A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202231935)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231935

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s concerns the fence she installed might lead to her eviction.
2. Outstanding repairs in the resident’s property, including for damp and mould.
3. Resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Resident’s request to move.
The Ombudsman has also addressed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a sole assured tenant of a 2-bedroom first floor flat, she has lived there since 2000. She lives there with her partner and her adult child. The resident provided the Ombudsman and the landlord with her partner’s occupational therapist report. This details a number of medical conditions, including prolapsed discs which impact on his mobility, in addition to mental health problems and lung conditions. Both the resident and partner reported nausea, headaches, respiratory issues, eye and ear infections, severe fatigue, head fog, and delirium.
The resident received a letter from the landlord in June 2023 concerning a fence she installed in the front garden. The landlord requested she remove this and advised it would apply for an injunction if she did not. The resident told the Ombudsman she found the landlord’s communication regarding this “threatening” and raised this in a stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2023. The resident also included staff conduct, several repairs, how the landlord handled her reports of ASB, and the information it gave about her moving options.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 January 2024, it did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said it was satisfied how staff handled the resident’s ASB complaint. It had completed repair works, anything outstanding was due to no contact or no access. The landlord would contact the resident to arrange appointments for any outstanding works.
The landlord said the resident had raised a damp and mould case on 12 September 2023, it booked an inspection for 5 December 2023 which did not go ahead as the resident was not home for this. The landlord rebooked this for 12 February 2024.
The landlord advised its most recent contact with the resident about moving was on 21 July 2022 which it dealt with on the same day. Regarding the resident’s request for a management move, permanent decant, and tenancy transfer the landlord outlined the resident’s options. The landlord confirmed the resident was in band C and was bidding on properties. The landlord informed the resident about mutual exchanges, the local authority and other local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme, and private rental options. The landlord also provided the resident with the contact details of its support and wellbeing service.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 16 January 2024. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the resident received the landlord’s final resolution letter on 4 June 2024. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for the delays in sending out the responses. The landlord outlined that it would not address the resident’s staff conduct complaints as it was dealing with these under other complaint references.
The landlord understood some repairs were completed prior to the resident raising her complaint. The landlord had established the roof needed renewing and a new breathable membrane installing. It raised a works order to start this on 22 May 2024 and raised other repair jobs. The landlord recognised the resident initially stated she did not wish it to carry out internal works as she wished to be moved, but it understood these works were now booked in. It highlighted it could not put repairs on hold because the resident wished to move as it had obligations to meet. This has been disputed by the resident. The resident also disputes works were placed on hold due to a request to move from the property.
The landlord was satisfied that it had acted in line with its noise nuisance policy with the resident’s report dated 3 April 2024. It also reviewed the resident’s 2 previous ASB cases and it could not find a record that it returned a telephone call to the police. Therefore, it found it could have managed them better. The landlord apologised and said it would ensure this did not happen again.
The landlord advised it did not have a repair for the front door and asked the resident to call in to report this. The landlord apologised for the damaged carpet, and it attached an insurance claim form, should she wish to claim. Regarding the resident’s request to move, the landlord was satisfied with the information it provided in its stage 1 response.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a total of £200 compensation, this was £25 for the delays to the stage 1 response, £25 for the delays to the final resolution, £100 for the inconvenience of the poor ASB management, and £50 for poor communications. The landlord also advised it had spoken to its contractor to remind them of what it expects and the importance of good communication.
The resident informed the Ombudsman she remains dissatisfied and cannot see an adequate resolution. The resident believes the property needs major repairs and that they need to move. However, she does not want to remain with the landlord and is looking to move out of the area.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s decision not to award any medical priority to her rehousing application. The landlord sent its decision letter in August 2024, as the final resolution letter was in June 2024 this does not fall in the remit of this complaint. This is in line with 42.a. of the Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The landlord has provided information concerning ASB complaints from after the final resolution letter in June 2024, in line with 42.a. of the Scheme we will not consider this in the report.
