A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202344448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344448

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
1. concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
2. concerns about the conduct of the contractors and the alleged damage to her porch.
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident; however, she has told us she has medical vulnerabilities.
In March 2023 the landlord put up scaffolding on the resident’s property. The reason for this scaffolding has not been confirmed by the landlord; however, the evidence suggests that this was for planned roofing work throughout the estate, which included the resident’s property.
On 14 July 2023 the resident reported that her porch roof was leaking and that this damage had been caused by the scaffolding boards on her property. She also said she was unhappy with the contractor’s attendance and mess.
Between 14 and 24 July 2023 the resident raised a complaint. In summary this was about the length of time the scaffolding was on her property and that the contractors had not taken due care and had caused damage to her porch roof.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and clarified her complaint. In summary the landlord’s record of that call was that:
1. scaffolding had been put up in March 2023 and the resident had been told it would be finished in May 2023. There had also been scaffolding up for 7 months the previous year and the resident was unhappy because she was not informed that scaffolding would be erected.
2. contractors had removed tiling and replaced it with a green plastic type material. The resident wanted to know why the tiles had been taken off and left unfinished.
3. the resident felt that the contractors were unprofessional and the tiles that had been left around were unsafe.
4. the resident’s porch had a leak, resulting in damage to her front door and wallpaper.
5. the resident wanted a dehumidifier to dry out plaster/wallpaper.
On 27 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it said:
1. it was aware that scaffolding had been up since March and said it had made several attempts to remove it.
2. it had been advised that the roofing works should be completed by the end of the week beginning 31 July 2023.
3. it provided contact details for a staff member who would oversee the issues going forward.
4. it had made internal recommendations that the service team kept the residents up to date with any delays to repairs.
5. it agreed there had been a service failure. It apologised for the length of time the issue had been ongoing and that the resident had to chase this.
6. it offered £100 compensation for “length of time and inconvenience and stress”.
7. it was aware that the leak had caused damage to the resident’s wallpaper and front door and understood this must have caused frustration.
On 30 January 2024 the resident formally requested that her complaint was escalated. In summary she said:
1. the leak in her porch since July 2023 was still unresolved.
2. because the repairs were outstanding, she was unable to submit a claim on the landlord’s insurance.
3. only the one staff member kept her up to date.
4. she wanted the landlord to review its compensation offer.
5. In addition to her complaint points at stage 1 the resident said:
  1. work to replace the roof was still ongoing. She had been told that this would start in November 2023, but it had not started until January 2024.
  2. since mid-September water had been coming through her bathroom ceiling, which had destroyed the ceiling, fused lights and damaged the floor.
  3. she had another repair outstanding since 27 September 2023 (smashed patio glass) and had been told that day that the replacement glass had not been ordered.
  4. that although she had always paid her service charge, she would not be paying this until the outstanding work was complete, and she asked that this message was passed to the service charge department.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it:
1. apologised for its delay in responding at stage 2 of its complaints process.
2. explained its position regarding the leak to the resident’s porch.
3. addressed the following additional issues, not previously raised at stage 1, and acknowledged:
  1. that a leak to the roof was reported on 25 July 2023 but repairs were not completed until March 2024, and the resident had to chase the repair.
  2. that the broken patio glass, caused in an attempted break-in, was reported on 24 October 2023 but not repaired until 14 March 2024.
  3. that it had updated the service charge team of the resident’s stance in relation to her outstanding service charges.
  4. that scaffolding remained on property even when work was not being completed but it had been informed that the scaffolding had been removed.
  5. said it upheld the complaint in relation to the time taken to complete the roof repairs and the replacement of the glazing to the patio door.
