A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202320456)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320456

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Request for window repairs.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Concerns about the suitability of the property.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 23 September 2013 and ended on 21 January 2024.
The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. Since the complaint the property has been transferred to another housing provider.
The evidence shows the resident is disabled. He is hard of hearing and “severely sighted.” He has neurological physical pain, depression and anxiety. The resident lived in the property with his guide dogs.
The landlord’s repair logs dated 13 October 2022 noted the resident had called to chase the replacement of his windows. The landlord told him that the windows would not be replaced but that appropriate repairs would be carried out.
On 21 November 2022 the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf. He had said that mould was damaging his belongings and furnishings. He’d also reported that he was having difficulty navigating the car park due to being registered as a blind person who also had a hearing disability.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 December 2022, the main points being:
1. It had raised a repair for damp and mould inside the windowpane on 14 April 2022. However, the repair was closed because it was unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
2. The resident raised the repair again on 10 November 2022. It attended on 21 November 2022 and referred the job for further investigation. Follow on works were also raised. However, when it attended on 21 November 2022 it only looked at the windows and failed to inspect damp and mould.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s reports about the impact on him and his dogs’ health. It also noted the damage to his household contents and signposted him to claim on its liability insurance.
4. It would complete works to resolve the damp and mould by 24 February 2023. It provided the resident with details of a point of contact.
5. It could not find a record of the resident reporting access issues and therefore did not identify any failure of service. It would have visited on 1 December to assess the damp and discuss the difficulties he was experiencing.
6. It apologised and offered £75 for the damp repair being missed. It also said it had spoken to its contractor to reinforce its service levels and obligation to provide a good service. It said recommendations were made to ensure its operatives attend for all works as a lesson learnt.
A damp survey carried out on 15 June 2023 recommended further works including replacement of the windows throughout.
On 29 August 2023 the resident’s MP forwarded the resident’s ongoing complaint to the landlord on his behalf. He said it had failed to take “meaningful action.” He said his health was not good and that his safety and that of his dogs were “paramount.” He explained what his disabilities and additional health issues were. He also set out that he experienced difficulties navigating the car park because he could not hear or see cars approaching. He requested that the landlord allocate him an alternative property.
During September 2023 the landlord began works to address the damp and mould. Further works were scheduled to start on 2 October 2023.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. Due to the resident’s personal circumstances it should have made contact via email or letter when it failed to gain access in April.
2. Its position regarding the windows remained the same. This was because it only carried out replacements when something was beyond repair.
3. Due to poor internal communication the repair took longer than anticipated.
4. Works were due to start on 2 October to identify the cause of the damp and mould. This would help to determine what works were required to resolve the issue.
5. The length of time taken to repair the windows and investigate the damp and mould was “unacceptable.”
6. It apologised for a lack of communication and “poor management” which delayed progress causing stress and inconvenience.
7. It offered £725 in addition to the £75 offered at stage 1, comprised of:
  1. £25 for stress and inconvenience.
  2. £100 for poor external communication.
  3. £100 for poor internal communication.
  4. £150 for the length of time taken to complete works.
  5. £300 “ex gratia.”
  6. £50 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
Events post internal complaints process.
On 21 March 2024 the resident emailed us to confirm that he wanted us to investigate the landlord’s response to his complaint.
On 4 October 2024 the resident received a letter confirming that the windows would be repaired and not replaced.
In the landlord’s email to us dated 4 August 2025 it confirmed it was unable to find any information that indicated “concerns about the external areas and that therefore, the property isn’t suitable for the customer’s disability.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for window repairs

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy (repairs policy) says that it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days. It will “fast track” repairs for vulnerable residents whenever it “reasonably can.” Timescales will be managed with residents depending on their needs and the work involved.
The repair logs show that the landlord attempted to call the resident during April, May and June 2022 regarding the windows. The notes confirm the job was closed because it was unable to make contact. Its stage 2 complaint response of 29 September 2023 acknowledged that this was inappropriate.
