A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202409519)

Decision
Case ID	202409519
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 May 2026

Background

The resident, who is disabled, lives in a ground floor flat. She authorised her daughter to represent her in dealings with the landlord. We have referred to both as “the resident” throughout this report given the daughter was acting on the resident’s behalf. The resident told the landlord that she was being harassed by her neighbours, primarily through noise nuisance. She complained it was not doing enough to resolve this. The landlord, however, was satisfied it had handled her reports appropriately.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of noise and ASB reports.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise and ASB reports.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of noise and ASB reports

The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s reports and failed to fully consider practical options for reducing the impact of the noise and ASB on her.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord treated 2 emails from the resident, in which she complained about its handling of her ASB reports, as service requests. It should have treated both emails as formal complaints and responded in line with its complaints policy.

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 26 June 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £625 made up as follows: £400 for the maladministration in its handling of noise and ASB reports. £225 for the maladministration in its handling of the complaint. This includes the £25 it offered at stage 2 which, if already paid, it may deduct from the amount ordered. It must pay this directly to the resident and provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 June 2026
3	ASB action plan and risk assessment The landlord must contact the resident and discuss any ongoing noise or ASB concerns she has. If it considers any of her concerns involve ASB, it must complete a risk assessment and develop an action plan in line with its ASB policy by the due date.	No later than 26 June 2026
4	Survey of property The landlord must survey the property to determine whether there are any practical measures it can take to reduce noise transference. It must inform the resident of its survey findings by the due date.	No later than 26 June 2026
5	Patio and balcony works The landlord must consider the resident’s request that it installs a barrier around her patio and a covering over the balcony. It must inform her of its decision by the due date.	No later than 26 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 January 2024	The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team. She complained she had been reporting ASB caused by her upstairs neighbours but the landlord had done nothing to address this. She explained the ASB involved deliberate noise intended to harass her and that the neighbours were interfering with laundry drying on her patio. In response the landlord told her to report any ASB through its online portal.
20 September 2024	The resident emailed the landlord’s customer services team. She said she wanted to complain that the landlord had not helped her further to her ASB reports. In response the landlord said it had passed her concerns to the caseworker dealing with her open ASB case.
9 October 2024	The resident asked us to assist her with submitting a complaint to the landlord about its handling of ASB. We contacted it and asked it to respond to her complaint which included a request that it installed: A barrier around her patio to provide security. A covering on the balcony as the neighbours had been dropping items and pouring liquid through it and onto her patio. Soundproofing to reduce noise transference between the flats.
14 October 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 acknowledgement email.
25 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had acted “appropriately and in a timely manner” in assisting her. This included by: Carrying out a home visit and offering to meet with her again in its offices to discuss the issues. It witnessed no noise during the visit. Suggesting she use a noise app, but she was not agreeable to this. Offering mediation, but she was not agreeable to this. Offering to assist her with moving to supported accommodation that would be better suited to her needs. It explained that: It had closed the noise case as the resident was not agreeable to engaging with the neighbours. It had opened an ASB case to investigate the resident’s reports that one of the neighbours was acting indecently. It had written to the neighbour and would liaise with the police. It considered the patio barrier, balcony covering and soundproofing to be improvement works and the resident would have to complete a form asking for permission to make these changes. It said it had made internal enquiries about whether it would be prepared to install the patio barrier and would update the resident in due course.
25 November 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: It had provided no practical solution other than suggesting she move. The officer dealing with the noise case had not been responding to her reports and had not reviewed the evidence she submitted. The ASB was getting worse and she was very distressed.
4 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement email.
2 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: There were numerous allegations and counter-allegations between the resident and her neighbours. It committed to conducting a case review by 31 January 2025. It was sorry it had delayed in acknowledging the escalation request. It offered £25 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She told us the landlord decided not to take any further action against the neighbours further to its case review. She wanted it to move the neighbours and install the patio barrier, balcony covering and soundproofing in her property. We explained to her we cannot direct it to take action against other tenants but that we would investigate how it handled her noise and ASB reports.

