A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202337249)

Decision
Case ID	202337249
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property, a first floor flat, since 1988. The freehold of the property transferred from a local authority to the current housing association in 1996.
2. The resident’s nephew has acted as her representative. For ease of reference, the term ‘resident’ is used throughout this report for both parties.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There was a long and unreasonable delay in replacing the roof.
8. There was a delay in providing the stage 2 response.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	The landlord must provide evidence it has attended the property to assess the damage caused by its failings. It must produce a report with photographs detailing what works are needed to make good. It must then either: Offer to complete the works to match; or Get three quotes from suppliers local to the resident and pay the resident one of the quotes plus VAT to have the work completed; or Refer the survey and our report to its liability insurer to consider indemnity for the damage. The landlord must write to the resident to confirm which option it is selecting with a full explanation.	No later than 12 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must evidence it has paid directly to the resident £650 compensation (less the offered £415 if already paid). This is in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused. This sum is made up of: £600 for the delay in replacing the roof. £50 for complaint handling delay.	No later than 12 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 December 2023	The resident complained that water was leaking into the property from the roof. She said the roof had been “condemned” by a surveyor weeks ago and the landlord had done nothing about it.
2 January 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had chosen not to replace the roof and repairs had been completed instead on 22 December 2023.
5 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, saying the repairs were unsatisfactory and water was still coming into the property.
24 February 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said the roof would be replaced and estimated completion was no later than 31 May 2024. The landlord offered £415 compensation (£240 for the time taken to repair the roof, £150 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for the delayed stage 2 response).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The roof was replaced in September 2025 which the resident feels was an unreasonable delay. She suffered water coming into the property until this time and wants to be compensated for the effect caused.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of roof repairs
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident reported the leaking roof on 6 November 2023 and a contractor attended the same day, which was positive. They informed the landlord a full roof replacement was required and submitted a quote. This was reviewed by a surveyor who believed a repair could be carried out instead. The landlord therefore rejected the quote for a new roof and ordered repairs. It was entitled to rely on the advice of the surveyor.   
10. The roof was repaired on 22 December 2023, 34 working days after the report and slightly in excess of the landlord’s target of 20 working days for a standard repair. At this visit it was noted that insulation had been sprayed onto the roof tiles incorrectly and this was causing the roof to deteriorate and leak. The responsibility therefore pointed to previous work that the landlord had done, rather than wear and tear.
11. The resident reported the leak had returned on 9 January 2024, showing the repair was ineffective. A contractor attended 10 days later and said the roof could no longer be repaired. After further inspection on 20 February 2024 the surveyor agreed that the roof needed to be replaced. It was disappointing the surveyor had not recognised this 3 months earlier as it caused an unfair delay for the resident.
12. The landlord informed the resident the roof replacement had been passed to its planned maintenance team. It said the estimated completion date was no later than 31 May 2024. However, it was not completed until 30 September 2025, 16 months later. This was an unfair and unreasonable delay given the resident was suffering water entering the property during this time. Contractors visited in February 2025 to explore whether any temporary fixes could be made but this was over a year after the leak occurred and was not helpful.
13. There was a Section 20 process as the residents of the building are leaseholders. The lease and legal implications did pose some challenges to the landlord but this does not mitigate the length of delay. The resident had to constantly chase for updates and timescales and the level of communication from the landlord was not acceptable.
14. Photographs show large wet patches on the ceilings, with cracks and mould spots. As a leaseholder, the resident is usually responsible for internal repairs. However, the damage to the property was caused as a direct result of the delay in the roof repairs and replacement. In light of this, the landlord should have referred the resident to its liability insurer in accordance with its compensation policy. There is no evidence it did so.
15. The delays and lack of updates amount to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to attend, assess the water damage and produce a report detailing the works needed to make good. It must then either offer to complete the work or pay the resident the amount quoted by a local supplier. Alternatively the landlord can refer its survey and our report to its liability insurer. The landlord must write to the resident with an explanation of the option it chooses.
16. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord offered the resident £390 compensation for the impact caused by its delay. This is not considered proportionate to the distress, anxiety and inconvenience caused to the resident over a prolonged period. A sum of £600 is more in line with our remedies guidance for the detriment caused by this level of failure. The landlord is ordered to pay this amount directly to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 13 working days after the complaint, slightly over its 10 day target timeframe. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. This was fair at the time as it relied on its survey and had completed repairs. At this stage it did not know the repair would be ineffective.
18. The stage 2 response was detailed, explaining what had happened and the plans for the roof replacement. The landlord apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. The response was provided 36 working days after escalation, which was longer than its target timescale. The landlord’s complaint policy says a stage 2 review should be done within 20 working days and the resident should receive the response within 5 days after that. This is not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code which says a resident should receive a written response within 20 working days.
19. During the complaints process the resident was distressed by the water still entering the property. She was not receiving any other communication from the landlord about this. The delay in the complaint response added to the stress and inconvenience and the £25 compensation offered was not proportionate. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation for the detriment caused to the resident, which is in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. There were sufficient records to allow the investigation. However, the landlord could have provided more comprehensive records such as repairs logs and internal communication.

Communication

21. The landlord did not communicate with, or update, the resident unless prompted and chased. This added to the stress, time and trouble experienced.