the leak was damaging the ceiling and plasterwork of the living room. Its decision to prioritise the repair was appropriate in these circumstances.
The landlord recorded internally on 31 January 2025 that the work order remained open but also that the resident had installed her own bathroom, including the replacement of a bath with the shower and repositioning pipework to accommodate this. It stated the leak was likely the result of poor installation or maintenance of alterations she had made to the bathroom and noted it had no record of her requesting its consent to do this.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 February 2025 to the resident, it said:
1. It was now aware she had installed a new bathroom without its agreement and this was a breach of the tenancy agreement.
2. She would be responsible for repairing the shower, thus, should make her own arrangements to fix the leak as soon as possible to prevent any further damage to the property.
3. Its offer of £100 from its stage 1 response for its previous delay in addressing the leaks would remain open to her if she wanted to accept this.
We consider the landlord’s response was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable if it had informed the resident at the time she arranged repairs in 2022 that she would be responsible for maintaining any hot water system she had installed. However, by 18 February 2025 she and its contractors had informed it on several occasions that she had made alterations to the bathroom and it had failed to set out this position. In addition, it also arranged several repairs to the shower the resident had installed prior to its response on 18 February 2025, which demonstrated it had accepted responsibility for carrying out the repair. As such in line with its repair policy it should have completed the work order agreed on 17 January 2025 and should not recharge her for this work.
Furthermore, the landlord’s decision not to take responsibility for the repair created an unnecessary risk of a hazard developing. In an internal email on 18 February 2025, after it issued the stage 2, it recognised it needed to think about the potential damage to the property. It noted if the resident did not arrange repairs promptly the leak could become a health and safety risk. It suggested its housing officer should speak to her about the condition of the property and how she would resolve this. Though it told this Service it spoke to her on 21 February 2025 we have not seen any record of this discussion and the resident told us she has not had any contact from her housing officer.
The resident has told us that the leak has been ongoing since 18 February 2025 and has continued to cause water damage to the ceiling, wall and flooring of the living room, including mould growth. She said her and her family are having to avoid using the upstairs bathroom to prevent the leak worsening. From our enquiries to the landlord as part of our investigation in August 2025 it had not taken any action to assess whether she had been able to resolve the leak or the impact of this on her or the property. In our view this was not appropriate as it had already recognised the risk of additional property damage if the leak was not resolved promptly. Though it has told us it now intends to arrange for a surveyor to assess the property, in our view, this occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right.
Though there are mitigating factors in how the resident’s actions contributed to this situation we do not consider the landlord has taken sufficient action to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional financial remedy and to take further action to resolve the leak and address any associated damage to the property from this.
In summary there were failures by the landlord in its handling of the leak from the bathroom in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records of the action it had taken to respond to the repair requests.
2. Failed to identify that the resident and its contractor had reported she had made alterations to the bathroom and to inform her at the time she would be responsible for maintaining these.
3. Failed to act on its contractor’s recommendation from 9 August 2024 to raise a further repair order to investigate for a leak from the shower pipework.
4. Did not carry out repairs to the lights of the living room, that had been damaged by the leak, for 65 working days.
5. Unreasonably told the resident she needed to arrange repairs to resolve the leak herself, instead of completing the repair.
6. Did not take reasonable action to monitor whether the leak had been resolved following its stage 2 response or to prevent continuing damage to the property from the leak.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the leak from the bathroom.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. It must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £300 (inclusive of the £100 it previously offered) for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak.
3. Complete an inspection of the resident’s property which must:
  1. Assess whether the leak from the bathroom is ongoing and, if so, what repairs are needed to resolve this.
  2. Assess what repairs are needed to the living room of the property as a result of the leak. If a separate damp and mould inspection is required it must also arrange this to take place within 28 days of this determination.
  3. Set out to the resident when any repairs identified will be completed.
4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. How the delays in responding to the repair request occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. How it responds to situations where a resident reports making repairs or alterations to the property without its consent and how it will inform the resident of their responsibility to maintain these.
3. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.