A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202342551)

Decision
Case ID	202342551
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

Background

The resident reported a leaking, cracked toilet on 19 December 2022. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of this leak and related damage. She raised concerns about delays, poor communication, and incomplete repairs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of toilet repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not respond to the toilet repair in line with its repairs policy. It did not explain delays or complete the repairs in line with its stage 2 commitments or its repairs policy.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response in line with the timeframes in the Complaint Handling Code. It did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint response.

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 20 April 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £975 made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of toilet repairs. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. It must pay directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 April 2026
3	Action order The landlord must write to the resident by the due date to clearly set out its position on replacing the cracked tiles. It must confirm whether it will carry out the work as previously committed and set out the next steps. If it does not intend to replace the tiles, it must provide a clear explanation for this decision. It must also provide a copy of its correspondence to this Service by the due date.	No later than 20 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 January 2023	The resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord did not attend a repair appointment for her toilet leak on 12 January 2023. The leak was ongoing and had caused damage to the bathroom tiles and created cracks.
2 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had closed the job because it had not been able to gain access to the property. It would arrange to assess the outstanding repairs. It expected to complete the works by 11 August 2023. It offered £225 compensation for delays and inconvenience.
26 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not contacted her and the repair was still outstanding.
4 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said there had been poor communication, delays, and missed appointments. It would finish the outstanding repairs by 18 April 2024. It increased its offer of compensation to £715, made up of: £40 for two missed appointments £100 for inconvenience £300 for delays £100 for poor communication £150 for delays in progressing the complaint £25 for the late stage 2 response
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said she was unhappy with how long the landlord had taken to complete the repairs. It had also not replaced the cracked tiles. She asked for compensation for the delays.

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	Toilet repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says it must complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. The resident reported a leaking, cracked toilet on 19 December 2022. It booked appointments for 23 December 2022 and 3 January 2023 but said it could not gain access.
The landlord arranged further appointments for 12 and 19 January 2023 but cancelled these on the day. It replaced the toilet on 26 January 2023, which was significantly outside its 24‑hour emergency timeframe. This was inappropriate, particularly as this was the only toilet in the property. It also did not explain in its complaint responses why it did not treat this repair as an emergency.
Following the toilet replacement, the landlord booked follow‑on work to replace the toilet boxing-in on 6 February 2023. It attended on that date, but there is no evidence that it completed any work. It returned on 8 March 2023 but left a card due to no access. Its repairs policy says it must complete standard repairs within 20 working days. However, by June 2023, 5 months later, the follow‑on work was still outstanding. This was significantly outside the timescales set out in its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. It said it had closed the repair in March 2023 due to no access between January and March 2023. However, the evidence shows it did not attend the appointments on 12 and 19 January 2023. It completed the toilet replacement on 26 January 2023 with follow‑on works still outstanding. While it could not gain access on 8 March 2023, it did not follow up after this visit to rebook the appointment. Saying that it closed the repair due to no access between January and March 2023 was inaccurate and was a record‑keeping failure.
However, the landlord acknowledged there had been service failures and offered £225 compensation. This amount was in line with its compensation policy, which recommends £225 when its actions have caused moderate disruption. It also committed to arranging a surveyor visit to assess the outstanding repairs, which showed its commitment to resolve the issue.
Following its stage 1 response, there is no evidence that the landlord arranged the surveyor’s inspection. On 26 July 2023, the resident reported no further contact and that the boxing-in behind the toilet remained exposed. It replied to her the same day and said it had asked its contractor to arrange an appointment. It attended on 29 August 2023 and noted that it had not completed the boxing-in, and it would need to fully rebuild this. However, by March 2024, over a year since the resident first reported it, the issue remained outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024. It acknowledged there had been communication failures. It offered £540 in compensation for missed appointments, inconvenience, and the length of time taken to complete the repair. However, it did not explain the reasons for the delays or why it had not kept in contact during this period. This likely left the resident feeling that it had not taken her concerns seriously or that it had learned from her complaint.
It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported an issue with silverfish in the bathroom. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would inspect the issue by 18 April 2024. It attended on 3 April 2024 and applied a silverfish treatment. This action was reasonable and met the commitment it had made in its complaint response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord also committed to completing several repairs by 18 April 2024. These included fixing the toilet, closing gaps around the boxing‑in, replacing a cracked tile, and carrying out a mould wash. It booked an appointment for 20 March 2024, but the resident cancelled. She asked for an afternoon appointment and clearer information about the work.
The landlord did not offer a new appointment until 17 June 2024, nearly 2 months later. This was well past its committed completion date of 18 April 2024 and significantly outside its policy timescale of 20 working days for standard repairs. It completed some work on 18 June 2024, including refixing the toilet, moving outlet pipes, and renewing the boxing‑in. However, there is no evidence that it completed a mould wash in the bathroom until September 2025. This was a year and a half after it committed to do so in its stage 2 response.
There is also no evidence that the landlord replaced the cracked tiles. By 19 December 2025 it noted that it does not replace tiles and that this is the resident’s responsibility. However, this contradicted its earlier commitment. The resident has informed us that the tile replacement is still outstanding 2 years after it issued its stage 2 response.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the repair as an emergency. It did not explain delays and did not complete the agreed works in line with its commitments or its repairs policy. The issue is still unresolved over 4 years after the resident first raised the repair. As a result, the resident experienced ongoing disruption to her home. This caused her distress and inconvenience over an extended period. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
While the landlord made some attempt to put things right, it was not proportionate to the failingsidentified in this report.We award £800 compensation for the failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This amount includes the £540 it offered through its complaint’s procedure. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
The resident raised a complaint on 15 January 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 June 2023, 95 working days later. This was significantly outside the timescales set out in the Code. It did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 March 2024, 155 working days later. This was significantly outside the Code’s timescales. It was appropriate that it apologised for this delay in its stage 2 response and offered £175 for its complaint‑handling failures.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge the significant delay in issuing its stage 1 response. The delay was nearly 5 months, which was considerably outside the timeframes set out in the Code. This was particularly inappropriate given that the repair remained outstanding throughout this period. For these reasons, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The compensation awarded at stage 2 was in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. For this reason, we have not awarded further compensation. We consider an apology is a proportionate remedy to put right the landlord’s failing in this case.

Learning

General learning

This investigation highlighted the importance of progressing repairs in line with its repairs policy. Not doing so led to unnecessary delays and inconvenience for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In this case, the landlord did not keep clear records of the actions it took. The evidence also shows that it did not have effective systems in place to track contractor attendance or monitor follow-on work. The landlord may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), available through our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during repairs. The landlord did not consistently provide timeframes, explain delays, or follow up after key appointments. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.