The landlord did not assess the resident’s complaints about staff conduct. The landlord advised the resident and Ombudsman it has looked at these in a separate complaint. Therefore, in line with 42.a. of the Scheme we will not consider the resident’s complaints about staff conduct.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported historical issues that occurred more than 12 months prior to her stage 1 complaint. 42.c. of the Scheme outlines that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised this formal complaint in December 2023, the investigation will not consider historical issues.
There is an ongoing court case concerning the fence the resident installed at her property. 42.e. of the Scheme outlines we may not consider complaints where the resident has the opportunity to raise this matter as part of legal proceedings. To be clear the Ombudsman will address the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns this led to “threats of eviction” against her by it, and not the issue of the fence itself.
The resident raised concerns that this situation has affected her family’s health, but this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine whether there was any causation between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health concerns, in the way a court or insurer might. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if she has not already done so. This is due to paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme stating that we may not consider complaints concerning matters it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy for through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.

Eviction concerns

The landlord would be expected to keep a resident informed if it had concerns about how they were conducting a tenancy, including any tenancy breaches.
The landlord did not address this complaint point in its responses. This omission will be handled through this report’s complaint handling section.
The resident told the Ombudsman this complaint point relates to a fence which she erected around her front door. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2023. It advised her to remove the fence by 28 June 2023 or the landlord would apply to court for an injunction to compel the resident to do so. In the letter the landlord stated it had previously written to the resident on this matter in May 2019, 21 September 2021, and 7 June 2023.
The Ombudsman is aware this case is in court, it is currently adjourned. As mentioned previously we will focus on how the landlord communicated this with the resident.
Where the landlord believes it has evidence of a tenancy breach it would be reasonable for it to inform the resident of its concerns and request them to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident may have found the letter dated 21 June 2023 concerning. This was a legal letter, so it is a serious matter, and the letter needs to reflect the seriousness of the situation. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did not mention eviction in the letter and while serious, an injunction is not possession proceedings.
If the landlord was not satisfied the resident had rectified the issue, it would be justified in explaining it would be seeking a resolution through the other means open to it. In this case the landlord has done this through the court, as it suggested it would do in its above letter to the resident. It was therefore appropriate for it to explain in its letter the next step it would take if she did not remove her fence. The tenancy agreement allowed the landlord to do this, as an alleged breach of the tenancy. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the fence she installed might lead to her eviction.

Repairs, damp, and mould

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to maintain the installations, exterior, and structure of the property.
By signing the tenancy agreement, the resident agreed to allow the landlord access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs or other works to the property, under section 3(13).
1.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states the landlord should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request for the landlord to take action to put something right. A complaint is if the resident is dissatisfied with the response to the service request.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to deliver a consistently high service and ensure it meets the responsive repair standards. It is committed to providing a high-quality service. The landlord has the following repair categories:
1. Emergency – to make safe within 4 hours and to complete within 24.
2. Standard – to complete in 20 working days.
3. Planned and packaged – to complete within 90 days, these are more complex or a much lower priority repair.
The resident raised several repair complaints. These are:
1. There are faulty windows.
2. Rainwater blows through roof tiles, with inadequate roof felt and insulation.
3. The front door was installed incorrectly, resulting in cold air and water leaks, contributing to damp and mould.
4. The membrane under the floor has perished, causing smoke infiltration and health concerns, contributing to damp and mould.
5. The underlying floor issues damaged the resident’s carpet and underlay.
6. The extractor fans are inadequate.
7. The sound proofing between the flats is inadequate.
8. The kitchen floors were improperly installed.
9. The window lintel and walls are bowing and cracking due to building subsidence.
The landlord did not directly respond to some points in its complaint responses. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it advised that its contractor had attended, carried out and completed required works. Any outstanding repair works were due to no contact and no access. The contractors would be in touch with the resident, and it would complete any outstanding works by 29 February 2024. This was subject to change if they needed to do follow on works. The resident disputes repairs were completed at this stage.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not specifically refer to the window complaint. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a repair history showing the resident raised issues with the windows historically. As previously highlighted, older reports are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The most recent was 11 September 2023 when the resident said all the windows needed to be repaired as they were not closing properly, and the handles were broken. The landlord categorised this as a standard repair. Therefore, it should have resolved this in 20 working days, by 9 October 2023.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s notes, it arranged an appointment for 15 September 2023 which the resident asked the landlord to rearrange to 6 October 2023. The landlord notes said the resident refused entry as she wanted a specialist to arrange replacement windows, and she would call the landlord to organise this. The landlord tried to call the resident on 10 October 2023 but was unable to leave a message. It sent a letter to the resident on 13 October 2023 closing the job as there had been no further contact.
