A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202434551)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434551

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 handling of leaks which affected the resident’s flat.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her 5 year old child. The landlord is a housing association. It knows her child is autistic and has difficulty in coping with disruptions to their usual routine.
Sometime in 2022, the resident reported water leaking through her bedroom ceiling. From October 2022, the landlord raised multiple orders to investigate and resolve leak issues.
The resident complained on 8 February 2024. She said there had been a leak through a bedroom ceiling since August 2022 and the landlord had not found the cause. She was worried the ceiling could collapse and about mould caused by the leaks. She asked the landlord to move her until the current leak was fixed.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 26 February 2024. It said there was a leak in the flat above which was fixed but it had not been able to contact the resident to arrange follow-on repairs in her flat. It asked her to arrange a repair appointment and offered £225 compensation for its “substandard” service and her inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 October 2024 saying a leak had returned. She wanted the landlord to find a permanent solution and pay her more compensation.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 25 November 2024 which said:
1. It had attended her reports of leaks from 2022 but had sometimes had difficulty in gaining access to other flats to find the cause and do repairs.
2. It was due to inspect her flat and others in the block on 26 November 2024 to trace the current leak.
3. It offered £613.50 additional compensation for the delays, further inconvenience and loss of a bedroom.
4. It would not replace her damaged carpet but could inspect to see if could clean it. She should claim from her own insurance.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 December 2024. She said she still could not use a bedroom because of a leak. She wanted the landlord to fix the problem and pay more compensation.
The leak was resolved in May 2025 and the landlord paid the resident further compensation in March and July 2025. The resident now wants the landlord to repair the damage caused by the leak and pay her more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

It is not disputed the landlord was responsible for resolving the leaks through the resident’s ceiling. She complained the landlord took too long to identify the causes of the leaks resulting in prolonged disruption to her daily life. She complained the landlord had not taken the matter seriously enough considering her child’s autism.
It is not clear from the evidence seen when the resident first reported a leak through her ceiling. In her complaint, she said the problem started in August 2022. While we have not seen records of her reports from August 2022, the landlord’s complaint responses did not contradict her account of when the problem started.
From the evidence seen, there was not a continual leak but a series of different leaks from the flats above the resident’s property. We understand this meant the landlord needed to gain access to other flats to trace the causes of the different leaks and repair them. There are 6 adjoining flats from which leaks could affect the resident’s flat. We shall refer to them as flats A, B, C, D, E and F in this report.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord could not gain access to flat B to repair a reported leak affecting the resident’s flat. The landlord attempted to contact the neighbour concerned to arrange another appointment. It is not clear from its records when the leak was repaired but its stage 2 response said it had repaired the resident’s damaged ceiling afterwards. Due to lack of evidence, we are unable to establish whether the landlord dealt with this leak in line with the timescales set out in its Responsive Repairs Policy.
However, there is no evidence the landlord was communicating with the resident at the time to update on its progress or confirm it had fixed the leak.
On 10 February 2023, the resident reported another leak from flat B. The landlord arranged an appointment with the neighbour concerned but did not gain access on the appointment date. The landlord took reasonable steps to arrange another appointment and fixed the leak on 2 March 2023. This was within the 20 working day timescale of its Responsive Repair Policy for a standard repair. As such, the landlord handled this leak appropriately.
After fixing the leak, the landlord raised orders to repair and decorate the resident’s damaged bedroom ceiling. Its records suggest 2 jobs were closed because its contractor had not been able to contact the resident to make an appointment. It raised another order on 31 March 2023 but had not yet attended by the time the resident reported another leak on 4 April 2023.
The order raised on 4 April 2023 to fix a leak is marked as completed on the landlord’s repair log. However, the contractor’s notes suggest it had not been able to make an appointment. Another order raised on 21 April 2023 was also closed because the contractor had not been able to make an appointment. It is not clear from the evidence seen if the contractor was trying to make an appointment with the resident or a neighbour from one of the flats above hers. However, there is no evidence the reported leak was resolved.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to trace a leak from flat A. Its contractor could not gain access on 26 May 2023. It later agreed an appointment with the neighbour and fixed the leak on 12 June 2023 which was within the landlord’s policy timescale for a standard repair.
The landlord repaired the resident’s ceiling after it had dried out. It is not clear from its records when that repair was done. The landlord should make sure it keeps accurate records of when repairs are done and what work is carried out.
The resident reported another leak on 1 December 2023. The contractor inspected her flat the same day. It thought the leak was from flat A but could not gain access to check. It was reasonable it called the neighbour to try to arrange access later that day and also wrote to them to notify them of its need for access. However, the job was closed when the neighbour did not respond and there is no evidence the leak was repaired. Further, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident it had not been able to gain access to flat A.