An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 13 October 2022 set out that the resident had asked for the windows to be replaced. He had reported they were falling apart, had no safety locks and the handles were loose. An internal response of 18 October 2022 confirmed the property would be surveyed for cyclical works in year 2023 to 2024. This would include the windows.
On 28 October 2022 the landlord attended the property to repair the windows. The repair log notes that it advised the resident that replacement of the windows would be considered as part of planned works. An entry on the repair logs dated 22 November 2022 noted that the windows were in good condition, including handles, seals and hinges. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
However, when the landlord attended to carry out a survey on 15 June 2023 it noted that the windows were in poor condition. Some of the double glazing units had failed and it recommended that the windows be replaced.
An entry on the repair log dated 8 August 2023 confirmed that the windows would be replaced by December 2023 through planned works. It is unclear if this information was communicated to the resident. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 29 September 2023 set out its position remained the same. It confirmed that it would only replace items if they were beyond repair.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 29 February 2024 he confirmed that the window repairs (replacement) were complete. Their replacement was also confirmed in the landlord’s email to us on 13 August 2025. While this was positive the landlord’s communication about whether it would replace or repair the windows was inconsistent.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response because its failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was a more minor failure which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s Vulnerable Person’s Policy (vulnerability policy) sets out its aim to use information about a resident’s support needs to help design, tailor and improve homes and services.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy (damp policy) says it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp including, managing and controlling condensation.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2022 he reported that there was mould on the windows.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered the issue when it visited on 28 October 2022. However, a file note dated 10 November 2022 said that during a phone call with the landlord the resident had declined a mould wash. He agreed to report again if the situation got worse. Therefore, the circumstances around events at that time are unclear.
The CAB’s email to the landlord of 21 November 2022 asserted that the damp and mould had got worse. It was damaging the resident’s health as well as his belongings, carpets and windows.
An entry on the repair logs dated 22 November 2022 noted that there was a small amount of mould on the windows but that this was “housekeeping” and therefore the resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence that the landlord thoroughly inspected the property to investigate the resident’s concerns. This would have been appropriate and in line with its damp policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 December 2022 acknowledged that its inspection was not detailed enough. It appropriately apologised and set out action it had taken to try to prevent a reoccurrence. It tried to put things right by offering compensation and arranging for damp and mould works to be carried out. It provided timescales and the details of a designated point of contact.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it intended to carry out a damp survey on 16 January 2023. However, the evidence shows the survey was not carried out until 15 June 2023. The reasons for the delay are unclear therefore it was unreasonable. The landlord failed to comply with its damp and vulnerability policies The distress to the resident was compounded by his vulnerabilities and the reported impact on his health.
The survey noted that mould was only present in the lounge. However it said the property had been cleaned by the resident and there were signs damp had been present “at some point in the past.” It recommended that further investigations be carried out in areas of potential concern. It also advised the landlord to consider if a recently installed fan had been fitted correctly.
An internal email dated 23 August 2023 confirmed the landlord was waiting for an asbestos survey to be carried out and asked for an update. It is concerning that 2 months after the survey it was not in position to progress its investigations. There is no evidence that it provided regular updates to the resident on progress which would have been appropriate.
The landlord’s inaction caused distress to the resident. When the landlord spoke to him on 1 September 2023 he said no one had contacted him about the damp and mould.
An internal email dated 13 September 2023 confirmed works were “4 weeks late.” It asked for them to be completed due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 14 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had received the survey in relation to damp and mould. It said it would be in touch to arrange works. It is unclear why it took 3 months for the landlord to receive the survey and why, if it had not received it, had it not chased.
An undated internal email said the landlord had inspected the fan. It had been installed incorrectly and it was waiting for a report to be able to raise follow on works.
In his email to the landlord of 19 September 2023 the resident said he had been unwell. He had experienced breathing problems and sought medical assistance. The landlord’s response that day said it was sorry to hear about the “ongoing issues.” Its response was inappropriate because it failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident or demonstrate any empathy. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it consequently considered whether it could prioritise works in line with its vulnerability policy.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the proposed investigations with works due to start on 2 October 2023. While this was positive it was 3 months after the survey was carried out.
