A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202345787)

Decision
Case ID	202345787
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

The resident has reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord since 2023. She has complained separately about its handling of her ASB reports. This complaint is about her housing officer’s (HO) conduct.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about staff conduct.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about staff conduct.
2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord accepted some of its service failings, apologised, and provided an explanation. However, it did not offer compensation for the identified failures. It also did not evidence that it investigated the resident’s concerns properly.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not apologise for or explain the delays or offer suitable compensation. Its responses did not reflect that it had done a thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns.

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 24 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £250 for its handling of her concerns about staff conduct. £100 for its handling of her complaint. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the case review it conducted to identify how it could have handled the case better. This should detail the failings it found and the action it has taken to address and learn from these.	No later than 24 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about her HO. She said: She asked the landlord to send a general reminder letter about ASB to the block, but it identified her to a neighbour. The neighbour confronted her aggressively and then installed speakers to play loud music daily. She recorded the noise and asked the HO to open an ASB case, but the HO refused. She had to contact other staff because the HO did not return her calls and emails. When she did reach the HO, she was rude. The HO was biased towards the neighbour, and listed events and actions she felt supported this view. She said the HO caused deliberate delays, favoured the neighbour, caused distress, and ignored her requests for help. She wanted the landlord to investigate the HO’s conduct.
10 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said it had interviewed the HO and reviewed its records. It listed a timeline of contact and said it: Sent the reminder letter before the HO joined in April 2023. Believed it was easy to conclude who made a report as only the resident and her neighbour’s properties shared the communal area. Could not review the calls because they were not recorded, but it had given the HO refresher training on telephone manner. Logged the resident’s case on 23 May 2023 but there was a delay due to a training gap, as the HO was a new staff member. Apologised for the inconvenience caused and accepted she should not have had to involve senior management to get her concerns addressed. Reviewed the case with the HO to identify how it could have handled it better.
12 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, saying there were errors in the landlord’s response. She disputed its contact timeline. She disagreed that the HO’s lack of training as a new employee caused the delays. She repeated her concerns that the HO was biased, providing examples, and said the landlord had not investigated fairly. She asked not to have any further contact with the HO and requested a new officer.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and said it did not find any inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. It repeated its findings and explanations and apologised again.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said her questions remained unanswered and the landlord did not investigate the inaccuracies she highlighted about its contact log. She confirmed she had a new HO. She wanted the landlord to ensure that the earlier HO and her team had no future involvement with her.

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	Concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Maladministration

We explained to the resident that there were limits on the outcomes we can achieve. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against staff or direct how it uses its resources. Instead, we considered how it responded to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and if it investigated her concerns properly.
The landlord has accepted there were delays because the HO did not progress the case in line with its procedure. It explained to the resident that it found this to be because of a training gap. The resident disputed this and said that it was deliberate. She said the HO developed a friendship with her neighbour and seemed to be protecting them. She also listed incidents where she said the HO lied to her.
We must rely on the available evidence to reach decisions. We have not seen evidence that the HO deliberately caused delays or lied. The landlord’s own investigation concluded there were training gaps it should have noticed. Given the short period of the HO’s employment, this was a reasonable explanation.
The landlord said it discussed the matter with the HO, provided training, and carried out a case review. However, it did not clearly explain the outcome of this review or what learning it found. As a result, we cannot see that it provided the resident with adequate assurance that it had addressed her concerns.
The resident said she called and emailed the HO repeatedly without reply. The landlord listed dates and actions, which it said the HO took, in its stage 1 response. However, it did not provide us evidence for 5 entries on this list. It also did not address the resident’s disagreement with its timeline or provide explanations for the issues she highlighted. The landlord did not provide detailed contact records. Therefore, we have not seen evidence that it managed contact in line with its policy.
The landlord accepted some of its failures and apologised but did not offer compensation. Its compensation policy says it will consider this for delayed service, poor communication, and the resident’s time, effort, and inconvenience. It is unclear why it did not offer compensation given the identified issues.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay her £250. This amount is consistent with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The landlord must also provide a copy of the case review it conducted to the resident. This should detail the failings it found and the action it has taken to address these.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also followed the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy and the Code at stage 1. Its response was issued 58 working days later, outside its policy timescale. It did not keep the resident updated about the delay. She had to contact the CEO’s office to get it progressed. The landlord then apologised but did not explain the reason for the delay.
We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement at stage 2. The response was issued within 10 working days, in line with the policy timescale.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord detailed a contact log which the resident disputed. She explained her reasons. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response incorrectly said she had not highlighted any specific concerns. It explained the delay in the HO starting the investigation but did not address any of the resident’s examples of bias. Its responses did not show that it had thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s complaint responses accepted there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports and apologised. However, it did not offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which its policy allowed.
The landlord did not apologise for the delays in its complaint handling, give explanations, or offer compensation. It acknowledged that the resident had needed to escalate her ASB concerns to senior management. However, it did not acknowledge that she had needed to do this to get an answer to her complaint too.
The landlord must write to the resident with an apology and pay £100 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide us with all the relevant evidence such as its full contact records. We could not evidence some of the contact it said it had made with the resident.
The landlord referred to a stage 2 complaint in an internal email of 24 October 2023. However, it did not give us details of this. For complaints that span years and multiple issues, it is helpful for it to provide information like this, for context and to ensure an accurate scope of our investigation.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident. It should clearly explain its position and process to manage expectations and explain delays.