A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202424164)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. Repairs to a leak in a bedroom.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We find:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in a bedroom.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the leak in a bedroom

4. There was a significant delay of 28 months in the landlord completing repairs to the leak. There were extended periods during which the landlord took no action. The landlord’s delayed action and lack of communication caused distress to the resident and her family.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

5. There were clear delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, its apology and offer of compensation was fair and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. We have considered events that occurred after the landlord issued its final complaint response on 20 July 2024. We have therefore considered events until August 2025 when the leak was repaired. We consider this approach fair and reasonable, as it helps us assess whether the landlord’s actions resolved the issues raised in the complaint and whether any outstanding repairs have been or are being appropriately addressed.
7. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. This responsibility is reiterated in the landlord’s repairs guide and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
8. It is reasonable to expect landlords and contractors to maintain clear and accurate records of repair issues. This includes documenting the nature of the problem, actions taken, and any relevant reports or supporting documents. In this case, the landlord has provided limited repair records. We asked the landlord for further information and it had no further records it could provide. Where no audit trail exists, we may be unable to confirm whether actions were taken or if the landlord followed its policies and procedures
9. The landlord inspected the property on 5 April 2023 and identified a leak in the bedroom ceiling, thought to be originating from a flat above. It recorded an action plan to trace the source of the leak, carry out stain blocking, redecorate and arrange for an electrician to assess the bedroom lighting. These were appropriate actions to resolve and remedy the leak.
10. There is no evidence the landlord attended the property again until 19 October 2023. At the visit, a contractor noted the ceiling was wet and isolated the bedroom light. It was unreasonable the landlord did progress the actions it had previously identified during the six month gap between visits.
11. In March 2024 the landlord asked the resident to confirm which flat the leak was coming from. The resident responded that she had been told the leak originated from the roof. The landlord did not have clear oversight of the repair, despite the issue persisting for nearly a year. Initially, the landlord believed the leak came from a property it did not own, but it failed to carry out any investigations to confirm the source or resolve the issue.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord committed to completing works by 21 June 2024. However, it did not carry out any of the promised works. The landlord’s failure to meet its commitments would have caused distress to the resident. The landlord did not meet the resident’s expectations.
13. In September 2024 the landlord said roof works had been approved relating to another address in the block and the resident’s property would feel the benefit of the repairs due to the roof layout. In October 2024 some works had been completed to the roof. The landlord did not know which part of the roof had been repaired. It acknowledged the repair did not cover the resident’s property. The resident therefore continued to be affected by a leak into a bedroom of the property.
14. The landlord acknowledged in internal emails that works had been delayed due to it not paying or effectively communicating with the contractor. Although the landlord recognised this, the evidence does not show the landlord considered ways it could improve the relationship with the contractor and build trust going forward. This would improve the quality of its repairs service.
15. The landlord’s communication with the resident was consistently poor. It did not provide the resident with reassurance that it was addressing the leak. Instead, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates, which she should not have been expected to do. The lack of communication and ongoing uncertainty contributed to the resident’s distress during an already difficult time for her and her family.
16. The landlord did not consider the impact the leak had on the resident’s family. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that her daughter had to stay elsewhere with relatives because the damp conditions were worsening her asthma symptoms. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed these concerns or took them into account when making decisions about how the repair was handled.
17. The landlord did not manage the case effectively. Staff frequently emailed multiple colleagues for updates, and although internal queries were raised asking if interim repairs were possible, there is no evidence this was answered. The absence of clear ownership meant the landlord could not demonstrate it had considered all available options to support the resident. The lack of repair records would have impacted its ability to understand the full history of the case. The landlord was not proactive in monitoring the repair and internal enquiries were often only made after being prompted by contact from the resident.
18. The resident told us the leak was fixed in December 2024. The landlord does not have a record of the repair. In February 2025 the landlord’s records show it attended the property and the roof was still leaking. This indicates the repair failed within 2 months. The resident has told us the leak was later fixed in August/September 2025.  It took the landlord a further 6 months to fix the leak.
19. The resident has told us the leak has been fixed, but internal follow-up works remain outstanding. The landlord has stated that no repairs are outstanding. However there is no evidence that it carried out a post-inspection. A post-inspection would have been appropriate to confirm that all the required repairs had been completed. It was not reasonable for the landlord to assume the problem was resolved without verifying the effectiveness of the works.
20. The resident requested reimbursement for living expenses she paid to a family member while her daughter lived with them. This was a private arrangement made between the resident and her family. We acknowledge the landlord asked for receipts for “additional costs” in its complaint response, which was a reasonable approach to take. We have not seen evidence the resident provided any documents for the landlord to consider her request.
21. In light of the significant failings above and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, we have made a finding of severe maladministration.
22. The landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 response was insufficient. This is because the landlord’s compensation offer only addressed the resident’s time, effort, distress, and inconvenience. It did not consider offering her a room loss allowance payment as permitted in its compensation policy. This would have been appropriate for the landlord to do as the resident repeatedly told the landlord that her daughter was unable to use the bedroom and was living away from the property. She also asked for compensation in her complaint escalation request.
23. There were further failings by the landlord following its stage 2 response. This is because the resident continued to be adversely impacted by the lack of communication and further delays in the repairs service provided by the landlord. The leak repair took a further year and one month to complete. We consider a further £1000 compensation is due to reflect the shortfalls in service and resulting impact on the resident including distress and inconvenience after 20 July 2024 until August 2025.
24. In addition we consider it is appropriate that the landlord pays an amount to recognise that the resident’s family did not have full use of a bedroom. The resident has paid approximately £804 per month (with some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of landlord’s maladministration, which we consider can reasonably be considered to have started in May 2023, 28 days after the landlord completed its inspection. During this time the resident told the landlord that one of the bedrooms could not be used due to the leak aggravating the resident’s daughter’s asthma symptoms.
25. We consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the resident’s loss of full use of her daughter’s bedroom. Based on the rent paid during the relevant period, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £2,400. This amount represents approximately 10% of the total rent paid and has been rounded up. While this is not a precise calculation, we consider it a fair and reasonable figure in the circumstances.

26. The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgment and complaint response were both delayed. Its acknowledgment was sent in 7 working days with the formal response sent 111 working days later. The delay would have caused uncertainty to the resident and made her feel her complaint was not being taken seriously.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request in line with its policy. However, it did not issue the stage 2 response until 35 working days later, which was outside the expected timeframe.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed the resident’s concerns about compensation but did not provide an update on the outstanding repair. This was a missed opportunity, particularly as the landlord was reviewing its service shortcomings in relation to the compensation offer. The landlord had not met the timescale it previously provided, and the resident had been actively seeking updates. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the repair was still outstanding and to explain how it intended to complete the work.
29. The landlord apologised for its delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £195 compensation. In our view, the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified in its complaint handling and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The limited repair records hindered the landlord’s overall oversight of the repair. The landlord has told us that a new repairs system will enable contractors to upload notes and there would be closer monitoring of open job tickets.

Communication

31. As identified, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Had it of set the resident’s expectations, it could have avoided the time and trouble the resident went to in trying to get updates. By not following through on the commitments it made, it impacted the trust between the resident and landlord.
32. Taking into account our comments on record keeping and communications in this case as well as our overall finding, the landlord is ordered to identify any learning from this investigation. It should then produce a report to tell us what it has learned; the steps it has taken to improve its service and its approach to reports about leaks.
33. The landlord should provide a copy of this report to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks. The report should outline:
    1. The findings and learning from the review.
    2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.