The landlord is entitled to assess if it can complete a repair rather than replacing the windows. The visit on 6 October 2023 would have either repaired the windows or been the first step in organising replacements if that were required. However, the landlord could not gain entry to assess, and the resident did not rearrange. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord appropriately handled this repair.
The Ombudsman has not seen that the resident raised a roof repair in the months before raising the complaint. Therefore, in line with the Code the landlord should have raised this as a service request and organised investigatory works. The landlord did not do this, despite the resident making it aware of the issue in the complaint dated 1 December 2023. The landlord assessed the roof in the damp and mould survey dated 15 March 2024. It stated the roof appeared to be at the end of its natural life.
The landlord noted on 9 May 2024 that the resident will let it know when she wanted it to complete the work. The landlord stated in its final resolution letter, it had booked the roof repairs for 22 May 2024 and that it cannot put works on hold as the resident wishes to move properties as it has responsibilities to her. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord gave mixed messages but appreciate it was trying to accommodate the resident. The resident disputes the landlord’s comments regarding works being placed on hold due to the resident’s request to move.
The Ombudsman understands fitting a new roof is a large piece of work for the landlord to undertake. In accordance with its repair priorities, it should have completed this in line with the planned and packaged 90-day timeframe, by 13 June 2024. The resident advised the Ombudsman the roof has not been replaced. Ultimately, the landlord did not inspect the roof in line with its repair policy timeframes. Once the landlord identified the roof as needing replacement, it did not complete the repair in line with its repair policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it did not comment on the front door complaint point. This will be addressed in the complaint handling section. In the final resolution the landlord stated it did not have any repairs for the front door and the resident should report this. The Ombudsman has seen evidence a repair for the front door was raised on 24 April 2024. The landlord attended on 3 May 2024 where it adjusted and reduced the draught excluder and adjusted the misaligned security lock. In the landlord’s final resolution, it did not recognise the work was reported, it attended and completed it. This lack of attention to detail would be likely to make the resident lose confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage these issues.
The Ombudsman notes the resident in her complaint referred to the front door causing damp and mould, which the landlord addressed in its complaint responses. The landlord’s notes confirmed the resident had raised a damp and mould case in 2019 and another in 2020. These are noted but as previously highlighted these are outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
The landlord’s complaint responses stated the resident raised a damp and mould case on 12 September 2023. The landlord organised for an appointment on 5 December 2023, which the resident was not at home for. The landlord has provided evidence of attempts to arrange the inspection with the resident. These attempts did not deal with the issue progressively. For example, following the visit on 5 December 2023, the landlord evidenced it contacted the resident on 5 January 2024 to chase for an appointment. The landlord completed the inspection on 15 March 2024. This was not in line with the landlord’s repair priorities. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it stated it aimed to review the damp and mould report in 5 working days and raise remedial works 2 weeks later. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence this was adhered to.
The resident raised her complaint about the perished membrane under the floorboards. Again, this was a service request, rather than a complaint, and the landlord did not directly address this in its stage 1 response. In the final resolution letter, the landlord highlights the damp and mould report suggests the need for a pressure test to investigate the under-floor insulation. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord has, after the final resolution letter, continued to try to resolve this matter. However, the landlord did not meet its repair target times.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it did not respond to the complaint point about the damaged carpet. This will be addressed in the complaint handling section. In its final resolution the landlord gave the resident its insurance details for her to make a claim for the damaged carpet. The resident has now got the necessary information, however the landlord should have provided this in its stage 1 response or explained why this was not appropriate.
