A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202432226)

Decision
Case ID	202432226
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in the property with her 2 young children. The resident told us that she had mobility issues, and her daughter had ADHD. The windows in the property are wooden sash windows. The resident raised a formal complaint about the temperature and heat retention in her property in 2023, which the landlord responded to on 23 November 2023. She opened a new complaint in April 2024 as the issues were ongoing. Some actions had been taken by the landlord in the intervening period, but the resident said that the heat retention issue remained outstanding at the time of this investigation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heat loss in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heat loss in the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Heat loss in the property

The landlord repeatedly delayed inspections and communication, failed to manage contractors effectively and left an unused radiator uncollected for almost 1 year. While it acknowledged some of these issues and offered compensation, the primary heat retention issue remained unresolved to the time of this investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not handle the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy, timescales or the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), nor did it demonstrate any learning from these delays or provide redress 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £650, which includes its previous compensation offer of £300 which may be deducted if this has already been paid. The compensation is made up of: The £300 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response. An additional £300 for the ongoing distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the heat retention issues. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the delays and failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection by suitably qualified professional. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property to assess the root causes of heat loss in the property. This must not be limited to the windows only. The surveyor must produce a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the heat loss in the property. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution[repair/resolution] to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 09 March 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must review this case and identify what went wrong. The review should be completed by a senior manager independent of the service area involved in the case. It must provide a report detailing: What lessons it has learned from reviewing the case, and how it aims to better the service it provides around repairs in the future. How it aims to address the poor communication noted in this case. The reasons for the delay in collecting the radiator and how this will be improved in future. How it aims to address its record keeping and improve its services so it can monitor and progress both complaints and repairs effectively.	No later than 09 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should respond in writing to the resident’s request for an EPC certificate in a reasonable time.
The landlord should respond to the resident’s queries around insulation in the property in writing, in a reasonable time.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 November 2023	The resident received a stage 1 complaint response to an earlier complaint regarding heat loss in her property. The landlord said it had received no repair requests and therefore found no failings. It provided the resident with details to request a repair.
17 April 2024	The resident raised a new complaint as she felt that the heat retention in her home had not been resolved. She said: The landlord had tried to install a radiator, but it was not required and was oversized for the area it was intended for. The radiator had been left for over 2 months in the communal area and requested it be collected. A contractor had attended to look at the windows in her property, but she had not received any feedback or actions from this.
22 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed its contractors had attended for heating and draught issues, but repairs were closed after the resident had declined the proposed works. It said it had scheduled an inspection with remedial works due by 28 June 2024, and that the resident’s windows remained on the 2029/30 cyclical program. The complaint was partially upheld due to poor internal and external communication, and the landlord offered £100 compensation and committed to staff training improvements.
15 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she felt the landlord had misinterpreted her complaint as relating to windows, when it related to heat loss more generally. She said that the windows had been inspected on 1 July 2024 but that she had received no update since. She also told the landlord that the radiator was still in the communal area awaiting collection.
11 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, acknowledging delays in both the survey and its results. It confirmed the windows did not need replacing but recommended works to improve effectiveness, including overhauls in two rooms and installing trickle vents. It stated the contractor would complete these works by 31 October 2024 and collect the radiator from the communal area on 24 September 2024. The landlord offered £300 compensation (replacing its earlier offer) for poor communication, delays in completing works and removing the radiator, and the inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate on 24 March 2025 as she said the heat loss in the property had not been resolved and the radiator had been in situ until late January 2025, before being collected. The resident was seeking a resolution to the heat loss.

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 response to the resident’s reports of heat loss in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told the landlord that the windows in the property were draughty, and the property did not retain heat, causing her additional heating costs. The evidence shows that the resident previously complained about heat loss in her property in 2023 and was provided with a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord. As this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint process, the findings have not been considered as part of this investigation, however this shows that the resident has been raising this issue since at least November 2023.