4. offered £600 compensation for:
  1. delays in completing the works to your property £300
  2. stress and inconvenience caused £150
  3. poor communication £100
  4. delay in answering stage 2 complaint £50
5. that as a result of the complaint, further staff training had been completed on record-keeping and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. And it had spoken with its contractor to reinforce the service levels expected from them and the obligation they have to provide a good service to its residents.
When the resident referred her complaint to us, she said she was seeking reimbursement of the cost of redecorating and increased energy costs from having to constantly dry towels. She said she was also seeking compensation for the upset caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident reported that the landlord’s contractors caused damage to her porch roof. We cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has such cover in place), the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. We have, however, assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident has commented that she may submit an insurance claim in relation to internal damage to her property. Should the resident be unhappy with the outcome of any insurance claim, it should be noted that we would be unable to investigate this. This is because we have no authority over the landlord’s insurer and any such complaints should be directed to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who have the authority to consider complaints about insurance claims.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concern that it had not informed her before the scaffolding was put up. This would have been required, in line with its responsive repair policy, if the scaffolding was in place for planned and cyclical repairs. Given the scaffolding directly impacted the resident it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have written to the resident in advance, regardless of the reason it had been put up. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this and the fact it did not address this in its complaint response was a failure.
The resident said she had been told that the works involving the scaffolding put up in March 2023 would be completed by May 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence to us to confirm that was the case or the nature of the works. We understand that scaffolding is not always removed as soon as work is completed and we understand that there can be valid reasons for this. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that the scaffolding had been in place since March and said it had made several attempts to remove it.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident informed of its progress during this time. It has not provided evidence to show that it did so. Not doing so meant the landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations which may have avoided this element of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s explanation, in its stage 1 response, that the roofing works should be completed by the end of the week beginning 31 July 2023 was confusing. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that the scaffolding would not be removed at that time. Its contractor had told it the scaffolding would remain in place “longer as multiple repair works going on to the roofs in this area.”
This lack of accurate information was misleading and implied that the scaffolding may be removed at that time. The landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to how long the scaffolding would remain in place. And was likely to have caused further frustration to the resident.
It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that there had been scaffolding in place for an extended period the previous year.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. When a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was positive that the landlord provided contact details of a staff member who would oversee the issue going forward, and that it identified its communication failings and made internal recommendations for improvements. However, its stage 1 complaint response did not go far enough to explain what had gone wrong.
Overall, throughout its complaints process the landlord offered an apology and a total of £200 compensation. This was in recognition of its poor communication, length of time taken and the resident’s inconvenience and stress. This was proportionate for the failures identified in this investigation, and in line with our guidelines. However, we cannot make a finding that it provided reasonable redress. This is because it failed to identify all its failings in its handling of this element of the complaint.
We, therefore, find there has been maladministration and order the landlord to apologise for this. We do not order the landlord to pay any more compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractors and the alleged damage to her porch.

