A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202514723)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 3 children in a 2-bedroom maisonette. She advised the landlord prior to the internal complaints process that her and her daughter have disabilities. This includes spina bifida, sciatica, bertolotti syndrome, chronic asthma and allergies. The resident reported antisocial behaviour from a neighbour to her landlord from May 2024. This included allegations of intimidation and aggressive behaviour, noise nuisance, theft of parcels and damage to property. She reported that this was impacting on her mental health. The resident also requested that the landlord move her and her family as she said she was overcrowded and needed a property with less steps.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s request for a housing transfer.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
4. There was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
5. There was service failure for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to follow its policy timescales on each of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. Its communication was not in line with its agreed action plans. The landlord delayed communicating the outcome of its investigation in 2024. It failed to follow up on the resident’s 10 February 2025 antisocial behaviour report. Instead, it required to the resident to report this again in a particular way rather than taking ownership and logging the report in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. It failed to demonstrate that it suitably considered the resident’s vulnerability in how it would communicate with her.
7. The landlord’s insufficiently robust record keeping may not have helped it in managing the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports appropriately.  It needed to ensure it kept full and accurate records.
8. The landlord considered the resident’s housing transfer request, and it appropriately organised its independent medical assessor to complete a medical assessment. It then awarded the resident increased priority for rehousing. It provided advice to the resident to help her to increase her chances of being rehoused. Its actions were in line with its management transfer policy.
9. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and the Code timescales which caused some delay in its complaint process, although the delay was not excessive, it would have unnecessarily caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who it knew was vulnerable.

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.

What we did not investigate

10. The resident was concerned about the impact of the antisocial behaviour on her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.
11. The resident reported that she had experienced antisocial behaviour from around 2018. There was a gap in the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour between November 2020 until December 2023. There was a further gap in the resident’s antisocial behaviour reports until May 2024. We have not investigated this earlier period to December 2023 as the complaint was not referred to us within a 12-month period from the matter arising.