It was also significantly outside the timescale set out in its stage 1 complaint response of 11 December 2022. The distress caused by the delay was compounded by the landlord’s failure to proactively communicate with the resident to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 29 September 2023 set out the reasons for the delays and appropriately identified that they were “unacceptable.” While it was positive that the landlord identified what had gone wrong there is no evidence that it set out what it would do differently to prevent a reoccurrence.
It took the landlord 11 months to start investigating the damp and mould. Its response was not in line with its vulnerability or damp policies. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it gave a meaningful response to the impact on the resident’s health or that it had regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
It is acknowledged that the landlord identified some of its failures and set out what went wrong. While this is positive it failed to set out what it will do differently to prevent a recurrence which is an important part of its learning.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had a significant impact on the resident. It offered £725 compensation to try to put things right. However, this is not considered proportionate given the failings identified in this report. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1,000 in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the £725 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property

The landlord’s Allocations Policy confirms that it operates a choice based lettings system to internally allocate properties that fall within its percentage nomination rights. Its banding system considers medical need.
The landlord emailed the resident to say a member of its lettings team would contact him that week to advise him on how to move. It is unclear exactly when the email was sent but it appears to have been on or around 10 November 2022. The events that led to the email are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
The CAB’s email to the landlord of 21 November 2022 set out the resident’s difficulties navigating cars safely due to his disabilities.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to phone the resident during December 2022 on at least 3 occasions to arrange to visit. The purpose of the visit included a discussion about access issues. There was no answer and voicemails were left.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 December 2022 said it would have assessed the situation during its visit on 1 December subject to the resident’s availability.
It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to contact the resident. However, by November 2022 it knew the resident was hard of hearing so it would have been appropriate for it to have considered contacting him in writing as an alternative.
Furthermore, it missed an opportunity to use the complaints process to try to resolve the matter, for example by offering a further appointment. Given the nature of the complaint and the resident’s disabilities this would have been appropriate and in line with its vulnerability policy.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 12 December 2022 he explained his mobile phone was not working correctly. Because he was hard of hearing he was finding it hard to hear voicemails. The landlord replied that day to say it was unaware he was hard of hearing. This is incorrect considering that it was set out in the email from the CAB on 21 November. This is a record keeping failure.
When the landlord attended 6 months later on 15 June 2023 it was only to carry out a damp survey. There is no evidence that it followed up on the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property. This showed a lack of regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and to the resident’s welfare which was inappropriate.
A file note dated 13 August 2023 suggested that a welfare check be carried out. This was to include an assessment of whether the property was suitable for the resident’s needs. While this was positive it came late in the process which was inappropriate.
The landlord called the resident on 17 August 2023 to see if he was open to a welfare visit. However, the outcome was not recorded and there is no evidence that a visit took place.
The delayed response caused the resident time and trouble when he contacted his MP to resolve the matter. The MPs enquiry to the landlord dated 29 August 2023 set out in detail the risk posed to the resident and his request for alternative accommodation.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the MP or resident, either in day to day communication or in its complaint response, which was inappropriate. It would’ve been reasonable for the landlord to have responded in line with its Allocations Policy.
Furthermore, considering the events set out above it is concerning that the landlord’s email to us of 4 August 2025 said it had not been able to locate records relating to the issue. This is a further record keeping failure.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Record keeping

The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of accurately recording a resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s response to us dated 3 September 2024 said there was no information on vulnerability on the resident’s record. However, his disabilities and other health issues were communicated to the landlord as early as November 2022.
The records provided by the landlord for this investigation are unclear. For example, some entries are undated and where file notes/emails run on consecutively it is difficult to know when events took place.
We expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In response to an order for case reference 202307731 the landlord provided a desktop review against the spotlight report in May 2023. It’s concerning that record keeping failures occurred after that date.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Set out what action it has taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
2. Pay the resident £1,250 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the distress caused by its failure in its response to the resident’s request for window repairs.
  2. £1,000 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £725 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  3. £200 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its failures in response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to review the record keeping failures against its review carried out in May 2023. It should identify what has gone wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.