A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202507528)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her child and grandchildren. Members of the household live with Asthma and eczema. The resident raised concerns around damp and mould in the property. The landlord completed surveys which identified works to resolve the issue, however the concern remained outstanding. The resident then raised her complaint, and the landlord made assurances around the required works. The works however remained outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Damp, mould and property rendering.
   2. A flat roof and home insulation check.
   3. Its complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and property rendering.
   2. Maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a flat roof and home insulation check.
   3. Maladministration with its response to the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp, mould, and property rendering

4. There were significant delays in the landlord’s response to the issues. It made promises at stage 2 which it did not stick to, and the issue remains outstanding. The landlord offered the resident redress, however as the issue has remained outstanding this was not proportionate. We have seen no evidence that it reconsidered its position. It was also aware of the vulnerabilities within the household and has not shown that it took these into consideration in determining its approach. It has not shown that it considered whether the property remained habitable for the family.

Flat roof

5. The landlord did not show that it investigated the resident’s concerns. It identified an issue with the roof as early as July 2023 but has not shown that it took robust action to investigate to determine if this contributed to the internal issues faced by the resident. It did not acknowledge its failing and as such offered no compensation.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord provided its response within the policy timeframes. It however failed to respond to all of the resident’s complaint. It did not realise this and as such has not acknowledged the failing.

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.

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.

Matters we cannot consider

7. The resident explained the situation with the property affected her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. We have investigated from 13 July 2023 until 5 January 2026. This is because this was the first time we can see that the landlord had conclusive evidence of concerns with the property, until we concluded our investigations.
9. The resident explained the outcomes she wanted from the complaint. Some of these outcomes are not within our power to grant. These include asking the landlord to provide her with full internal and external correspondence around her repairs, replacement of cupboards, and a bathroom installation.
10. The resident raised concerns about damage to her belongings. We cannot determine liability for damage to belongings as it would be fairer to take such concerns to an insurance company or the courts. We can however consider the landlord’s response to her concerns about the damage to her belongings.

Damp and mould

11. The evidence shows that prior to her complaint, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property. For example, she raised concerns in 2023 which led to a survey on 13 July 2023. At this point the survey only identified concerns with the ventilation in the property, it also identified damp and mould concerns in the bathroom. It recommended that the landlord instruct a ventilation contractor and that it holistically considered the ventilation across the property. It also recommended that the landlord complete a mould wash. The evidence then shows that the landlord raised works on 4 August 2023 for a mould wash, to wash the bathroom ceiling, treat mould, remove and dispose of the existing extractor fan in the bathroom.
12. These were all works identified in the survey, but the landlord’s records do not make it clear that the works were in response to the survey, raising concerns with its record keeping. However, on the balance of probabilities, it would appear that it was. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not provide timescales for raising works or resolving damp and mould concerns. It however says it will do so within a reasonable timeframe. We have considered the timescales within its repairs policy to determine what is considered reasonable. The repairs policy says it will complete a standard repair within 20 working days. As such we do not consider the 16 working day delay between 13 July 2023 and 4 August 2023 to raise the works to be reasonable.
13. The landlord’s notes raise further concerns with its record keeping. It explained on 25 September 2023 that it needed to confirm if the cause of a leak was identified and remedied. If not it needed to raise a repair to investigate, identify, and remedy the cause of the leak. It also discussed other works which involved the ventilation and failed UPVC glazed units. The failure to be sufficiently sure, on what works it had completed was concerning. The landlord should have robust records detailing completed actions, and outstanding issues. The record keeping issues then continue into October 2023 as the records say it completed works on 20 October 2023 but provide no information on which works.
14. The records then say on 24 October 2023 that works were in progress and ongoing but again provide no information. By 1 December 2023, over one month later, the landlord’s records explain that it was awaiting approval for follow on works, and it had ordered parts on 31 January 2024. It is unclear if all of these works linked to those raised on 4 August 2023 or were separate and different issues. This was a failing.
15. The resident then continued to raise concerns around damp and mould in the property. She reported concerns with the little bedroom in the property on 2 occasions. She reported her concern the first time on 14 February 2024, and then again on 11 July 2024. On both occasions, she told the landlord that the issue had led to mould growth on her bed and furniture. Following the report in February, its contractors attended appropriately 14 days later and completed a mould wash, and full decoration to the walls, ceiling and woodwork according to its records on 28 February 2024.
16. We then have no evidence the resident raised the issue again until over 4 months later in July 2024. However, between February and July 2024, we can see from the records that the landlord completed other works. This was between 7 March 2024 and 3 May 2024, but its records do not explain what works these were and this raises further concerns with its record keeping. It also logged another damp and mould case on 24 May 2024.
17. The evidence then shows that the landlord completed another mould wash on 16 July 2024, 5 days after the resident raised her concerns about the bedroom. During this appointment the records say it prepped and painted part of the ceiling/ part of the wall. Both the operative and resident also noted that the issues which caused the damp and mould were external, especially when it rained. She told the contractor that she had reported this to the landlord and awaited works. We have however seen no evidence that it followed this report up with the resident, raising concerns with its communication. She had indicated she was awaiting a response from it, this was an opportunity to provide her with an update and manage her expectations. The failure to demonstrate it took positive action was unreasonable.
18. When the resident raised her concerns about the small bedroom, she told the landlord on both occasions that it had damaged her belongings. We have seen no evidence that the landlord referred her to the relevant insurance providers and this was a failing. This also raises further concerns with its communication. It should have referred her to either her contents insurance or its own insurance.
19. The landlord then completed another damp and mould survey in the property on 10 September 2024 which identified damp issues throughout the property. It recommended further investigations around the external wall and roof. It also recommended the need for a damp specialist around the external walls, and remedial works to the property. From the evidence provided, we cannot see that the landlord took a lot of the actions identified from the survey and this was a failing. We can however see that it employed a specialist as early as March 2024, but it is unclear if this related to the external wall, or other issues. The resident raised further issues with severe damp and mould after moving her washing machine. The evidence suggests that the landlord completed another mould wash on 19 September 2024.
20. The landlord’s records show that it raised works on 11 November 2024 which it attended to on 28 November 2024. Its records say this was to remove the silicone around the bath and replace it. The resident then raised further concerns around damp and mould on 3 December 2024. It attended on 9 December 2024 but could not access the property. The resident requested another appointment which it agreed for 18 December 2024. It attempted to rebook the appointment on this day but could not contact the resident.