The landlord raised another order to trace the leak on 6 December 2023. Its contractor returned the job on 8 December 2023 saying a specialist leak detection contractor was needed. There is no evidence the landlord took any further action to resolve the leak. This was an oversight that meant the leak continued to affect the resident’s flat.
Up to this point, the landlord had repaired 2 leaks within its policy timescale but had failed to repair 2 leaks because it had not gained access to adjoining flats. It had also not repaired the resident’s ceiling after the leak of 10 February 2023, but we recognise it was unable to gain access at the time.
On 24 January 2024, the landlord raised further orders to assess the resident’s ceiling and inspect for damp and mould. Its records show the contractor attended the same day and noted there was still a leak from the flat above. There was no reference to the condition of the ceiling or extent of the mould.
The resident complained on 8 February 2024 saying she thought her ceiling could collapse and was worried about the mould in her child’s bedroom. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made sure her flat was safe.
Its records suggest the contractor spoke to the resident on 12 February 2024 and decided the repairs to her flat should wait until the leak was resolved. There is no evidence the landlord or its contractor inspected. Further there is no evidence the landlord was attempting to gain access to any of the adjoining flats to resolve the leak.
The resident had also told the landlord about her child’s autism in her complaint of 8 February 2024. While she did not explain the relevance of this, she said she felt the landlord was not taking the repair issues seriously enough. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have questioned how this vulnerability impacted the resident’s household and if this meant it should do the repairs sooner. There is no evidence the landlord asked for further information or considered if it should handle the repairs differently.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 26 February 2024 said the leak from flat A was resolved. There is no evidence to explain when the leak had been fixed or what the cause of it was. From the available evidence, it would appear the leak had been ongoing from December 2023. There is no evidence there were obstacles beyond the landlord’s control that prevented it from fixing the leak. As such, the landlord had not repaired it within a reasonable timescale in our view.
On 27 February 2024, the landlord raised another order to trace a leak thought to be coming from flat B. It is not clear from the evidence seen if this was the same leak the landlord thought it had fixed previously or a different leak.
The contractor visited on 29 February 2024 and thought the leak could be from flats A, E or F. It arranged access to all 3 flats and, on 7 March 2024, it repaired a leak in flat F. As such, the landlord repaired this leak within the 20 working day timescale for a standard repair in its policy. By 20 March 2024 it had repaired and redecorated the resident’s ceiling which was also within its timescale for a standard repair.
On 2 July 2024, the landlord raised an order to repair a new leak through the resident’s ceiling thought to be coming from flat A. It attended flat A the same day and found a leak from their washing machine. It cleaned up the water and told the neighbour not to use the washing machine until it was fixed.
The landlord provided a dehumidifier to speed up the drying process and made good the decorations in the resident’s flat on 15 July 2024. In our view, the landlord handled this leak appropriately.
On 14 October 2024, the resident escalated her complaint saying a leak had returned and could be weather related. As such, it was reasonable the landlord initially raised an order with its roofing contractor to investigate. The roofing contractor later confirmed the leak was not coming from the roof.
In the meantime, the resident had chased the landlord on 17 October 2024. Its contractor attended on 24 October 2024 and suspected the leak was coming from flat F but could not gain access. It removed damaged plasterboards from the resident’s ceiling but could not do repairs until the leak was resolved. While it was appropriate the contractor made her ceiling safe, this left her with a hole in her bedroom ceiling as well as the leak.
The contractor gained access to flat F on 25 October 2024 but did not find a leak. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to gain access to other flats to check for leaks at this point. Doing so may have enabled the landlord to have identified the source sooner.
On 7 November 2024, the landlord raised an order to repair the resident’s ceiling. Its contractor attended on 14 November 2024. It found there was still a leak which it now thought was coming from flat A but could not gain access to check.
Internal emails show the landlord spoke to the neighbour concerned but they would not give access until after 29 November 2024. The emails show the landlord felt the leak was “badly” affecting the resident’s flat and tried to persuade the neighbour to give access sooner.
On 11 November 2024, the landlord gave the resident contact details for its insurance team. This was reasonable and gave the resident the opportunity to claim for any damaged belongings if she wanted to.
On 15 November 2024, the resident chased for an update. It was reasonable the landlord explained the situation in gaining access to flat A. The resident said she did not think the leak was coming from flat A.
The landlord then reviewed its repair records for the block to see which other flats were affected by leaks. It appointed a specialist contractor on 18 November 2024 and decided to do dye tests in the adjoining flats to find the cause of the leak.
Its stage 2 complaint response of 25 November 2024 said it would start investigations to trace the leak the following day. The evidence suggests by 6 December 2024, the landlord had discounted flats A, C, D and E from being the source of the leak. It felt the leak was from flat B but had not been able to contact the neighbour concerned by phone or email. It also still wanted to check flat F.
