A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202504833)

Decision
Case ID	202504833
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

The landlord arranged to replace the resident’s kitchen. She complained about the quality of the work it did and the time it took and was not satisfied with the compensation it offered in its final complaint response.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with a replacement kitchen.
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with a replacement kitchen.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

There were delays during the work to replace the kitchen. The landlord’s calculation of some compensation does not match the number of days the resident was without a kitchen. It did not review the receipts she sent. It did not give information on how to make a claim through its insurance.
The compensation and apology offered for the complaint delays were in line with our compensation guidance.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,440.22 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in how it dealt with a replacement kitchen, inclusive of the £2,140.22 already offered. It must calculate the additional compensation related to room loss up to the time its records confirm it completed the work and pay this to the resident. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any amounts already paid.	No later than 25 June 2026
2	Expenses order The landlord must review the receipts sent by the resident from 5 February 2025 up to the time its records confirm it completed the work. It must pay the resident any amount owing that is above the £750 out of pocket expenses already offered. It must provide the resident and us with an explanation of any further expenses it pays.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the kitchen. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. 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. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work.	No later than 25 June 2026
4	Insurance order The landlord must provide the resident with details of how to make an insurance claim through its insurer by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence that it has done this by the due date.	No later than 25 June 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £100 compensation for complaint handling failures it offered if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 January 2025	The landlord’s contractor started work to install a new kitchen in the resident’s home.
11 February 2025	The resident complained about the quality of the work and the time it took to do it. She told the landlord that a different contractor needed to redo the work.
3 March 2025	In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused. It accepted it had not done the work by the time it promised and the quality did not meet its standards. It said it would fit a new kitchen by 7 March 2025 and offered £250 compensation.
11 March 2025	In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said the landlord had not finished the work. She wanted compensation for loss of rooms, damage to possessions, and for stress and inconvenience caused.
30 April 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted the original installation was “very poor” and apologised for the inconvenience caused. On damage, it said she should make a claim against the contractor. It apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint. It offered £2,240.22 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her escalation to us, the resident said she did not have a kitchen for 65 days and the landlord had not finished the work. She said the compensation offer was low, considering the damage, distress, and inconvenience. She said she was unhappy with the quality of the work. She wanted it to increase the compensation and do repairs.

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	How the landlord dealt with a replacement kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us the landlord’s contractor damaged her possessions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any injury or loss caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent advice to decide on the cause of any injury or loss. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

