A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202303699)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303699

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

24 September 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 resident’s reports of a leak to her property.
We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the building which the resident’s flat is part of.
The resident gave a representative authority to act on her behalf throughout the complaint with both her and her representative communicating with the landlord. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’ unless it is necessary to distinguish between them.
The resident first reported water ingress through the main bedroom window to the landlord on 17 November 2022.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property to inspect the window on 1 December 2022 but found the leak was likely caused due to a defect to the resident’s balcony situated above the window and referred the work to a roofer.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on the 14 December 2022 and 21 December 2022 to investigate the source of the leak.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 January 2023 regarding the service she received from its contractor. However, the landlord has not provided us with the resident’s initial complaint, and so we do not know when she first complained to it or any detail of her dissatisfaction at the time.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 1 response to her complaint on 17 January 2023. It said:
1. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for the length of time and the trouble taken to resolve the repair.
2. An appointment had been made for 20 January 2023 to complete investigatory works including a dye test and inspection of the brickwork around the window. It committed to completing this by 31 March 2023.
3. It had appointed a named member of staff to oversee the works to ensure they were resolved promptly and to the expected standard.
On 19 January 2023, the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its response. She said there had been a number of failed repair attempts and unnecessary visits made by its contractor.
The landlord told the resident it would not escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 28 March 2023. It said this was because it had completed the investigatory works, but no leaks were found, and the resident had said there had been no further leaks. It increased the offer of compensation to £370.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response and said the leak was unresolved. The landlord accepted the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 28 March 2023. However, on 31 March 2023, it told her it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process as the escalation request was made by her representative who was a ‘non-tenant’.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 3 occasions between November 2023 and January 2024 to investigate the leak.
The landlord issued the resident with another stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2024. It apologised to the resident for its handling of the works and said it had arranged another appointment for 20 February 2024 with the aim to complete all works by 28 March 2024. It offered the resident £195 compensation.
A contractor carried out a further visit on 20 February 2024 where pictures were taken of the guttering and hopper.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 February 2024. She said its response had not fully addressed her complaint and she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered.
The resident paid for her own contractor to inspect the balcony for the source of the leak. Her contractor attended in March 2024 and found the mastic underneath the paving slabs on the balcony had failed which was allowing water to enter the building fabric. The resident sent her contractor’s report to the landlord on 2 April 2024 and again on 6 June 2024 as she had not received a response.
The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 response to her complaint on 14 June 2024. It:
1. Apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. Said it had incorrectly closed the repair job in January 2023 which led to it taking no further action until October 2023.
3. The roofing contractor that attended to resolve the leak in November 2023 failed to complete the repair satisfactorily.
4. It had reviewed the survey paid for by the resident and although it could not use her contractor to complete the work, it had appointed its own contractor to do so.
5. Offered the resident a total of £950 compensation made up of:
  1. £150 for lack of communication.
  2. £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  3. £500 for the delay in completing the repair.
  4. £200 for the disruption and inconvenience caused.
6. Said it would cover the £500 excess of the resident’s home insurance claim for any damage caused to the inside of the property.

