A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202453488)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453488

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

16 September 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 excessive heat in communal corridors.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident became an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom first floor flat, following a starter tenancy in 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
4. The property, located within a block of flats, has a communal heating supply. A nearby energy centre continually pumps hot water around communal corridors. This provides hot water and heat to the properties within. A Property Manager is responsible for the maintenance and repair of this system.
5. The resident, who lives with her child, asked the Property Manager to install ventilation and mechanical cooling systems in March 2023. She believed the temperature in communal corridors and the property was too high. The Property Manager referred this to the landlord and said it would be responsible for agreeing any work.
6. The landlord offered to service the resident’s ventilation unit and delivered a fan to cool the property on 20 June 2023. She complained about how long the landlord was taking to address her concerns about communal corridors the following day. She said it was 29ºC in the corridor but only 23ºC inside her property.
7. The landlord inspected communal areas and a neighbouring property on 27 June 2023. It emailed the resident shortly after and said retrospective installation of ventilation or cooling systems within communal areas would be complex and costly. It said it was exploring options and would need to consult contractors. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 5 July 2023 (no copy provided). It also agreed to provide an update after 11 July 2023 but we have not seen evidence it did.
8. A survey of 3 October 2024 found the temperature in the property was normal.
9. The resident escalated her complaint about high temperatures and a lack of ventilation in communal areas on 25 February 2025. She said there had been no progress to resolve the issue despite many assurances. Amongst other things, she asked for a time bound action plan and regular updates.
10. The landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 2 response of 28 March 2025. It said it had referred the issue to its Assets Team and it may take time to resolve. It acknowledged poor communication and agreed to provide monthly updates going forward. It awarded £550 compensation (£250 for time and trouble progressing the issue, £150 for poor communication and £150 for complaint handling failures).
11. The resident referred her complaint to us on 31 March 2025, saying the excessive heat was affecting her health. She would like the landlord to install ventilation in communal corridors and pay further compensation.
12. The landlord updated residents on 3 September 2025. It said it had been investigating reports of excessive temperatures in a neighbouring block since 21 April 2025. It listed actions taken in May, July and August 2025. It explained the options it was considering and said it had invited contractors to tender for these. It said it would finalise a programme of work when it had received all proposals.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of excessive heat in communal corridors