In the resident’s complaint she stated she had inadequate extractor fans, again this was a service request rather than a complaint as the Ombudsman cannot see any previous request for the landlord to complete this. In the landlord’s damp and mould inspection on 15 March 2024 it listed these as needing replacement. The resident informed the Ombudsman this has not been completed as she wished to find out the root cause of the issue before having the landlord complete repairs. The landlord has not met its repair target times, however the Ombudsman notes this is likely to be due to the resident’s concerns.
The resident raised the issue of sound proofing due to the noise she said she can hear from her neighbours. Again, this was a service request, rather than a complaint, and the landlord did not directly address this in its stage 1 response. In the final resolution letter, the landlord highlighted the damp and mould report suggested a pressure test to investigate the under-floor insulation. The Ombudsman is aware the landlord believes there is no insulation beneath the flooring. We have not seen evidence it resolved this issue in line with its repair timeframes or explained why it would not resolve this.
The resident raised concerns about the rigidity of the kitchen floorboards. She reports the floor feels bouncy to walk on and when her washing machine is on, it makes the kitchen shake. As there was no mention of this in previous repair logs, the landlord should have dealt with this as a service request. The landlord did not include this in its complaint responses which we will address in the complaint handling section. The landlord has not evidenced it appropriately responded to the resident’s query.
The landlord did not address the resident’s subsidence complaint in its complaint responses. In the damp and mould report the landlord noted there were cracks in the paintwork. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence it seriously considered the resident’s concerns about subsidence. This will form an order of the report.
The resident is obliged, under the tenancy agreement to provide access and the landlord requires this to complete repairs. The Ombudsman understands the resident may wish to get to the root cause of issues. However, this should not hinder the repairs which the landlord has identified will form part of a resolution for the resident. This is a mitigating factor in the Ombudsman’s decision making. However, the landlord did not adhere to its repair priority timeframes, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this through its complaint responses. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding repairs in the property including damp and mould.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy defines it as conduct which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any persons, causing harassment, alarm, or distress, or involves using, or threatening to use the property for an unlawful purpose. The landlord operates a victim-centred approach. It may complete a risk assessment. It will communicate regularly when it logs a case. The landlord has preventative strategies such as looking at the design of the homes and working with other agencies.
The landlord has signed up to the RESPECT standard. This means it will aim to agree an action plan, keep fortnightly contact, use preventative and enforcement measures to tackle the ASB.
The landlord’s good neighbour policy outlines what is and is not ASB. For example, the noise of flushing toilets, usual day to day living noise during reasonable hours, or the sound of loud arguments that interfere with your own enjoyment of your home.
The resident stated the landlord did not remain impartial in her ASB complaint. She also said the landlord had no evidence to back up its claims that she had behaved in an antisocial manner.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with an email exchange between it and the local police in August 2023. This highlighted the police and agencies were aware of the resident’s allegations about her neighbour, and they were satisfied that no further intervention was needed. This showed good interagency working. The landlord also referenced it received daily email contact from the resident, this has not been provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s notes from 12 September 2023 say it sent the resident a 7-day closure letter. This was because the resident had not provided further ASB reports and as she said she could not speak to the landlord in line with police advice.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a tenancy warning letter dated 20 November 2023. This warned the resident about a recent tenancy breach which caused unreasonable noise and caused a nuisance and/or annoyance to the neighbour. It warned that because of the breach the landlord was entitled to apply for an ASB injunction and if the behaviour continued the landlord may take possession proceedings. This did not provide the specific dates and times of what the resident did to warrant the letter.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated it was sorry the resident felt it had not been impartial. It reviewed the open ASB case and could not see any evidence of mismanagement. The landlord stated there were allegations and counter allegations from both parties, it offered both parties acceptable behaviour contracts and mediation. Aside from the stage 1 response the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord’s offer to the resident or of the ASB case file.