Property rendering

21. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that the resident reported that the render on the brickwork on the front of the property had a crack and caused issues internally. We have seen no evidence of this report, raising further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. It said it raised works on 11 January 2024, and its contractor attended on 19 February 2024. They observed that there was cracking on the render above the windows and the front bedrooms showed signs of water ingress around the windows. It said it passed the work on to a contactor on 23 March 2024.
22. External concerns with the property were also identified on 16 July 2024 by the landlord’s contractor. The damp survey on 10 September 2024 then raised concerns about the external walls due to significant moisture readings. It recommended intrusive surveys to all external walls of the property and for a damp specialist to assess the source of dampness to the external walls. In its stage 2 response of 25 October 2024, the landlord committed to try to resolve the issue by 17 January 2025. At the time of the stage 2 response, the issue had been outstanding for over 10 months, between 11 January 2024 and 25 October 2024. This was significantly outside any timescales contained within its repairs policy and a significant failing.

Conclusion

23. We contacted the landlord on 15 December 2025 and queried a completion date for the works. It explained on 17 December 2025 that the issues remained ongoing at the time of writing, and it aimed to finish all necessary works by February 2026. This means that at the time of writing the actions necessary to potentially permanently resolve the damp and mould remained outstanding for a period of around 27 months between September 2023, and December 2025 and this was unreasonable.
24. The landlord also failed to abide by the promise it made in its stage 2 response. It did not complete the works to the property rendering by 17 January 2025, and this was a failing. It confirmed in its email of 17 December 2025 that the works still remain outstanding. This means that the works remained outstanding between 11 January 2024 and 5 January 2026, a period of around 23 months and this was unreasonable.
25. There were some issues which contributed to delays around the works. For example between March 2025 and April 2025, there were discussions around the resident needing to remove her CCTV. This was to allow for the erecting of scaffolding to complete works. We can also see that there were some rearranged appointments, and issues with access. That however does not justify the level of delay in this instance.
26. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her family’s health. The landlord was aware that the resident’s child lived with severe asthma. It was also aware that there were young children in the property. Sections 9a, 10 and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 place a responsibility on the landlord to identify and resolve issues of potential hazards within a reasonable timeframe. It has not shown that it did, and this was unreasonable. Its actions were also not in line with its prioritisation policy, as it has not shown it responded with the appropriate support. The landlord has not shown that it considered the impact of the situation on the family, or whether the property remained habitable, given its findings that the issues affected the entire property. This was unreasonable.
27. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £475 across its complaint responses. Its compensation policy says its offer will depend on the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. It breaks its offers down into 3 categories, minor, moderate, and extensive disruption. In this instance, its offer falls within the extensive disruption and customer effort category. Its policy further explains it will consider the length of time it has taken to put things right. In this instance, we cannot see that the landlord has considered the length of time it has taken to resolve the issue, and this was a failing. It has not shown that it took any consideration around the resident’s enjoyment of the property given the continued disruption. This was due to the recurrence of the issue, and the multiple appointments to try to resolve the issue.
28. There was severe maladministration, and we have made an order that the landlord pay further compensation of £2,100.02. Our order is based on 10% of the rent paid between July 2023 and 5 January 2026. We have also ordered that it pay £775 compensation for the inconvenience caused, which is inclusive of its previous offer of £475.

