A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202324097)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324097

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 March 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 the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a flat owned by the landlord. The resident has post-traumatic stress disorder. The resident has an advocate, also a resident of the landlord.
  2. In 2021 the resident reported incidents of ASB involving several of her neighbours. The allegations included inappropriate name-calling, intimidation, and vandalism of her car. The landlord received counter-allegations of a similar nature against the resident and her son. On 25 March 2022 the landlord requested that the resident sign a good neighbour agreement, which stipulated that the resident would be required to comply with the tenancy agreement for the following 12 months.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 31 January 2023. She said that the landlord had not investigated her reports of ASB, and this had a detrimental impact on her mental health.
  4. In its complaint responses, including in its February 2024 final response letter, the landlord apologised for its handling of the ASB, which it said had not met its standards. In recognition of the distress caused, it offered the resident £650 in compensation made up of: £150 for delays in escalating her complaint and £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ASB.
  5. The resident initially approached the Service for advice during the internal complaint process. After receiving the landlord’s final response letter, she confirmed her dissatisfaction, stating she felt the landlord had trivialised what she had experienced by claiming she had retaliated. She said the landlord did not collect evidence from other residents who were concerned about the resident’s well-being.
  6. On 13 February 2024, the resident’s property was transferred to a new landlord. In March 2025 the resident informed us that, with her new landlord’s support, she felt confident in managing incidents of ASB, which had improved since the complaint. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to explain the way it had handled her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This service investigates complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2023. Her advocate raised the escalation request on her behalf on 28 October 2023, in which she widened the scope of the complaint. This investigation focuses on the matters raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint and the landlord’s responses to these.
  2. In her complaint, the resident explained that she had experienced ASB issues since 2019. According to paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not formally raised with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe, typically within 12 months of the issues arising. As issues become historical, obtaining and authenticating evidence can be challenging, and accounts may become less reliable. Therefore, this assessment focuses on events leading up to the resident’s complaint in January 2023.
  3. The resident raised concerns that her mental health was impacted by the landlord’s handling of the ASB. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s scope to establish connections between a landlord’s actions or inaction and the alleged impact on health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman “considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

The resident’s complaints about ASB

  1. The resident has explained that her ASB experiences caused her considerable distress over a prolonged period. It is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or who was the responsible party. Instead, we look to see whether the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. Where a landlord has acknowledged failings, it is the Ombudsman’s responsibility to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the given circumstances. In making this assessment, we consider whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles (the Principles): Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, along with our guidance on remedies.
  3. In this case, the landlord accepted several failings within its complaint responses for which it apologised. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow its policy, and as a result, the outcome for the resident fell short of its service standards. The landlord recognised that there were delays in investigating the resident’s ASB reports, which may have led the resident and her son to feel as if they had to retaliate, and thus, the dispute deepened. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to provide the reasons behind its decision to ask the resident to sign the good neighbour agreement in 2022 and that this had caused her significant distress.. This was reasonable and in line with the principles.
  4. The landlord also recognised that it should have explained to and reassured the advocate that it had initiated a safeguarding case for the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord raised several safeguarding concerns for the resident in September 2021 and through to June 2022. It appropriately participated in multiple agency conferences and made several suitable referrals for various multi-agencies involved in the case. Therefore, the landlord’s acknowledgment that it should have informed the advocate was warranted, as that would have helped demonstrate that it appreciated the scale and seriousness of the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord provided details about other actions it had taken in response to the resident’s complaint, which included:
    1. It issued good neighbour agreements to the resident’s neighbours, which, according to the resident and the landlord, had resulted in a reduction of ASB instances.
    2. It installed CCTV in the resident’s block.
    3. Where necessary, it had taken tenancy enforcement actions.
  6. To put things right, the landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation of £650 to reflect delays in dealing with her ASB as well as with the associated complaint. This amount exceeded the landlord’s compensation policy recommendations and reflected its awareness of its significant shortcomings and the effect on the resident.  The amount aligned with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for situations involving repeated failings and significant impact.
  7. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learned from the resident’s complaint. It said it was now fully staffed and had the resources to investigate all ASB cases. Its team included the complaint as part of its lessons learnt, which would feed into its service improvements. Along with its apologies, compensation, and ASB enforcement action, the landlord’s redress was proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances of the complaint, its failings, and their impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay to the resident the compensation it offered during the complaints process.