Although we have not seen a document confirming this, the landlord said in its complaint response that work to install a new kitchen started on 20 January 2025. We have not seen information setting out how long it said it would take to do the work.
On 11 February 2025, the resident complained about the contractor’s “terrible” work, which she said it should have completed by 4 February 2025, but was “nowhere near finished”. She said the contractors had no respect for her home and had:
1. To take down the tiling it put up 3 times.
2. Damaged the insulation in the kitchen.
3. Put up cabinets incorrectly, which were also smaller than the ones it took down.
She said she waited at home for the contractors but on 3 days, no one turned up. She said she had 3 children and because of the work, she could not “get on with anything”. She said as the work took place in January, it was impossible to keep her home warm as contractors left doors open. She said she had no space in her living room because of appliances stored there, and could not cook or do washing, and had to eat takeaway food. She said the landlord needed to redo the work.
On 19 February 2025 the resident sent the landlord receipts totalling £580.26 for takeaway food that she said she had to order as she had no kitchen. She told it on 20 February 2025 that the continuing works meant she had to cancel family celebrations and medical appointments. She said the contractor had used her garden as a “junk yard” with rubbish everywhere and paint on the patio. She said she had to do her washing at her parent’s home and had extra heating costs because of the open doors.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the poor service on 20 January 2025. It said a new contractor would install a new kitchen. On compensation for loss of rooms, it said it would calculate this at the end of the work, but the compensation would not apply for the first 12 days. It said it would review the food receipts and asked her to send evidence of any other claims she felt it needed to consider.
This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it apologised, said what it would do with the kitchen installation, and said it would look at compensation when it completed the work. It was reasonable for it to say that any compensation would not apply for the first 12 days. This is because this was the number of days from the start of the work on 20 January up to 4 February 2025, when the resident said it should have finished the work. We accept that kitchen installations are major works, which can take several days, and that residents should expect some disruption to everyday life during this time.
In its complaint response on 3 March 2025, the landlord apologised for the frustration caused. It accepted it should have finished by 4 February 2025 and that the work fell below its standards. It said it had appointed a new contractor, and it would finish the work by 7 March 2025. It offered £250 compensation made up of £100 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for poor quality of work, and £50 for the time taken.
This was a reasonable response, as it apologised and said it would complete the work by 7 March 2025. However, it would have been better to have offered compensation at the end of the work, as it said it would in its email on 20 January 2025.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 March 2025. She said it had not finished the work, and it had told her it would consider expenses, loss of rooms, and damage to her property when it had finished.
In its final complaint response on 30 April 2025, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it had finished the work, and she did not have full use of her kitchen and living room between 24 January and 11 March 2025. It said as the contractor had caused the reported damage, she should make a claim for damage against the contractor. It offered £2,140.22 compensation to replace its stage 1 offer. This was made up of:
1. Length of time taken – £200.
2. Poor quality of work – £750.
3. Loss of use of 2 rooms (35% rent charge for 31 days) – £265.22.
4. Poor communication – £250.00.
5. Out of pocket expenses (food allowance: £10 per day per adult and £5 per day per child for 31 days) – £775.
Following the final response, the resident disputed the compensation. She said she sent the landlord receipts totalling £1,434.52, which it had not included. She said it did not compensate her for damage to possessions. She said it should compensate her for the loss of 5 rooms, not 2. She said the works were from 20 January to 25 March 2025, not 24 January to the 11 March 2025. She said it had not completed the work and gave details of what she said needed finishing. She said the compensation was “very low” considering the “difficulties and hardships” she faced.
We acknowledged that the landlord offered significant compensation for its failings, which amounted to maladministration. It also took steps to put things right by installing a new kitchen. Although the length of time was relatively short, the delay meant the resident was without a working kitchen for 2 months and other parts of her home were affected. This caused her significant inconvenience and distress and affected her family life. Because of this, the compensation must reflect the distress and inconvenience caused and the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out what it will offer when it accepts there has been a failure. In assessing compensation, it says it will consider:
1. The severity of the time, trouble, and inconvenience.
2. Any known costs that the resident has “reasonably” incurred.
3. The time taken to resolve the matter.
The policy says for extensive disruption it will pay up to £750 compensation. On room loss, it says it will offer 25 per cent of weekly rent for a kitchen and 10 per cent of weekly rent for a living room. On damage, it says where a complaint relates to a loss that a contractor caused, it may refer the resident to the contractor. It does not set out amounts for costs related to food and other expenses.
On compensation for the loss of rooms and expenses, we have seen a difference of view between the resident, who said work started on 20 January 2025, and the landlord, who referred to 24 January 2025 in its final response. However, in earlier communications, it referred to work starting on 20 January 2025. Because of this, we accept the work started on 20 January 2025.
We agree with the landlord’s communication on 20 January 2025 that it is not reasonable to include the first 12 days, up to and including 4 February 2025, when calculating compensation, as this was the time planned for the original work. This means the calculation for room loss compensation and expenses should start on 5 February 2025.
We have not seen confirmation of when the contractor completed the work. The resident said it was 25 March 2025. However, in a communication from the contractor to the landlord on 27 March 2026, the contractor said the handover to the landlord was 10 March 2025. Due to the lack of evidence, we cannot determine when the contractor completed the work. However, the period between 5 February and 10 March 2025, is 34 days, not the 31 days mentioned in the final complaint response. Because of this, the landlord underpaid compensation for room loss and expenses by at least 3 days. The landlord must check its records and confirm when it completed the work.
In calculating room loss compensation, we have seen no evidence that the work affected rooms other than the kitchen and living room. Because of this we agree that 35% of rent was reasonable. The landlord must pay the amount already offered as a minimum and recalculate this part of the compensation based on 35 per cent from 5 February 2025 until it completed the work.
Considering the landlord’s compensation policy, the amount offered for poor quality work and poor communication, totalling £1,000, was reasonable. The landlord offered £200 for time taken. It is unclear how much of this related to the kitchen delay, as it also offered compensation for the complaint delay, which we have dealt with below. Because of this, we have considered that £100 of this was for the kitchen delay. This was insufficient for the delay between 5 February and 10 March 2025 as it adversely affected the resident. It acknowledged its failings and tried to put things right but in line with our compensation guidance, the offer was not proportionate to the failings we found. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £400, inclusive of the £100 already offered.
On 20 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that it would review the food receipts she sent and asked her to send evidence of any other claims she felt it needed to consider. This gave the resident a clear impression that it would consider reasonable actual costs incurred. However, in its final response, it offered compensation based on a daily amount. As we have not seen evidence of a daily amount in the compensation policy, it is unclear how it calculated this. Because of this, it must review the compensation offered for “out of pocket expenses” against the receipts sent for the 34 days. It must pay the amount already offered as a minimum and any other reasonable out of pocket expenses for this period.
In its final response, the landlord said the resident should approach the contractor about damage caused. Although its policy says it may refer the resident to the contractor, the evidence shows the relationship was between the landlord and the resident, with the contractor acting on the landlord’s behalf. Because of this, it should have given the resident the choice to approach its insurer. This was a failure by the landlord, and we have made an order on this.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 11 February 2025, and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 13 February 2025. It sent its complaint response on 3 March 2025, which was 13 days after it sent an acknowledgment and slightly outside its timescales. It did not apologise for the delay.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 March 2025. It did not acknowledge the complaint until 1 April 2025, when it apologised for late the acknowledgment and said it would address this in the stage 2 response.
It sent its final response on 30 April 2025, which was 36 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. It apologised for the delay and said it had offered compensation. It is unclear what compensation it offered for the complaint delay as it offered £200 for length of time. We have considered that £100 of this was for the complaint delay.
In May 2026, the resident told us the landlord had not paid her the compensation it agreed relating to the repairs to the kitchen and complaint handling. We expect landlords to pay compensation offered within a reasonable time, which would usually be within 4 weeks, regardless of whether a resident decided to bring their complaint to us.
Overall, we have found this was reasonable redress by the landlord for the failures in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint. This is because the compensation and apology were in line with our compensation guidance when there is a complaint handling failure that was of a short duration.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code. It should also ensure it gives a clear breakdown of what failing the compensation it offers relates to and pay this within a reasonable time.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We have seen there were some discrepancies in the landlord’s records about the date when the work on the kitchen started. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help it with this.

Communication

The landlord’s communication about not including the first 12 days in the compensation calculation was clear. However, following the final complaint response, we have seen the resident chased it about the compensation several times. It should ensure it pays compensation quickly and provides a clear explanation for any delays.