What we did investigate

12. We have investigated the period from May 2024 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 25 April 2025. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a report of antisocial behaviour in May 2024. She alleged that her neighbour had damaged some play equipment in the garden. The landlord has not recorded the exact date of the report, and it noted that it had resolved this as there was a lack of evidence. However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord’s investigation into this report leading to this outcome which was inappropriate. We have also not seen that the landlord completed any risk assessment or an action plan at the time which was not in line with its antisocial behaviour policy.
13. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy states that it will respond to antisocial behaviour complaints within 48 hours and will agree an action plan. It will consider a range of remedies including preventative and enforcement measures. It may arrange support for complainants and perpetrators where appropriate. It will consider options such as personal resolutions, mediation, warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Commitments, Parental Control Agreements and referral to other agencies such as the Police, environmental health and mental health teams.
14. The resident made 2 further reports of alleged antisocial behaviour from her neighbour on 13 July 2024 and on 13 August 2024. She reported that her neighbour kept changing the position of her CCTV camera and that they had damaged the camera. She said again that the neighbour had the broken play equipment in the garden and that the neighbour was threatening and intimidating. She said she had reported the alleged damage to the Police on 18 June 2024 and that they had taken a statement. She said that the neighbour had been shouting at her between 4 to 5 August 2024 and on 3 consecutive occasions in June had left dog faeces around her doorstep.
15. The landlord completed a risk assessment on the resident’s 2 later reports of antisocial behaviour on 14 July 2024 and 13 August 2024 which was reasonable because the resident’s new reports suggested a possible escalation in the overall situation. The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 August 2024. The landlord also sent action plans to the resident on each of the occasions in line with its policy which was appropriate. It had agreed to contact the alleged perpetrator to discuss the resident’s allegations and that it would update the resident fortnightly.
16. It said that the resident agreed to complete diary sheets of incidents and to send any crime reference numbers. It also asked her to send any evidence such as photos, videos, sound recording and to report any further incidents to the Police. It provided some advice for the resident to contact her local council’s environmental health service regarding the alleged noise nuisance. This was appropriate advice as local authorities have powers to investigate noise nuisance to see whether it is a statutory nuisance and can then take enforcement action if necessary.
17. Despite the landlord saying it would phone the resident on a fortnightly basis, we have seen no evidence it did this which was unreasonable and may have led to the resident’s feeling that the landlord was ignoring her. The landlord generally phoned the resident monthly which was not in line with its action plan which was inappropriate.
18. The landlord did get in contact with the alleged perpetrator in writing on 14 August 2024 and it followed this up with a phone call and an email. It advised the alleged perpetrator of the resident’s antisocial behaviour allegations as part of its investigation. It also requested information from the Police on 22 August 2024. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take to investigate the resident’s reports in line with its agreed action plan.
19. The landlord concluded on 23 August 2024 reviewing the resident’s photos and video links that there was nothing that could be used as evidence to support her reports of antisocial behaviour. It noted that based upon the evidence it was a neighbour dispute. However, it took the landlord a month until it mentioned this to the resident on 26 September 2024 which was too long.
20. The landlord could have considered other options in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. For example, it could have offered mediation if that was appropriate or it could have considered using Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or a Good Neighbour Agreement. We have also seen no further records that it gave any signposting to the resident so that she could receive some support, although she had been in touch with Victim Support. The landlord missed some opportunities to provide this support and other options. Mediation can be an appropriate option provided both parties agree to take part.
21. The resident continued to report antisocial behaviour and emailed her complaint to the landlord on 10 February 2025 saying she had contacted the landlord on 9 January 2025. She said that her neighbour’s son had allegedly stolen a jacket worth £129. We have seen no evidence of this email and the landlord was also unable to find any evidence of the resident’s report. However, it said that an IT incident meant that it could not 100% guarantee that the resident had not sent the report. Without documentary evidence, we are unable to confirm that the resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2025 or whether the landlord received the resident’s email.
22. However, as the resident notified the landlord of a further incident on 10 February 2025, the landlord needed to investigate this in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. We have seen no record that it contacted the resident to discuss the resident’s further antisocial behaviour report or completed any risk assessment as per its antisocial behaviour policy. Instead, it said in an internal email of 3 March 2025 that it was up to the resident to report the antisocial behaviour to its contact centre so this could be logged. It referred to this process in its complaint response of 6 March 2025. This put the onus on the resident who the landlord knew had vulnerabilities that she had referred to in the landlord’s earlier risk assessment of August 2024 and in her housing transfer application. This caused unnecessarily delay in the landlord taking further action. It would have likely caused the resident to feel that the landlord was ignoring her concerns. The resident also sent a photo to the landlord and to us of a parcel being delivered to the neighbour’s house dated 16 April 2025 alleging that her neighbours were stealing her parcels. The landlord considered this in its stage 2 complaint response of 25 April 2026 saying that the Police had closed their investigation due to a lack of evidence. This meant that the landlord did not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action.
23. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord phoned the resident on 23 July 2025 who said that the most recent incident was in March 2025. The landlord advised the resident to contact the Police for any criminal activity and if she felt threatened. It said it would check in 2 weeks’ time and would close the case if no further issues arose. The resident made further reports of antisocial behaviour up until 14 November 2025 when the landlord acknowledged this. This evidences that the situation was ongoing.
24. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration due to the delayed actions, lack of follow up in accordance with its agreed action plan and its policy. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 in compensation to recognise the unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to the landlord’s failings. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to review her antisocial behaviour case and to update its risk assessment and action plan (if it has not already done so).

What we did not investigate

25. The resident initially completed a housing transfer application on 27 December 2022. She raised concerns about the landlord’s response to her request for a housing transfer in her complaint of 10 February 2025. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of the initial transfer application from 2022 as the resident did not raise a formal complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising.

