A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202409842)

Decision
Case ID	202409842
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	20 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. She previously reported 2 leaks that appeared to be coming from the upstairs flat in 2019 and 2022. On 29 February 2024 she reported a third leak affecting her bathroom. She asked the landlord to do more to help coordinate a repair with her neighbour who was also a leaseholder. She also asked it to fund a structural survey.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of a leak.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to leak report

The landlord did helpfully take steps to prompt a quick repair and acted as an intermediary once the resident raised the complaint. However, it acknowledged delays in its initial response to her request. We also found poor record keeping, and instances of poor communication, for which we consider the compensation offered during its process to be insufficient. Specifically, it did not tell the resident when her neighbour’s repair was complete. Furthermore, it did not respond to her request for it to consider a structural survey. This caused the resident unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The landlord generally responded within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (our Code). While it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation, we cannot see this led to any detriment 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 17 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and not responding to her request for a structural survey. This includes the £50 the landlord previously offered for its delay in communication. If it has already paid this, it can deduct this from the total and provide us with evidence of payment. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. 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. If it has already completed an inspection, it should provide us with a copy of the inspection report. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: • Inspects the structure of the property affected by this leak and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: • The most likely cause of any structural issues identified. • 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 resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). • The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 17 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 March 2024	The resident complained that her bathroom was damaged due to an intermittent leak from her neighbour’s property. She said in September 2023 following previous leak the landlord had told her it would not help her recover the insurance excess from her neighbour and she had taken the neighbour to the small claims court. She asked it to seek confirmation from her neighbour that they had made a lasting repair to the current leak (from February 2024) as the relationship had deteriorated since the small claims court events. She also asked it to help her recover the £500 insurance excess payment for the latest repairs.
26 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
9 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said its insurance department confirmed that despite the fault of the claim, the excess needed to be paid by the claimant. It directed her to small claims court if she wanted to recover the excess from her neighbour. It acknowledged it had not responded to her request in February 2024 to contact her neighbour within its target timeframe. It offered £50 in compensation for this. It said her neighbour had agreed to arrange a leak detection specialist and it had tried to arrange a date with the resident. It offered its mediation service to help the neighbours communicate directly.
23 April 2024	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord did not tell her if her neighbour had completed the bathroom repairs. She said this was important so she could be confident of a lasting repair before repairing her own bathroom. She said she had tried to contact her neighbour to arrange the leak detection survey but had no response. She also asked the landlord to fund a structural surveyor to check the effect of water damage as the leak this time was considerable.
20 May 2024	The landlord issued its Stage 2 response. It said: A leak detection inspection had now taken place in her neighbour’s property. The neighbour had decided to fully refurbish the bathroom and ensure it was fully waterproofed. The neighbour had agreed to provide the landlord with details of the work and would complete the work within 4 weeks. It reiterated that it had tried to help but as both residents were leaseholders the responsibility to arrange appointments lay with them.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate on 3 June 2024. She said the leak had appeared to stop in early April 2024 but had restarted again in May 2024. She said she believed the landlord should have done a survey and any structural repairs as it was its responsibility. At a later stage the resident told us she experienced a new leak in 2025.

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 a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The resident historically experienced intermittently leaks since 2019 with several significant instances of water ingress. In this report we have investigated the landlord’s advice about insurance in September 2023, and its actions after the leak in 2024 as this is what the resident complaint about. We have not investigated a later leak in early 2025 as a significant time had passed since the previous leak in February and May 2024. As this is a separate instance it is important the landlord has an opportunity to consider this through its internal complaints procedure before we investigate.
We have not seen clear evidence around the events in 2023. However, given the leaks were not the landlord’s responsibility, it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident in September 2023 if she wanted to recover her insurance excess, she should do this through small claims court. We would not expect a landlord to get involved in a dispute about insurance excess between its leaseholders. The small claims court was the appropriate way for her to achieve what she was seeking. This advice was further confirmed in its complaint responses about the leak in 2024 and we found it appropriate.
The shared ownership lease says the landlord is not responsible for repairs to pipes, tanks, and other drainage that services an individual flat. As the leak was found to come from the neighbour’s wet room it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it did not have repair responsibility.
We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request from February 2024 or the request itself. In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to it and acknowledged it delayed its request to the neighbour to deal with the repair urgently. Due to it not providing full communication records we are unsure how long this delay was. We can see it was actively speaking to both parties by April 2024 when the neighbour mentions the landlord previously telling her to urgently repair the leak showing the delay was under 2 months. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer £50 in compensation for this, we have identified further failures in communication and addressing structural concerns which we will discuss below.
It was positive that despite the landlord not having repair responsibility it encouraged the neighbour to resolve the situation quickly for the resident. It also acted as an intermediary to arrange a survey appointment as the resident and neighbour were not speaking which was reasonable and helpful.
However, the landlord shows instances of poor record keeping and as such we could not verify its statements in the complaint responses. For example, it only provided us with one relevant call note of its discussions with the resident and neighbour over this matter in 2024 when the resident’s complaint and its response suggest it spoke to them both several times. It’s important that a landlord keeps accurate records because it allows it to demonstrate the actions it took if called into question. It also allows it to keep on top of ongoing issues and respond in appropriate timeframes.
In her complaint the resident asked the landlord to tell her when her neighbour completed the repair so she could organise her own repairs. We expect the landlord to have proactively chased for confirmation they completed the repair and then to reassure the resident of this. We have not seen any evidence of this in the landlord’s records. This contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she asked the landlord to arrange and fund a structural survey. She explained due to multiple significant leaks she was concerned about structural issues as the walls are made of plasterboard. She said during active leaks she could hear water running down the back of the walls. We have not seen any evidence the landlord responded to this request which was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s frustration. It should have explained its decision to either complete a survey or not to do so. We have ordered it to now complete a structural survey to reassure itself and the resident.
We have ordered additional £150 in compensation to a total of £200 to remedy the further communication issues. This is within the range between £100 and £600 for maladministration in our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s acknowledged some failures but failed to put things right.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 2 working days and issued its stage 1 response in 10 working days from the complaint. It issued its stage 2 response 20 working days after her escalation request. This was in line with its complaints policy and procedure which said it would acknowledge a complaint in 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, then respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from an escalation request. These policy timeframes are also in line with our Code.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge a resident’s escalation request within 5 working days. The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. While this was not in line with its procedure or our Code, we cannot see this caused any detriment to the resident. Furthermore, this did not impact the handling of the substantive issue or the complaint. While we acknowledge it failed to act in line with the Code requirement to address all the complaint’s aspects as it did not respond to the resident’s structural survey request, we have considered that in the previous section.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not receive a complete record of the landlord’s interactions with both the resident and her neighbour. This would have helped it evidence its actions and follow up within its service timeframes.

Communication

The landlord should consider how it can helpfully communicate repair outcomes to residents in similar situations in the future and respond to their concerns fully.