29. Our Scheme says that we cannot consider issues which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failing. In this instance there is a complaint handling failure as the landlord acknowledged this issue as part of the resident’s complaint but then failed to demonstrate it investigated the concern.
30. The landlord’s survey on 13 July 2023 raised concerns with the flat roof. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in repair the roof under the tenancy agreement. The survey explained that it assumed the flat roof had negligible insulation and longer term it may be prudent to insulate the roof or bring forward cyclical reroofing on the property. We cannot see that the landlord took any action around this.
31. The landlord’s records explain that on 19 February 2024, it said it needed scaffolding after looking around the outside of the property and noticing cracks on the render. It is however unclear if this related to the roof. The resident then raised her concerns again a year later, on 12 July 2024. Its records explain that she told it that the situation affected her bedroom and kitchen, and she believed heavy rainfall caused the issue. She said that the issue may be the flat roof, and it had been present for a year.
32. The resident raised her concerns with the roof of the property during a scoping call following her complaint to the landlord. She explained that the flat roof needed checking, and the landlord had sent someone out who said they needed scaffolding. She also asked for it to check the insulation of her home.
33. The resident raised the issue again during the landlord’s survey on 10 September 2024. The surveyor also mentioned that the property was the only one with a flat roof. They suggested that the landlord allow for investigation and remedial works to the flat roof. From the evidence provided we cannot see that the landlord took any action to investigate whether the roof contributed to the concerns with the property. If it decided that the roof did not need investigating or there was no need to insulate the property, we would expect it to communicate its reasoning to the resident. It has provided us with no evidence that it actually raised the necessary investigations to determine its actions. Its actions around these issues were unreasonable.
34. The evidence suggests that between 13 July 2023 and 5 January 2026, the issue remained outstanding. This is a delay of over 29 months to show that it took meaningful action around the roof, and this was unreasonable. This is especially the case given the seriousness of the recurring damp and mould issue within the property, and the potential for the roof contributing to the issue. As the landlord did not show that it investigated this issue, we have found maladministration. We have ordered it to pay the resident £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

35. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code around its response times. Its policy says it will respond at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days. The landlord provided both responses within these timeframes.
36. The landlord however identified at both stages of its complaints process that the resident’s complaint included her concerns with the roof and insulation. It failed to provide a response about this at both stages of its complaints process. It also failed to meet the timeframes it provided within its stage 2 response for resolving the resident’s concerns, this was a failing.
37. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will award compensation for poor complaint handling. It says it will consider the length of time it has taken to put things right. The landlord did not recognise that it failed to respond to part of the resident’s complaint. As such it did not offer any compensation. Based on the repeated failure to provide a reasonable response to the resident, after acknowledging the issue as a complaint point, we have found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings.

Learning

38. The landlord should ensure it takes a proactive approach to resolving issues of damp and mould. The evidence identified potential concerns with the external walls as early as July 2023. Had it been proactive it may have been able to resolve the issues far quicker and identified the root cause of the recurring issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord needs to ensure that its records provide appropriate detail. This will allow it to show the actions it has taken to resolve issues if called into question. It will also assist the landlord to identify what remains outstanding and where it has taken no action around resident’s concerns.

Communication

40. The landlord should ensure it provides timely updates to residents. They should not need to chase it for updates before it provides them. Doing so proactively also allows it to manage residents’ expectations.