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	Handling of noise and ASB reports
Finding	Maladministration

We acknowledge the landlord offered the resident the range of support set out in its stage 1 response. However, we have found that the assistance it offered her was not always “timely” as it suggested and there were ways it could have better supported her. For example:
1. The resident submitted diary entries detailing her neighbours’ behaviour to the landlord’s ASB team in December 2023. They advised her that as her reports primarily involved household noise, it would not treat them as ASB and that its neighbourhood team would take the lead. Despite the resident then sending numerous follow-up emails with more diary entries, the neighbourhood team did not substantively respond to her until February 2024. This was not in keeping with its good neighbour policy which required it to let residents know within 10 working days how it would respond to their non-ASB reports.
2. Between February and June 2024, the landlord considered the resident’s noise reports and took the action outlined in its stage 1 response. It then told the resident it was closing the noise case. She responded to explain why she did not think the noise app would be effective. She asked if the landlord would review audio and video recordings she had taken without using the app. The landlord responded simply to say the case was closed as there was no evidence to support her allegations the neighbours were creating the noise to harass her. It was unreasonable that it did not either agree to review her recordings or explain why these were not reliable evidence.
3. Throughout 2024 the resident sent the landlord numerous emails containing diary entries, reports of noise disturbances and other concerns about her neighbours’ behaviour. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to all of these individual emails. This led to her feeling it was ignoring her. It could have avoided this by agreeing contact arrangements with her to better manage the volume and frequency of her reports. It could have managed her expectations about how frequently it would respond in line with its ASB policy and, for non-ASB reports, its good neighbour policy.
The landlord told the resident the noise she was reporting was household noise. It reasonably explained that as such, it could not take action against her neighbours. Its good neighbour policy stated that in such cases it should consider ways to mitigate the impact of the reported issues on the resident. It knew she was elderly and disabled. She had repeatedly told it how distressed she was by the noise, which she believed to be deliberate, and her neighbours’ behaviour. The policy suggested that it should consider if there were any practical measures it could put in place to reduce noise transference.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports from a noise transference perspective. For example, at no stage during 2024 does it appear to have surveyed the property to see if it could make improvements to sound insultation. This was despite the resident repeatedly raising concerns about soundproofing. She explained in numerous emails during 2024 that she believed the neighbours had installed laminate flooring and that this was contributing to the noise issues. She asked the landlord numerous times if it had investigated this but it failed to respond to her queries.
In addition to noise, the resident reported her neighbours were pouring liquids through gaps in the balcony and onto her patio. She said as a result she was unable to dry her clothes outside. She also suggested the neighbours had accessed her patio and tried to steal clothing. In March 2024 she asked the landlord if, as a mitigation, it would install a barrier around the patio and a covering on the balcony.
In line with its good neighbour policy, the landlord should have considered whether installing the barrier and covering was a practical solution it could implement. It was not obliged to agree to do this work, but it should have at least considered it. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s initial enquiries.
The resident asked the landlord again in June 2024 to install the barrier and covering. In response it said it would make internal enquiries about whether this was something it would be prepared to do. By the time of its stage 1 response in October 2024, it had not provided her with a decision. It did not acknowledge this delay in its response. It instead advised her she could do the work herself if she completed a request form. It told her again it had made enquiries internally about whether it would do the work and committed to update her once it had made a decision. However, by the time of its stage 2 response it had provided her with no such update. That its position remained unclear 10 months after the resident first made the request was unreasonable.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her reports. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. The guidance explains we may order amounts in this range where there has been a significant emotional impact on the resident. It is evident from her communications that the landlord’s delays in responding to her reports and requests for practical solutions have caused her significant distress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord must process complaints in line its complaints policy. Its policy aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Both documents explain the distinction between a service request and a complaint. A service request is when the resident asks the landlord to do something, such as respond to an ASB report. A complaint is when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with how the landlord has responded to the service request.
The landlord failed to treat 2 emails from the resident, sent on 17 January and 20 September 2024, as complaints. She specifically stated in both emails that she was making a complaint. Within the emails she expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s response to her ASB reports and suggested that staff were not responding to her. Rather than treat these emails as complaints, the landlord instead told her to refer her concerns to the same team and individuals she was complaining about. This was contrary to its policy which required it to treat both these emails as formal complaints.
It was not until we intervened in October 2024 that the landlord logged receipt of a formal complaint. It then acknowledged and issued its stage 1 response in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It issued its stage 2 response within its policy timeframe although it delayed by 2 working days in acknowledging the escalation request. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response and offered £25 compensation. This was reasonable given the delay was short and caused no detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s 2 earlier emails as complaints led to her spending time and trouble asking us for assistance. It also meant she only received a stage 1 response over 9 months after she initially complained. We have ordered the landlord to pay her £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused her. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. The guidance explains we may order amounts in this range for complaint handling where there were significant errors by a landlord leading to responses being delayed by months.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide us with full records of its communications with the resident. She provided us with numerous relevant email exchanges not included within the evidence the landlord gave us. It also did not provide us with contemporary notes of its home visit. We remind it of the importance of keeping full and accurate records that it can make readily available to staff investigating complaints and to us.

Communication

We encourage the landlord in cases such as this to agree a communications plan with the resident. This may assist it with managing the frequency of reports and ensuring the resident directs their reports to the correct department. It may also assist it with managing the resident’s expectations about how often it will provide updates.