Windows

As part of the earlier complaint, the resident requested a full expert survey of her property as she felt that an earlier radiator replacement had not resolved the issue. She raised a second complaint because she had not heard back from the landlord in relation to the heat loss.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint said that it had conducted a heat assessment in November 2023. It suggested a change of radiator which the resident refused in February 2024 considering the radiator too large and unnecessary. It said that the windows were on its cyclical works programme for 2029-2030 and committed to remedial works being completed by 28 June 2024. It also apologised for its previous survey report being unclear and said that it had arranged staff training to improve this in future, which was positive to note.
The landlord booked an appointment for 17 June 2024 to assess the resident’s windows, which was cancelled because the landlord booked the wrong contractor to attend. This was a failing in the landlord’s contractor management and information management which can only have caused additional time, trouble, distress and inconvenience for the resident.
A further inspection took place on 1 July 2024, however we have not been provided with the findings of this inspection. The resident chased for the outcome of this survey in her stage 2 complaint escalation on 15 August 2024 and it is not clear if she ever received the outcome of this. The landlord chased internally for the results of the survey, however this was over 2 weeks after the resident’s escalation, and therefore almost 8 weeks after the inspection appointment itself. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. The landlord also failed to provide a copy of this or the finding of the survey to us.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its survey and relaying the findings to the resident had been delayed. It apologised for this. It also confirmed that the windows did not need to be replaced, but works had been recommended to make them more efficient including an overhaul to 2 windows and trickle vents being installed throughout the property. This view was supported by other surveys conducted by the landlord and the landlord was entitled to rely on this professional opinion of its surveyors. The landlord said it would complete these works no later than 31 October 2024.
On 4 October 2024, alongside a mould wash being carried out in the property, the landlord’s contractor noted that the windows were in good order, “not rotten and fully operational” and that trickle vents were not suitable in this type of window. They also said that installing trickle vents “would not stop the condensation”.
The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property unannounced on 12 August 2025 to inspect the windows and were not permitted access. This was an unreasonable action by the landlord, as this appointment should have been booked in advance with the resident. Despite this, the surveyor noted that the windows appeared to be in a good condition from the outside and did not recommend upgrading them.
On various occasions, the landlord’s contractors said that trickle vents were not suitable for the wooden windows in the resident’s property. Despite this, the landlord rebooked surveyors and contractors to complete these works on several occasions, which was a failing in its information, knowledge and contractor management, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in attending appointments.
There has been no evidence supplied that any additional assessments or works have been scheduled for the windows, given the issues with heat retention remain at the time of this investigation and this is a failing to resolve the resident’s concerns or satisfy us that appropriate investigation into the root cause of the heat loss issue had been carried out.

Collection of radiator

In February 2024, a large radiator was delivered for installation into the resident’s property, as part of the landlord’s actions to address heat loss in the property..
The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly raised safety concerns about the radiator being left in the communal area, including in April 2024, August 2024 and January 2025. The landlord’s records indicate that it chased for the collection of the radiator internally on 29 August 2024 and 17 January 2025. This delay was attributed to a member of the landlord’s staff needing to be on site when the supplier attended to collect the radiator. It is unclear why the arrangements of the landlord’s staff caused this matter to be delayed for several months.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident committed to collecting the radiator on 24 September 2024, but this did not happen. This was a failing, which caused additional time and trouble for the resident in chasing the collection further. This was also a missed opportunity to rectify the issue and resolve part of the resident’s complaint.
Ultimately the radiator was collected in late January 2025, almost 1 year after it was delivered. While staffing issues may have contributed to the time taken to collect the radiator, this was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the resident’s safety concerns, the repeated contact about the issue and the missed deadline, as set out in its complaint response.

Conclusion

Following the formal complaint process, the resident queried with the landlord on 11 September 2024 what action it would take if the radiators and window repairs did not resolve the heat retention issues. She also raised new concerns around insulation in the property and an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). There is no evidence that the landlord responded to these queries and the resident told us that these remain outstanding at the time of investigation. As these queries are relevant to the heat loss issue we have recommended the landlord to respond to them. However, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this response she can raise a new complaint with the landlord.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the works to the windows and offered £300 comprised of £100 for poor communication, £125 for delays to completing the works and £75 for distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the evidence shows that there were delays in assessing and undertaking works to the windows, which turned out not to be actionable as they were unsuitable for the window type. There were also delays in collecting the radiator from the communal area. These issues were exacerbated by the landlord’s delayed and poor communication throughout the process. There was also little evidence of overall assessment of the property and consideration of the heat loss issue as a whole, beyond the windows.
The landlord’s redress goes some way to addressing these failures; however the primary complaint about heat retention remains outstanding and largely unchanged at the time of this investigation. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge all of its failures or timely followed on its stage 2 response.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s policy mirrors the Code and sets a 2-stage complaint process. It says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. The policy says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint.
The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses in the following timescales:
1. 24 working days at stage 1. We have seen evidence that the resident’s complaint was raised on 17 April 2024, but the landlord’s acknowledgement said it had been received on 9 May 2024. It is unclear how the landlord assessed this to be the case and this was a failing.
2. 19 working days at stage 2, which was reasonable.
This means that the landlord’s response at stage 1 was delayed by 14 working days. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree extensions (of up to 10 working days) with residents and there is no evidence that the landlord did this.
There has been no evidence provided that the landlord undertook any learning from these delay, or provided the resident with any form of redress, such as compensation. Additionally, the landlord did not address the resident’s escalated concerns about a wider approach to the heat loss rather than just inspecting the windows.

Learning

We have identified learning from this complaint and have made a learning order above.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord incorrectly identified the start date of the stage 1 complaint, which delayed its complaint response. It also booked the wrong contractor for a job, despite a survey previously having taken place. The landlord also continued to advise that trickle vents should be fitted to the windows, despite at least 2 contractors advising that this was not possible.

Communication

The landlord acknowledged its poor communication with the resident, related to repairs and survey updates. There is evidence that this has continued beyond the internal complaints process and this has caused the resident to need to chase updates and outcomes on numerous occasions.