What we did investigate

26. We have considered the period from 2024 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 25 April 2025.
27. The landlord requested a medical assessment on 24 May 2024 and this was completed on 24 July 2024 by its external medical advisor Now Medical. The assessment concluded that the resident required a ground floor property if the property was in a block with no lift or any floor if there was a lift. There needed to be minimal internal stairs (up to 3 steps) which was consistent with the resident’s report that she needed a property to have no more than 3 steps.
28. The landlord applied a Band B priority on 24 July 2024 primarily due to the resident and her household’s medical needs. It explained in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 March 2025 that it would normally award a band C priority for overcrowding. It was reasonable that the landlord followed its policy considering the resident and her household’s medical needs to award a higher priority than band C.
29. The landlord’s management transfer policy advises that it will consider a management transfer where this is a medical need. It operates an in-house choice-based lettings system for housing transfers.
30. The resident requested a housing transfer in her complaint to the landlord of 10 February 2025 explaining that her property had over 30 steps which was unsuitable. She said that she was looking at the bidding site but could see no suitable properties.
31. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response on 6 March 2025 it was aware that the resident was overcrowded by 1 bedroom and that her and her family members had medical needs. It had therefore given a higher medical priority but was unable to accelerate a move. It gave advice to the resident to bid on suitable properties and explained that most of its housing had to be allocated through the local authority’s housing register. This would therefore limit the supply of housing for its own tenants such as the resident through its own housing transfer scheme. It recommended other options including mutual exchange, the local authority’s housing register and private rented accommodation.
32. The advice given was reasonable so that the resident could increase her chances of being rehoused. It also provided its central lettings team’s contact information if the resident needed to discuss her application further. The landlord said in its final complaint response of 25 April 2025 that the resident had not placed any bids on properties since she was awarded her band B priority 2024. This would mean that the resident would not be allocated any suitable property if one had been advertised. The landlord advised her to start bidding on properties which was appropriate.
33. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord revisited the resident’s medical assessment in December 2025 which was kept at the same priority band B. It also placed the resident on auto bid so that she would not miss out on bidding on suitable properties.  The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that the resident had appropriate banding and gave suitable advice to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer. We have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide an update to her on her housing transfer application.

34. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 10 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 February 2025 which was 9 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 March 2025 which was 9 working days after its acknowledgement. This would have been in line with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) although the landlord’s acknowledgement delay meant its stage 1 complaint response was also delayed.
35. Although a small delay, this could have caused some unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident, due to her vulnerability and the fact that she was complaining about the landlord’s lack of response to her earlier antisocial behaviour report.
36. According to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, the landlord needed to acknowledge the complaint at both complaint stages within 5 working days. It needed to issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
37. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 21 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 27 March 2025 which was within 4 working days which was reasonable. It issued its final complaint response on 25 April 2025. This was 20 working days after its acknowledgement which was within its policy and the Code’s timescale for a response which was reasonable.
38. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint due to the delay in issuing its acknowledgement and its stage 1 complaint response. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delayed complaint handling.

Learning

39. As the landlord did not uphold the complaint, it did not identify any specific learning. The landlord could benefit from considering our recent learning from severe maladministration report (July 2025) on antisocial behaviour complaints. This will help the landlord to consider improvements to its antisocial behaviour case management processes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord’s record keeping was not sufficiently robust in this case. Its records were not always sufficiently detailed. There was no record of the exact date that the resident made her May 2024 antisocial behaviour report or the actions the landlord took in response to this. We have already recommended to the landlord that it reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon our Spotlight report (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) on a previous case (reference 202332747). This should help the landlord to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

41. The landlord failed to contact the resident fortnightly as it promised it would in the action plans it had agreed with the resident. It also needed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in the way it communicated Putting the onus on the resident to report antisocial behaviour concerns in a specific way was inappropriate in response to her 10 February 2025 antisocial behaviour report. It needed to take ownership to log her report and take the appropriate action in line with its antisocial behaviour policy.