A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202418987)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418987

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 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 handling of:
1. a leak at the resident’s property.
2. the complaint.
We have also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has a leasehold agreement with the landlord that began in or around 2016. She is a shared owner of a second floor, 2-bedroom flat.
The resident said that from December 2021 she had been experiencing leaks coming from the roof and through the light fitting in her bedroom. Between October 2023 and May 2024, the landlord was aware of 3 leaks at the property. In response the landlord patched the ceiling, applied stain blocker, and redecorated. The landlord also placed the resident in temporary accommodation in or around May 2024, when its technical surveyor found the communal roof was leaking. Following this its electrician attended to make safe the electrics, and left dehumidifiers at the property.
On 29 May 2024 the resident made a complaint because:
1. there had been ongoing leaks from the roof since December 2021. The landlord had continued to patch the roof, but this was ineffective at resolving the leak.
2. the landlord had delayed in acting on the initial report from the roofing specialist in March 2022, after which, she said she was told “the roof would hold out”. But it continued to leak.
3. she had looked at the roof and found 2-3 inches of standing water. The landlord was aware of this because it was included in the initial roofing report in March 2022. It had not done anything to resolve it.
4. her mental and physical health and that of her dog had been adversely impacted by the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak.
5. she wanted the landlord to resolve the repairs to the communal roof, redecorate the affected areas of her property, and replace the affected flooring.
6. she wanted it to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience, as well as the risk to her and her dog’s health, and the disruption after being “evacuated” for 10 days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2024. It said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint. It acknowledged its communication throughout the period of the repair was “insufficient” and it had no records to suggest it had provided timely or regular updates to her as the “situation progressed”.
2. its delay in resolving the leak to the roof was because of “unforeseen issues with the roofing structure” which needed to be assessed by a specialist team. It apologised for the delay and disruption caused by this. It had scheduled the decorative work to be completed on 26 June 2024.
3. it would contact her by 30 September 2024 with a detailed plan to resolve the outstanding issues. And it had appointed a single point of contact to address any concerns she had about its plan.
4. it had taken forward learning from the complaint about timely communication and addressing repairs. And it would share this with its teams. And offered £420 compensation for time and trouble, inconvenience, poor communication, and its late stage 1 response. And it would deduct this from the outstanding balance on her rent account.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day because:
1. she felt the landlord had not acknowledged the extensiveness of the leak and the impact on her and her dog.
2. she reiterated the landlord ought to have completed repairs much sooner, and the delays and poor communication exacerbated the situation.
3. she felt the compensation did not reflect the severity of the situation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 October 2024. It said:
1. it was conducting investigations into the leaking roof but had been unable to find a permanent solution.
2. it had written to her on 26 September 2024 setting out what investigations it would take and apologised for the delay it had taken to get to “this stage”. And that scaffolding had been placed around the resident’s block in preparation for its next round of investigations. It said it hoped to complete all the necessary work by the end of January 2025.
3. it had already acknowledged its poor communication in its stage 1 response. And it hoped that assigning a single point of contact had improved this.
4. it was sorry for the damage caused to the property due its delay in resolving the leak. It enclosed a claim form for the resident to submit to its insurance department.
5. it offered £1,250 for inconvenience, poor communication and complaint handling, and repair delays since 2021.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 11 December 2024 because:
1. the leak was ongoing, and the investigations had found the roof joists and timbers were extensively damaged. And she was concerned about the time it would take to resolve this.
2. she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered because she felt it did not account for the length of time the issues had been ongoing. And the impact of this on her mental and physical health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told us that the leak began in December 2021. We recognise that this issue has been ongoing for a protracted period of time. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from May 2023 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable period, usually within 12 months of the matter arising. This is to allow a reasonable opportunity for the landlord to consider all the issues raised. And while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident explained to the landlord during her complaint that her mental health and physical health had been impacted by its delays in rectifying the leak from the roof. 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. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Record keeping

Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. The Spotlight Report states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture and/or share with us important information about all its repairs, including:
1. when the resident made reports.
2. the scope of remedial work.
3. copies of all the surveys it conducted.
4. the reason for its delays.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, repairs conducted, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. As the landlord failed to provide this information to us, this hampered our investigation into this matter. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration concerning record keeping.
The landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping in this case. This is to ensure its management of repairs and associated communications are robust, up to date and shared with us. It must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can prevent this from happening in future. We strongly recommend that the landlord consider the recommendations in our KIM report when it completes its review.