Conduct of the contractors

We understand that the landlord spoke with the resident on 24 July 2023 and gave her the opportunity to explain her concerns about the conduct of the contractors. It was positive that it took this approach as this is likely to have made the resident feel that her concerns were being listened to.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will investigate complaints made about staff at stage 1 of its investigation and that the complaint will usually be handled by the relevant line manager. Its responsive repairs policy says that its contractors will “behave appropriately, showing respect for both the resident and their belongings and will remove any rubbish and ensure the area they have worked in is left clear and tidy.”
In line with its policies and the resident’s concerns, we would have expected the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns with its contractors. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out such an investigation.
Furthermore, the landlord disregarded the resident’s concerns by not providing a formal response to this element of her complaint. The landlord also failed to comment on the resident’s concerns about the safety of the tiles that had been left around by the contractors. Or her question about why the tiles had been removed, replaced with a plastic covering and left unfinished.
The landlord failed to appropriately investigate or respond to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors.

Alleged damage caused to the resident’s porch

The resident told the landlord about the leak in her porch roof on 14 July 2023 and in her complaint. She told the landlord that when its contractors had attended this, she had been given conflicting reasons for the leak.
To investigate this complaint, we asked for the landlord’s records. The landlord has provided its repair records for this issue. However, these records are incomplete. They do not include the details of the contractor’s initial visits or their findings. This is a record keeping failure, which has impacted our investigation, as we are unable to assess if the landlord’s initial response to this was in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to this issue was not appropriate. Its tone was dismissive, and it did not demonstrate that it understood that this was a key element of the resident’s complaint. Importantly, it did not set out its position in relation to this repair. This suggests it did not complete a thorough investigation before responding. Had it done this, it would have been able to establish its approach to this repair going forward and update the resident on this.
Because it did not do this there was no progression of this until the resident escalated her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did set out its position. It said that it was not responsible for repairs to the porch, as the resident had added this to the property. However, because the resident had told them the damage was caused by the actions of its contractors it said it would complete the repair as a gesture of goodwill.
The records indicate that this repair was completed by the end of July 2024. As already mentioned, we are unable to assess liability in respect of this damage and subsequent repair. Because of this we will not be assessing the time taken to complete the repair as this repair was completed outside of the landlord’s responsive repair policy.
It was positive that the landlord took the approach to complete this repair as it demonstrated that it sought to resolve this issue for the resident. However, it was not appropriate that it took 8 months for it to provide a meaningful response to the resident in respect of this issue. It was understandable that the resident became increasingly distressed during that time.
Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractors and the damage, she said, they had caused to her porch.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s evidence does not include the date the resident raised her complaint. This is not appropriate and highlights a lack of effective record keeping. However, its records show it clarified the resident’s complaint issues on 24 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 July 2023.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue its response within 10 working days. Because the evidence provided by the landlord does not include the date the complaint was received, we are unable to determine if its response was issued in line with the time frame of its policy and this is a failure. The landlord has also not provided any evidence that it acknowledged this complaint, and this is a further failure.
Our complaint handling code (the Code), in place at the time, required landlords to respond to all points raised in the complaint. It was not appropriate that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to respond to the resident’s request for a dehumidifier. The landlord has not provided any evidence that this was provided outside of the complaints process.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 January 2024. The landlord issued its response, 40 working days later on 25 March 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue its response within 20 working days. And that any extension required must be agreed with the resident and must not be longer than an additional 10 working days. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged this stage 2 complaint or agreed a new deadline with the resident. This was a failure. The landlord did, however, use its stage 2 response to apologise and offer compensation for this.
The resident raised additional complaint points, both within her escalation request and in a call with the landlord. These included issues in relation to her patio door, a drain repair, and delays in repairing her roof. The Code, in place at the time, stated that when a stage 1 response has already been issued, any new points raised should be logged as a new complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified if the resident wished to pursue these as a new complaint. The landlord has not provided any evidence it did this.
Instead, it used its stage 2 response to offer compensation in relation to some of these issues. While it was reasonable that it offered compensation, it is still a failing that it denied the resident the opportunity to pursue these through a 2 stage complaints procedure.
Furthermore, responding in this way is likely to have caused confusion to the resident. It would have made it difficult for her to keep track of the progress of the complaints she had raised with the landlord at that time. This was not appropriate. In light of this, we have made recommendations below.
In her escalation the resident asked the landlord to update the service charge team with her stance on outstanding payments. It was appropriate that the landlord used its stage 2 response to inform the resident it had completed this request.
It was positive that the landlord acted fairly by offering compensation to the resident, however it did not identify all its failings during its complaint investigation. Therefore, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report and it did not go far enough to put things right.
We have, therefore, found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint and have ordered additional compensation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors and the alleged damage to her porch.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident £700 compensation. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord in respect of this complaint, and is made up of:
  1. £300 compensation for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors and the alleged damage to her porch.
  2. £200 compensation for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
  3. £200 compensation for the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. contact the resident to establish if she wishes to have her vulnerabilities recorded, and if so, record these on internal records.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the compensation it offered for the resident’s patio door and delayed roof repairs issues, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to establish if she has any outstanding complaints.