In its final resolution letter, the landlord said it reviewed the 3 ASB cases the resident had logged. The most recent being when she contacted it about her neighbour on 3 April 2024. The landlord tried to call her back on 8 April 2024, but she asked for email contact instead. The landlord followed this up by sending an email asking for a time and date for a telephone call. The resident replied that she wanted all communication over email as she believed the neighbour could overhear. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed that as the noise was occurring during the day the landlord would not investigate it. The landlord asked the resident to contact environmental health if she had further issues. This was in line with the landlord’s good neighbour policy. However, the Ombudsman has not seen the landlord evaluated the regularity and nature of the disturbances. It would be appropriate to reference this in its decision making.
In its review of the other 2 cases, the landlord agreed it could have managed them better. It noted the police telephoned but it could not see evidence it returned the call. This in itself would not form a service failing. It would be likely this only related to one ASB case, but the landlord did not remark on any problems with the other case. The landlord offered £100 for the inconvenience caused by this poor management. One of these cases will have been the one the landlord was satisfied it managed appropriately in its stage 1 response.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with 3 ASB reports. These are undated but have reference numbers and so we can ascertain one is from June 2024. This case, which the landlord has provided evidence of letters it sent cannot form part of the resident’s complaint as she raised this on 1 December 2023 and the landlord sent its final resolution on 4 June 2024. Therefore, this does not form part of the evidence for this complaint. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the June 2024 report has not exhausted its procedure yet as outlined above.
The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the emails from the resident. It also did not provide the resident with a full response to her complaint. The resident was complaining about the landlord’s lack of transparency and responsibility in addressing the issues she reported. The Ombudsman has seen no indication the landlord attempted to rectify this in its handling of this complaint.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord completed risk assessments for the ASB cases and engaged in positive interagency working. While the landlord provided evidence of newer ASB cases, which cannot be considered in this case, it did not provide sufficient evidence of the other ASB cases or how it handled them. When reviewing two of the ASB cases the landlord said it could have managed them better. It said this was due to not returning a call to the police. This was unlikely to have impacted both the ASB cases and, as the landlord did not provide the evidence to the Ombudsman, we cannot ascertain how it could have managed them better.
The Ombudsman is concerned the letter the landlord wrote to the resident regarding a breach of tenancy did not outline the details of the breach. This is likely to have been confusing and distressing given the letter was warning of an injunction and possible possession proceedings.
The landlord did not evidence to the Ombudsman it fully adhered to its ASB policy. The landlord did not adequately assess the detriment to the resident or fully acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses. In accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Request to move

The resident complained that she supplied supporting evidence from a doctor and occupational therapist to request an urgent move. The resident complained that she had not been dealt with competently and did not know who was responsible for progressing this. The landlord contacted the resident to understand the complaint further. It noted the resident complained that it had not fulfilled her requests for information and processes related to permanent decants, tenancy transfers, and management moves. The resident asked for reasonable suggestions to assist with her situation.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord stated the last medical assessment it received was in 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen information relating to the 2020 decision. The landlord did not consider this its responses, and as it was from 2020 this was too long ago to be included in this report. The Ombudsman has seen an occupational therapist report dated 20 May 2024. The resident would not have been referring to this more recent report in her complaint dated 1 December 2023.
The landlord stated the resident last contacted it about her moving options on 21 July 2022, and it responded the same day. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated it had previously provided the resident with housing options advice. It reiterated this in its stage 1 response and attached the requested process for the resident’s information. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what these attachments were. The landlord confirmed the resident’s position on its choice-based lettings register and that it encouraged her to continue to bid on properties. The landlord gave advice about mutual exchanges, the local authority and any other choice-based lettings scheme, and private rentals.
In conversation with the Ombudsman the resident said she was annoyed the landlord gave her information regarding mutual exchanges as she believes this is not open to her due to the condition of the property. Reasonably the landlord had to provide this to the resident, whether or not this is a viable option.
