A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202446368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446368

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A pet application.
   2. Antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) allegations against the resident and warnings it issued.
   3. A safeguarding referral to social services.
   4. Concerns regarding the resident’s former housing officer.
   5. Requests to be moved to an alternative property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in the property, a flat, with her 2 children. The resident has vulnerabilities.
3. Between September and December 2023, the evidence shows that:
   1. The landlord wrote to the resident about reports of antisocial behaviour by her, and discussed these with the police.
   2. The resident applied for permission to keep her dog in her flat. Her housing officer declined this and provided a tenancy warning that said she had to rehome the dog.
   3. The resident’s housing officer made a safeguarding referral about the resident, after an alleged conversation with her children’s father.
   4. The landlord wrote to the resident to provide a tenancy warning about an incident outside a shop. The resident tried to contact the landlord about this but was unsuccessful.
   5. The resident’s housing officer wrote to the resident to provide a tenancy warning about a sign on her car that made allegations about neighbours.
   6. The resident was asked to sign an acceptable behaviour contract by her housing officer due to the reports of alleged antisocial behaviour about her.
   7. The resident and a representative asked the landlord to consider a management transfer. She was told that she did not meet the threshold for this or increased medical priority.
4. Between January and April 2024, the landlord subsequently gave permission for the resident to keep the dog, agreed a ‘management assisted move’ with an award of A priority, closed its case for antisocial behaviour reports about her, and changed her housing officer.
5. The resident made a complaint on 14 June 2024. She detailed some incidents with the former housing officer, who lived near her. She raised dissatisfaction with their handling of previous issues and said they had made false reports and not investigated issues fairly. She said this had impacted her and her family. She asked for warnings to be removed.
6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 June 2024.
   1. It said the pet application was correctly handled and the warning was nulled by the decision to allow the resident to keep dog.
   2. It said a warning letter about a car sign was correct, as this was a tenancy breach, and the warning was nulled once the sign was removed.
   3. It apologised for issues with a warning letter about an incident outside a shop, and that the resident was not contacted about this.
   4. It said its request for the resident to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement was in line with procedure.
   5. It said procedure was followed for the safeguarding referral, as when safeguarding concerns were raised to staff, they had a duty to report this.
7. In January 2025, the resident was visited by police after a report from her former housing officer. The same month, she escalated the complaint. She said her former housing officer had made false allegations, not been impartial in their handling of previous issues, and was harassing her. She said the landlord should move her due to their harassment and evidence from the police and her GP.
8. The landlord provided its final response on 13 February 2025.
   1. It noted that the resident felt that the initial rejection of her pet application by the former housing officer was malicious. It said the correct process was followed to reject the initial application, and it noted that it granted permission after further information was provided.
   2. It said that the safeguarding concerns were raised as genuine concerns and there was nothing to indicate they were malicious. It restated that the correct process was followed for the safeguarding referral.
   3. It noted it had internally discussed the resident’s further issues with her former housing officer. It noted she had been advised to avoid contact with them, raise concerns with the police, and been offered mediation. It said correct advice had been given by staff about these issues.
   4. It noted the resident felt she should be offered the next suitable property due to her allegations against the former housing officer. It acknowledged her wish to move and the impact of her situation on her and her family, but said it could not prioritise her above others in her band and needed to follow the correct process. It noted that she was on band A and confirmed her options to move.
   5. It apologised for the issues identified in its stage 1. It awarded £100 for the communication issues and the impact on the resident.
9. The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman. She has restated dissatisfaction about her former housing officer and their behaviour. She says they tried to make her homeless, get her children taken away, and ger her dog killed. She raises dissatisfaction that the landlord ever made them a housing officer in the area they lived, since this was a conflict of interest.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a pet application

10. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the handling of her application for permission to keep her dog in the property. She linked this to the concerns about her former housing officer who lived near her. She felt the housing officer was behind how the landlord became aware she had a dog. She also felt they were behind the initial refusal of her application for permission to keep her dog.
11. The terms of the tenancy agreement says written permission must be obtained from the landlord before keeping a dog at the property. The resident agreed to these terms by signing the tenancy.
12. The evidence shows that before the resident requested permission to keep the dog, there were allegations of antisocial behaviour about her. The landlord was obligated to act on these and reasonable to expect her to request permission for the dog, in line with her tenancy terms, if she had not obtained this.
13. The landlord initially refused the resident’s application for permission, invited her to provide further information if there were medical reasons for a pet being necessary, and sent her a letter saying that she needed to rehome her dog as this breached her tenancy.
14. The terms of the tenancy agreement says that consent will not normally be given for keeping dogs in flats which do not have individual private gardens. The initial refusal and tenancy warning were in line with this. The landlord did not normally give permission to tenants in flats without an individual private garden. The landlord was entitled to inform the resident that she lacked permission to keep a dog after its decision. It reasonably provided a route of appeal by inviting her to provide further information.
15. The landlord later visited the resident, considered new evidence that her dog was an emotional support animal, and gave her permission to keep the dog. This was also in line with its policy, as while it did not normally give consent, it showed it was willing to exercise discretion when it felt it had sufficient evidence to do this.
16. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands that the prospect of losing her dog will have been very distressing for the resident, the landlord acted reasonably in line with its policy, and any inappropriate bias is not evident. This leads us to find no maladministration about the pet application.

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’) allegations against the resident and warnings it issued

17. In the complaint timeframe, there were ASB allegations about the resident, the landlord asked her to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, and the landlord wrote several warning letters to her. These related to ASB reports about her, an incident outside a shop, a sign on her car that made allegations about neighbours, and her having a dog without permission. The resident raised dissatisfaction with these and linked them to her concerns that her former housing officer was harassing her.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord became aware of reports of various alleged incidents. We cannot say whether these occurred or not and a landlord is also not expected to know if a report is true or not. However, on becoming aware of a report, a landlord is obligated to handle them in line with their ASB policies and in a proportionate and consistent way. This includes discussing the issues with the parties, discussing and monitoring the situation with other agencies, and using available tools to encourage parties against ASB. These include mediation, tenancy warnings, and acceptable behaviour contracts. The landlord’s handling of ASB allegations against the resident were reasonably in line with this.
19. The landlord evidently sent most tenancy warnings after consideration of reports about the resident and discussion of these with her. Warnings are one of the reasonable tools a landlord may use on receipt of reports. The acceptable behaviour contract is also one of the reasonable tools a landlord may use. This had police involvement, and while the resident says police told her they did not understand why she was given one, the Ombudsman does not see evidence for this. On the evidence, the landlord was reasonable to say that most warnings were in line with its policy. As it noted, these will have been inapplicable once events moved on and the ASB case about the resident was closed.
20. While this was the case, there were issues with landlord’s handling of a warning for an incident outside a shop. The warning did not refer to the report as an allegation, which it would have been reasonable to do. It also did not discuss the allegation with the resident, including after she evidently called and emailed about it. This was not satisfactory, and will have caused her some distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
21. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its responses, apologised, and awarded £100 in recognition of this failing and the impact on the resident. The £100 is in the region of what our remedies guidance considers applicable for service failure or maladministration which adversely affected a resident, but had no permanent impact. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably for the issues and impact evident, and in line with its policies and our remedies guidance.
22. This leads us to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about ASB allegations against the resident and its warnings. The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

The landlord’s handling of a safeguarding referral to social services

23. The resident raised dissatisfaction that the landlord made a safeguarding referral about her, after her former housing officer raised concerns about a conversation they had with her children’s father. It is understood that she disputed her former housing officer’s account of events, and linked the issue to her concerns that they were harassing her.
24. The evidence shows that the resident’s former housing officer shared some concerns to the landlord’s safeguarding team, after a conversation they reportedly had with her children’s father. Following this, it is understood that the landlord’s safeguarding team passed on the concerns to social services.
25. We cannot say what happened in respect to the report that led to the referral. People can have different interpretations of events, and where there are different accounts of an incident it is hard for us to decide one is more true than the other.
26. However, under its safeguarding policy, the landlord and its staff are obligated to take action if they are concerned about, suspect or are told about safeguarding concerns. The housing officer acted in line with this by making the report. The landlord acted in line with this by considering the report and taking what it felt to be the most appropriate action.
27. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands that the referral to social services will have been very distressing for the resident, the landlord acted reasonably in line with its obligations, and any inappropriate bias is not evident. This leads us to find no maladministration about the safeguarding referral.

The landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the resident’s former housing officer

28. The resident raised dissatisfaction that her former housing officer had made false allegations, not been impartial in their handling of previous issues, and was harassing her. She has also raised concerns that the individual was initially made the housing officer for the area they lived in.
29. The landlord reviewed the handling of matters such as the tenancy warnings and set out its position on these. It discussed some later incidents with the police, and noted the resident had been offered mediation and advised to avoid contact with her former housing officer.
30. The evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. It shows it sought to assess if the various matters the officer had been involved in, such as warnings, had been handled in line with its policies. It confirmed an action plan for later incidents. It sought to obtain updates on the police’s investigation into matters and consider if it needed to take any further action.
31. The police did not take further action for reports from both the resident and her former housing officer, as they found no clear evidence to support the allegations both made. They said the issues were ultimately a civil matter, offered mediation, and advised that the resident and her former housing officer ignore each other. The landlord’s response reasonably reflected this, and it is not evident that the police considered that matters warranted more action than was taken.
32. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands how upsetting matters have been for the resident, the landlord shows that it sought to investigate her concerns in an impartial and evidence-based way. Its response was reasonably proportionate to the available evidence and reports it received. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration about its handling of the staff concerns.
33. This does not mean that we agree or disagree with the resident about any allegations she has made about her former housing officer, as we cannot make a decision about this on the evidence. The finding reflects that the landlord shows it investigated and responded about her concerns in an appropriate way and in line with what we would expect to see.

The landlord’s handling of requests to be moved to an alternative property

34. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make definitive decisions about whether a tenant should be rehoused. Our role is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
35. The resident asked the landlord to consider a management transfer, and submitted medical evidence, in November 2023. The landlord considered her request for a management transfer, and told her she did not meet the threshold to progress this. This was because she was not at immediate risk, and police had not advised for her to be moved to reduce risk. Its medical assessor considered her evidence, and it told her this was not sufficient to award an increased medical priority. It later considered further evidence in April 2024 and awarded her a ‘management assisted move’ and the highest priority, A.
36. The resident then said in her January 2025 escalation that the landlord should move her, due to the alleged harassment by her former housing officer and evidence from the police and her GP. The landlord’s February 2025 stage 2 response acknowledged this, but said it could not prioritise her above others in her band, and confirmed her options to move. It has also provided information about other areas it had stock in.
37. The landlord’s management transfer policy says it may move tenants in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is extreme harassment, threat of immediate violence, and this is supported by the police. The allocations policy adds that such transfers are for emergency cases. It is not evident that such circumstances were considered to be met or that the police recommended a management transfer. The police made the landlord aware of her desire to move, but said they had no other involvement in that aspect. The landlord was reasonable to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer, as this was after it considered the request, and it is not clear the criteria was met.
38. The landlord’s policy says that if a resident is not successful in a management transfer, a ‘management assisted move’ may be recommended instead. The evidence shows that this is considered by a lettings panel who have scope in exceptional circumstances to determine if a higher priority outside its normal allocations policy is applicable. The landlord acted in line with this when it considered further evidence and awarded a management assisted move in April 2024. This increased the priority to bid on properties it manages to the highest priority, A. This shows it appropriately considered other options to support a move when it felt it had sufficient basis to do this.
39. The landlord noted the resident felt she should be offered the next suitable property, but said it could not prioritise her above others in her band and she needed to continue to bid for properties. This was reasonable. The award of a management assisted move meant the highest priority was awarded for when the resident bid for transfers. Directly offering her the next suitable property would be out of line with this bidding process, and more equivalent to a management transfer, which she was not considered to meet the criteria for.
40. The landlord shows it sought to provide reasonable support, by detailing the resident’s options to move, and liaising with her about areas she was willing to move to. This would impact the amount of properties available for her to bid on, and her overall chances of successfully bidding.
41. Overall, while the resident is clearly distressed by issues she experiences, and the Ombudsman understands her desire to remove her and her family from their current environment, the landlord’s handling of her requests to move was reasonable. The landlord shows it considered the evidence and reached reasonable decisions on the evidence seen. It also appropriately considered and detailed other options to move, and provided reasonable support. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration about the request to move.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A pet application.
    2. A safeguarding referral to social services.
    3. Concerns regarding the resident’s former housing officer.
    4. Requests to be moved to an alternative property.
43. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour allegations against the resident and warnings it issued.

Recommendations

44. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 it offered, if it has not paid this already, as the decision is on the basis that this is paid.