It wrote to the neighbours concerned between 18 and 23 December 2024 giving appointments for 7 January 2025. The contractor did not gain access to either flat. The landlord referred the matter to its legal team on 7 January 2025.
By this time, the current leak had been ongoing for over 12 weeks (from around 11 October 2024). This was far longer than the 20 working day timescale for standard repairs in the landlord’s policy. We understand it was a complex situation involving multiple flats. However, given the history of leaks into the resident’s flat, the landlord took too long to appoint a specialist contractor and to consider more forceful action to gain access to flats B and F.
By 12 March 2025, the landlord had still not sent legal letters to arrange access to flats B and F. The evidence shows this 9 week further delay was caused by delays in sending its legal team the information needed to draft the letters, inaccuracies in the information provided and a delay in checking the draft letters prepared. The landlord should consider how it can avoid such delays in future.
It is not clear exactly when the landlord sent legal letters to flats B and F. By 18 March 2025 both neighbours had replied and booked appointments for leak checks on 28 March 2025. The contractor found no leak from flat F on 28 March 2025 but did not gain access to flat B. The landlord booked another appointment for 1 April 2025 but did not gain access.
The contractor had also attended the resident’s flat on 1 April 2025. It found water was no longer dripping through the ceiling but it was still damp. It thought the neighbour may have fixed the leak themselves. It was reasonable the landlord continued to attempt to gain access to flat B to make sure the leak was fixed. It arranged a further appointment for 22 April 2025 but did not gain access.
The evidence seen does not explain if, or when, the landlord gained access to flat B. However, by 16 May 2025 both the resident and the landlord were satisfied the leak had stopped and her ceiling had dried out. The landlord then raised orders for the ceiling to be repaired and decorated.
In summary, there were failings and avoidable delays in the landlord’s handling of some of the leaks including:
1. Not following up when neighbours did not respond to its requests for access.
2. A lack of effective escalation processes when neighbours would not give access quickly or did not keep appointments.
3. Delays in appointing a specialist contractor and instructing legal action.
4. Not keeping the resident adequately updated throughout.
Further, it has not yet fully repaired and decorated the resident’s ceiling after the damage caused by the leak from October 2024.
Overall, this amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks. We have ordered it to complete the repairs and decorating and apologise to the resident.
We have not ordered the landlord to pay further compensation because it has already paid £2,129.05 during and after its complaints process. The sum paid is in line with its Compensation Policy and reflects the delays, loss of the bedroom from October 2024 and the distress and inconvenience caused. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code for stage 1 in this case is the 2022 edition because the resident complained on 8 February 2024.
We have assessed the landlord’s handling at stage 2 against the 2024 edition of the Code because the landlord changed its complaint process from July 2024. This was before the resident escalated her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 February 2024. This was within the 5 working day timescale required by the Code.
It gave its stage 1 response 11 working days later on 26 February 2024. While this was 1 day longer than the 10 working day timescale required by the Code, there is no evidence the resident was disadvantaged by the minor delay.
The Code required the landlord to address all points raised in the complaint. Its stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concern that her ceiling could collapse or her point that it had not taken the issue seriously enough considering her child’s autism. Nor did it respond to her request to be moved temporarily. As such, the response did not meet the requirements of the Code in addressing all the points raised in the complaint.
The response incorrectly referred to the complaint being about a leaking roof. It is not clear why the landlord used this definition as there was no mention of the roof in the resident’s complaint. The rest of the response shows the landlord understood the leak was from another flat. The landlord should make sure it defines complaints accurately in its responses.
The 2024 edition of the Code required the landlord to acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged it 11 working days later on 29 October 2024. As such, it did not meet the timescale required by the Code.
It gave its stage 2 response 19 working days later on 25 November 2024 which accurately defined the complaint and resolutions the resident wanted. It also summarised the information the landlord had gathered during a call with the resident on 14 October 2024. This was a good way for the landlord to show the resident it had listened to what she was unhappy about.
The response also summarised the action it had taken to try to resolve the problem as well as the further action it planned to take. The response clearly set out the landlord’s position regarding the leak.
In her initial complaint, the resident told the landlord about her child’s autism. The stage 2 response shows it recognised the child’s vulnerabilities. However, the landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded against the resident’s tenancy. This suggests the landlord had not updated its tenancy records during its complaint process.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because its stage 1 response did not address all the points of the resident’s complaint and its stage 2 acknowledgement was late. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and update its tenancy records.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks which affected the resident’s flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and the impact they had on her family. The landlord must send us a copy.
2. Complete repairs and decorating to the resident’s damaged bedroom ceiling.
3. Update its tenancy records relating to the resident’s child’s autism.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers the failings identified in this report and decide if it needs to improve its practices in managing repair appointments and handling complaints.