The evidence the landlord supplied the Ombudsman with shows it addressed the resident’s complaint about moving. It investigated past contact, was satisfied with its response, and gave a full explanation of the resident’s moving options. In accordance with the Scheme the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint in 5 working days. The landlord will confirm the scope of the complaint within 1-2 working days. If a resident wishes to escalate the complaint the landlord will acknowledge this in 5 working days, again it will confirm the scope in 1-2 working days. If the landlord has a panel to review the complaint it will arrange this in 5 working days and be held 20 working days after the escalation request. The landlord will provide a decision in writing within 5 days of the hearing date.
6.7 and 6.18 of the Code state landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.
The resident raised her complaint on 1 December 2023, the landlord sent an automated response the same day saying it will respond in 10 working days. This timeframe was not in the complaints policy provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2023 and said it will assess if an investigation was needed, one would be started if it did or if it was a request for service the landlord would be in touch. On the same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond in 5 working days. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 to ask it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she had not heard back from it.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 December 2023. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was assigning a caseworker to the complaint she submitted on 12 December 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident on 22 December 2023. It was sorry she was still waiting to receive the complaint response and had sent a chaser email.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 January 2024, which was 18 working days later than the 10-working-day response timescale it gave the resident. The resident requested to escalate her complaint the following day. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 March 2024 and told the resident she would get a response by 26 April 2024. The landlord sent its final resolution letter on 4 June 2024, following the Ombudsman’s request. This was 76 working days later than the 20-working-day timescale for landlords to respond to stage 2 complaints in 6.14 of the Code. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord extending the complaint on one occasion.
The landlord was late responding to each stage of its complaints process by a total of 94 working days. The delays in receiving the responses were likely to have further frustrated the resident, deepening the dissatisfaction she already felt. The landlord did acknowledge this in its final resolution letter, awarding a total of £50 for the delays in responding. This does not adequately address the detriment to the resident.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the resident raised an issue with the roof, front door, membrane, extractor fans, kitchen floorboards, sound proofing, and subsidence concerns in the months before she raised the complaint. As such it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have dealt with these as service requests rather than as a complaint.
The landlord did not respond to the complaint points concerning the front door, damaged carpet, and extractor fans in the stage 1 response. The landlord did not respond to the eviction concerns, windows, membrane, kitchen floor, and subsidence in either complaint response. This is poor complaint handling and is likely to have made the resident believe the landlord was not committed to resolving the issues or providing her with a thorough response.
In the landlord’s final resolution letter dated 4 June 2024, it said there was no repair for the front door and the resident should call this through. However, the landlord had attended and completed this repair on 3 May 2024. This lack of attention to detail would be likely to make the resident feel more frustrated with the landlord.
The landlord did not address the staff conduct issues, it provided information about this saying these were being handled in a separate complaint. This is satisfactory and is likely to have led to a more focused complaint response.
In summary, the landlord was late with both complaint responses, it did not raise service requests when appropriate, the responses did not fully address the complaint points and lacked detail. Reasonably this would not allay the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s lack of transparency in its dealings. This would have been compounded when the landlord overturned its previous decision that it was satisfied with the management of the ASB case.
The landlord and resident relationship has broken down to the extent she no longer wishes to be a resident of the landlord. It is frustrating the landlord made these complaint handling errors as this was its opportunity to resolve matters for the resident and start to rebuild the relationship. The landlord acknowledged the delay to its responses, but did not acknowledge the other failings or fully address the detriment to the resident. This leads to the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the fence she installed might lead to her eviction.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs in the resident’s property, including for damp and mould.
3. Maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failures identified by this investigation, take responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £800. We have used the Ombudsman’s remedies guide to arrive at this and broken down into:
  1. £200 compensation award previously made.
  2. £50 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs in the resident’s property, including for damp and mould.
  3. £400 for the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  4. £150 for the maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord is to offer to investigate the structure of the property, the flooring, the membrane, and sound proofing. The landlord is to provide the information to the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. The landlord is to make appointments for the work to the roof and the extractor fans and advise the resident and the Ombudsman of these. The resident is encouraged to allow these repairs to take place.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to complete a case review to see how it can prevent the failures in this case from recurring.