Leaks

The landlord had not provided us with a copy of the resident’s lease agreement at the time of writing this report. However, it does not dispute that it was responsible for investigating and resolving the leak to the roof.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend to emergencies within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 calendar days. We recognise that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see that an action plan is developed by the landlord, which is overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity and remedied. As well as frequent progress reports being provided to residents to appropriately manage their expectations.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of the resident’s reports or any actions it took in response to the leaking roof between May and September 2024. That it did not was a record keeping failure and because of this we have been unable to assess whether it ought to have taken any action in response to this matter during this time.
The landlord’s repair logs show it attended to an emergency out of hours appointment on 24 October 2023. It is unclear what prompted this. The job notes were also unclear about what was being raised because it said it needed to “check and dry”. The operative noted at the appointment “[it was] still wet [and the] leak [was] not fixed.”
As the records are vague, it is unclear what the landlord considered the source of the leak, and potential remedy, to be. There was no other evidence that suggested further action was taken as a result of this appointment, despite the repair log stating the leak was not fixed. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it responded appropriately to the resident’s report in October 2023.
A further emergency appointment was raised on 13 November 2023. Again, it is unclear what prompted this attendance. We understand the landlord attended the same day and noted a leak to the bedroom coming from the roof. However, the operative was unable to investigate further because there was no loft void. They also said the ceiling in the bedroom was “damp but safe.” They recommended an “emergency roofer” attend.
We understand the landlord approved a schedule of roofing works on 1 November 2023 and an appointment took place on 16 November 2023. This was 3 days after its operative recommended an emergency roofer attend. While this demonstrated it was acting on the recommendation from its operative, it did not attend within 24 hours, as set out in the landlord’s repair policy for emergency appointments. Further, we have not had sight of the schedule of work raised at this time. Therefore, we are unclear what the landlord considered the cause of the leak to be.
The operative noted the “agreed work” was carried out, and that the damage was “not excessive” but needed to be fixed. Small holes had been made in the plasterboard to help it to dry. And the resident was left with a bucket. Again, given the vague record keeping, we have been unable to establish what was found during the attendance and what work was carried out. Given a bucket was left at the property, this indicates the leak may not have been resolved following the work.
We understand from the landlord’s repair logs that between February 2024 and March 2024, it replaced light pendants, applied stain block affected areas and redecorated the bedroom ceiling. The landlord was responsible for making good the damage caused by the leak. But it is unclear why it took 3 months to begin this work, which was outside of the 20 calendar day timeframe in its repair policy. In the absence of evidence to contrary we could not be satisfied this delay was unavoidable. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord’s technical surveyor had noted a leak in the communal roof that was affecting multiple rooms in the resident’s home via the light fittings. It is unclear how the surveyor became aware of this matter. However, an urgent job was raised to check all the lights in the resident’s home and to provide dehumidifiers.
The evidence shows the landlord attended appropriately within 24 hours. Its electrician made the electrics safe and noted new fittings were required for the bedroom and lounge. Buckets were also left at the property, and dehumidifiers were provided the next day. The landlord appropriately replaced the necessary light fittings and the smoke detectors in the hallway 7 calendar days later. We consider this was, in part, a reasonable response to the technical surveyor’s report. However, there was no evidence the landlord was investigating the root cause of the leak. This was a further missed opportunity to expressly document any investigations it was undertaking to seek to remedy the leak. This meant we could not be satisfied the landlord was acting appropriately to prevent the problem from recurring.
The resident said in her complaint (29 May 2024) she was placed in temporary accommodation for 10 days while the property dried out. Given the landlord’s concerns about the electrics, we consider this was proportionate action to take in the circumstances.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord was tracing the source of the leak. This is despite the resident explaining in her formal complaint (29 May 2024) that she had found 2-3 inches of standing water on the roof. We would have expected the landlord to have investigated her concerns further. Particularly given it ought to have reasonably been aware the leak was a reoccurring issue and could cause damage to the property. This was a further missed opportunity to document it was taking appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it wrote to the resident on 26 September 2024 explaining what action it would take to resolve the leak. We understand it said scaffolding had been placed around the block in preparation for work to begin. And it hoped to complete all “the work” by the end of January 2025. The resident told us the landlord had found the design of the roof was not fit for purpose and that it needed to be replaced. The landlord did not share its update letter with us and there was no other evidence provided about its investigations at this time. As a result, we could not be satisfied what the landlord considered was the cause of the leak, and what it intended to do to resolve this. As such, there was no evidence demonstrating it was taking reasonable steps to progress its investigations and make a lasting repair.
The landlord also did not provide us with any communications it had with the resident throughout the complaint. Therefore, we could not be satisfied it clearly explained its investigations or provided an action plan for follow on work with clear timescales. The resident said that she spent considerable time and trouble contacting the landlord to progress repairs and ask for updates over a protracted period. And that the lack of meaningful engagement caused her uncertainty, distress, and concern that the investigations were not being taken seriously or managed effectively.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it did not dispute:
1. it took “several attempts” to find a permanent solution.
2. it delayed in resolving the leak.
3. it had communicated poorly with the resident.
4. it was responsible for rectifying the damage caused to the resident’s property by failing to resolve the leak in a timely manner.
To put things right the landlord offered for the period of December 2021 to October 2024:
1. £250 for inconvenience caused.
2. £100 for poor communications.
3. £800 for the delay in completing the repair.