13. The resident has previously raised concerns about the temperature in the property and there is evidence the landlord acted on these. However, she did not raise this issue in her stage 2 complaint. As a result, we will only assess the landlord’s handling of reports concerning communal corridors that were raised and addressed at both stages of the complaint process. Any reference to the temperature within the property is for context only.
14. Landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are free from risks and hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a system for assessing housing conditions. It says excessively high indoor temperatures are a hazard and recommends solutions such as installing mechanical ventilation or cooling systems (in the absence of effective natural ventilation).
15. Evidence suggests the landlord became aware of the resident’s concerns in May 2023. Its repair policy says it should deal with non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. It carried out an inspection within a reasonable time. This shows it took the resident’s initial concerns seriously.
16. There is no formal record of the inspection on 27 June 2023, other than the one contained within the resident’s update. This did not specify what the temperature was in communal corridors. Guidance from the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers says that communal corridor temperatures, that exceed 28ºC for more than 3% of the total annual hours, are a risk. The landlord acknowledged high communal corridor temperatures in its update. It has maintained this position and it is positive that it has accepted work is needed to address this.
17. We understand the landlord’s view at that time and that remedying the situation may be complex and costly. Its response that it would liaise with contractors to find the best possible solution was reasonable. As a provider of social housing, it is necessary for the landlord to make the most effective use of its resources and to carefully consider where expenses are incurred. It is also understandable that the landlord would not be able to carry out such work within 20 working days.
18. However, other than the stage 1 response, we have not seen evidence of any tangible progress to resolve the issue until the resident asked for an update in February 2024. Nor have we seen that the landlord updated her during that time. She was later told the issue would be finalised in April 2024 but this did not happen.
19. Internal landlord records refer to a discussion about the issue on 18 July 2024. They also show the landlord was considering a survey on 30 October 2024 but authorisation was needed as it was expected to cost around £10,000. However, we have not seen a formal record of these actions. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord’s actions at that time were reasonable.
20. Again, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident during this time. This failure in service compounded the detriment to the resident causing her unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the issue. This is in addition to her being exposed to high temperatures in communal areas for an unreasonable amount of time.
21. It is positive the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged poor communication from May 2023. It confirmed the issue was unresolved and had been referred to the Assets Team as it involved the age and design of the building. However, the landlord would have been aware of these factors since May 2023. Its decision not to refer the issue to the Assets Team until nearly 2 years later was unreasonable. This caused further delays remedying the situation, resulting in further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
22. The resident believes excessive temperatures have impacted her health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health. The resident could seek independent advice about this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine any impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord, including any distress and inconvenience caused.
23. The landlord’s award of £400 was in line with its compensation guidance for the failures identified in its stage 2 response. Its policy says it can make awards of between £350 and £750 for extensive disruption or customer effort. We consider the resident had made extensive efforts to progress the issue up to that point.
24. The landlord had also agreed to provide regular updates going forward but we have not seen evidence of these. It has provided a copy of the update of 3 September 2025. This referenced investigations and actions taken within a neighbouring block following a comprehensive survey. Although the landlord told us it will apply the same solutions in the resident’s building, we have not seen evidence it has told her this. Nor that it has provided any timeframe for when she can expect the work to be progressed or completed.
25. We understand the complex nature of this issue makes it hard to predict when work to remedy the excessive temperatures will start. However, the landlord could provide an estimated time of any planned or anticipated work. It could explain any deviation from this in its promised updates. It is unreasonable that the resident still has no expected timeframe of anticipated work, given it is more than 2 years since she reported the issue.
26. The landlord’s failure to provide an appropriate update amounts to service failure. Our spotlight on repairing trust explains these failures can be avoided when there is a clear plan or schedule of works from the outset or diagnosis of the problem. As the landlord has not recognised this failing, we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress.
27. We order the landlord to provide an estimated schedule of work. We also order it to apologise and pay £500 (inclusive of the £400 already awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures handling the resident’s reports of excessive temperatures. This is inline with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offers were not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

28. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
29. It is positive the landlord addressed the stage 1 complaint within its complaint policy time frame. However, it has been unable to provide a copy and this is a failure in service.
30. Further, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on the day the stage 1 response was issued. She said she was unhappy with the proposed time frame contained within the complaint response. The landlord replied shortly after and told her that she could not escalate her complaint until the date proposed to complete actions had passed.
31. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will escalate complaints to stage 2 if the customer is not satisfied with the stage 1 response. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right. It is also in line with our Complaint Handling Code from that time. This says that landlords must progress complaints to stage 2 if the issue cannot be resolved at stage 1. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint at that time was a further service failure which compounded the detriment to her.
32. The Resident pursued this issue several months later causing her further time, trouble and inconvenience. The stage 2 complaint was issued shortly after the 20 working day time limit. However, the landlord had already told the resident when to expect a response and its extension of a few days was reasonable.
33. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
34. The landlord acknowledged its failure to escalate the complaint in its stage 2 response. It apologised for this and awarded £150 compensation. This was in line with its compensation guidance which says it can make awards of £150 and above when there has been extensive failure to follow the complaint policy causing a significant impact on the customer. It is also inline with our remedies guidance for when there is a failure that adversely affects the resident. Therefore, we find the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of excessive heat in communal areas.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £500 compensation (inclusive of the £400 previously offered) for its failures handling her reports of excessive temperatures.
38. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide an estimated schedule of any planned or anticipated work and to tell the resident how often she can expect to receive further updates.

Recommendation

39. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £150 previously offered for its complaint handling failures if it has not done so already. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made based on this being paid.