The landlord did not set out what it considered its failings to be between 2021 and 2023 when it responded to the complaint. In the absence of a breakdown of the compensation offered, it is unclear what amount had been apportioned to each period of delay. For that reason, we have split it evenly over the whole period and the corresponding award for May 2023 to October 2024 totals £591.

Post complaint procedure

The landlord told the resident it expected to complete all the work to resolve the leak by 30 April 2025. As a result, it offered her an additional interim payment of £500 for the partial loss of a bedroom (£350) and additional delays in completing repairs to resolve the leak (£150). The resident said that the landlord had also replaced her damaged flooring and redecorated her property at the time of writing this report.

Conclusion

The landlord’s record keeping meant it could not show it acted promptly to carry out lasting repairs to the leaking roof over a protracted period. While it did complete some decorative work and addressed safety concerns over the electrics, its overall response was inadequate. The landlord consistently failed to show what investigations it carried out into the cause of the leak, or how it planned to resolve this over a 12 month period. This led to poor engagement with the resident and impacted the landlord and tenant relationship. For these reasons we found maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
We acknowledge the landlord’s efforts to restore the resident’s home, but the landlord failed to make a lasting and effective repair to the leak over a protracted period. The resident explained the landlord’s delays meant she was living in her spare bedroom for an extended period. She said the lack of engagement also meant she was uncertain about what was happening next. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble trying to get the landlord to carry out investigations into the cause of the leak. Ultimately, this impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property and caused her distress over a protracted period. As such, we consider the £591offered by the landlord (for the period of our investigation) was not proportionate to the failures we found or their impact.
To remedy this the landlord must pay the resident an additional £500 for the delays in completing lasting repairs and the associated distress caused. This is in accordance with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding. We also recommend it reassesses its interim compensation offer in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The Code also states:
1. landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
2. where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. at stage 1, it issued its response within 72 working days of the complaint.
2. at stage 2, it issued its response within 33 working days of the escalation request.
At both stages of the complaint process there were excessive delays which amounted to a departure from the timescales set out in the Code and its complaint policy. There was no evidence it notified the resident of its delays, and a new timeframe to provide its response.
While the landlord recognised its delay at stage 1, apologised and appropriately offered £100 compensation, it did not do the same for its stage 2 delay. It also failed to set out the reason for its delays, any learning it had taken from this, and what it would do to prevent this from occurring in future. The landlord’s complaint handling delays would have contributed to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience.
Further, the resident raised specific concerns in her complaint about the landlord’s handling of initial surveys of the roof in March 2022. And that it ought to have reasonably been aware of standing water on the roof as a result of the survey and taken appropriate action. While the landlord’s responses acknowledged general delays, it did not specifically address this point. The landlord ought to have provided information about its investigations into its handling of surveys in 2022 and set out its position. As such it failed it address all the elements of the resident’s complaint.
We found the landlord’s tone in its complaint responses was empathetic and apologetic where it got things wrong. It also appropriately tried to recognise the impact on the resident by acknowledging the distress and offering compensation. While we recognise it acknowledged some of the delay was caused by a referral for a roofing assessment, it did not explain the reasons for any other delays it ought to reasonably have been aware of. As set out earlier in this report, the landlord’s responses were vague when it came to explaining what had happened. This was because it grouped together the points the resident raised and answered these with general statements such as “we have made several attempts to repair the leak” or “we have been unable to find a permanent solution to the leaking roof. Despite several attempts…”
It is unclear if this is because the complaint handler was hampered by the standard of record keeping. Nonetheless, this was a missed opportunity to be accountable and to explain its repair rationale via the complaint process. The progression of investigations was the root of the resident’s complaint because she felt the landlord had unnecessarily patched the ceiling and had not taken steps to sufficiently investigate the roof. Had the landlord set out what steps it had already taken and why, it could have restored some of the resident’s faith in its ability to respond to the leak appropriately and fairly.
Overall, the full extent of landlord’s delays in issuing its complaint responses were not appropriately acknowledged. This meant it did not provide a proportionate remedy to the resident for this. It also failed to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint. And although it acknowledged its delays, it missed an opportunity to explain what had gone wrong and why.
For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling. To put things right it must apologise, provide training to relevant staff members, and pay the resident £150 compensation to recognise its failures. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £650 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its repairs approach between May 2023 and October 2024.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling failures.

This compensation is in addition to the award made by the landlord during its complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident unless she agrees otherwise.

evidence it has provided complaint handling training to relevant staff members in the last 6 months. This must include issuing responses in a timely manner and associated practices where there are delays, answering all elements of a complaint, and what it can do to put things right when there are failures. Alternatively, it must arrange for training to be conducted.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must assess its record keeping of the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded and/or shared with us from its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the prescribed timeframes.

Recommendation

We recommend that when the landlord makes its final payment to the resident, it reviews its interim offer of compensation covering the end of the complaint procedure (November 2024) up to the date works were completed. This should include an assessment of whether further compensation is warranted or if its offer was proportionate in the circumstances.