Events after the landlord’s final response

The landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the balcony on 29 July 2024. The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the work carried out by the contractor and it returned again on or around 9 August 2024 to remedy these issues.
The resident has since confirmed the leak has been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of work carried out to repair the balcony in July 2024. These matters were not included in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues before we consider them. The resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if she wishes to pursue her concerns further. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says we cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a representative who is authorised can make a complaint on the behalf of those eligible to raise a complaint including a resident.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days and planned and packaged repairs within 90 working days.
The resident’s occupancy agreement states as the freeholder of the building, the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof and the structures of the balconies.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s first report of the leak by raising a repair to the window as it believed this to be the source of the water ingress. It attended to this repair promptly and within its published timescales for responsive repairs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to act on the recommendation of its contractor and organise for a roofer to attend the resident’s property. However, the roofer attended outside of the agreed appointment time on 14 December 2022. This was a failure by the landlord which caused inconvenience to the resident as the appointment was delayed, and she had to accommodate another date.
The landlord’s contractor did return to the resident’s property 5 days later which was appropriate given its failure to attend at the agreed time on the previous appointment. It was reasonable for the landlord to return to carry out further investigations including the dye test given that leaks can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may be needed before the issue is fully resolved. However, given the source of the leak was identified by the resident’s own contractor on its first visit and was found underneath the paving slabs where the landlord’s contractor had inspected, it is unclear why it did not identify the source of the leak earlier.
The landlord then failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in March 2023 regarding its contractor’s visit on 20 January 2023 including it not having organised access to her neighbour’s property and the dye test being inadequate. It also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that the leak had not been resolved and that its contractor had not returned to carry out any further investigation into the source of the leak since. The landlord should have responded to these concerns, and this was a failure on its part that caused the resident distress and inconvenience as the repair remained outstanding.
The landlord then failed to progress the repair until it attended again in November 2023, 9 months later. The leak was infrequent due to it appearing during specific weather patterns and the impact of water ingress to the internal wall of the resident’s property was minimal. However, this was an unreasonable time for the resident to wait for the landlord to resume its investigation of the leak. This was a significant failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
It is unclear why the landlord re-inspected the bedroom windowin November 2023, despite its contractor having already advised the source of the leak was not from defects to the window when it visited on 5 December 2022. Its roofer then attended only to refer the work back to a window contractor who again, referred the work back to a roofer on 10 January 2024. The landlord caused the resident a further inconvenience by these unnecessary visits which delayed the resolution to the repair.
The landlord’s contractor returned to the resident’s property on 20 February 2024, but they only took pictures of the gutter. Given the length of time this repair remained unresolved, the landlord and its contractor should have completed a more thorough investigation into the source of the leak. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress as she was left again with no resolution to the leak despite the landlord having several opportunities to resolve it.
The landlord took no further action until the resident paid for her own contractor to investigate the leak. The landlord then failed to respond to the resident’s request that it reimburse her for the cost of this which was £396. In the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the resident to pay for her own contractor because she had already given the landlord enough time and opportunity to resolve the leak, but it had failed to do so. The findings from the resident’s contractor directly led to the cause of the leak being identified and resolved. Therefore, the landlord should reimburse the resident the £396 she paid for her own contractor to investigate the leak, and we will make an order below for it to do so.
The landlord attended to the resident’s balcony in July 2024, 20 months after it was first reported in November 2022, to uncover the paving slabs and fix the mastic and sealant underneath which had been allowing water to penetrate into the fabric of the resident’s property. There was a significant failure by the landlord in the overall time it took to resolve this issue which caused the resident considerable inconvenience and distress as although the impact to her property was minimal, the repair remained unresolved for a significant amount of time, and she had to accommodate several appointments during this time.
Throughout this time, the landlord also failed to communicate with the resident appropriately. It committed to resolving the repair by certain dates on a number of occasions but failed to do so. It also provided named members of staff as the resident’s single point of contact for the repair, but they failed to respond to emails promptly and they did not progress the repair or oversee the works. The landlord did not respond to the resident when she asked it how she was able to claim the compensation it had offered her in its complaint responses and neither did its leasehold team respond to her email in April 2024 when she first sent it her contractor’s report. These were further failings made by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident has told us that she was unable to increase the level of rent which she charged for her property due to the disruption caused to her tenants during this time by the landlord’s handling of the leak. However, there are many factors which affect rent rates including local market conditions, the wider economy and the desirability of the property. We have seen no evidence that the sole reason for her not increasing the rent was due to the landlord’s actions in relation to the leak. As such, the landlord is not obliged to compensate the resident for any loss of earnings from her not increasing the level of rent of her property.
It was reasonable for the landlord to cover the resident’s excess on an insurance claim as this meant she would not incur further costs of making good the interior of her property. This was appropriate because the ongoing impact of the leak was due to landlord’s failure to resolve the leak within a reasonable time.
When the landlord has made an offer of compensation, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. The landlord offered the resident £370 in May 2023 and an additional £950 in July 2024, taking the total amount of compensation to £1320 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its handling of the leak. This offer is in line with what the Ombudsman might consider appropriate in circumstances where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service over a long period of time which has caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the resident.
Whilst it is positive the landlord offered compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, it should have also reimbursed her for the costs she incurred due to hiring her own contractor. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her property. The landlord should pay the resident the £1320 compensation already offered if it has not done so, as well as £396 for the reimbursement of the costs incurred by hiring her own contractor.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord has not been able to provide us with the resident’s initial complaint to which it responded to in January 2023. This was a failure by the landlord as it means we are unable to determine whether it acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its process promptly and in line with its published timescales. This was a failure by the landlord in its record keeping as it should have clear and robust methods of recording resident complaints.
When it did acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process in January 2023, it issued its response to the resident within 3 working days. This was a prompt response which was in line with its published timescales.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to refuse to escalate the resident’s complaint in March 2023 due to the request being made by the resident’s representative. The resident’s representative had the authority to raise a complaint on behalf of the resident and was doing so in his capacity as the resident’s representative, not as a ‘non-tenant.’ The landlord failed to follow its own complaints policy by not escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as it resulted in a significant delay to landlord’s final stage 2 response which it provided in July 2024. The landlord’s failure also delayed the resident being able to contact the Ombudsman for us to formally consider her complaint for investigation.
The landlord issued the resident with another stage 1 complaint response in February 2024. Although there had been a failure by the landlord to escalate the previous complaint, given the time that had elapsed, it was appropriate for it to log a new complaint as the circumstances of the complaint had changed since that time.
However, again, the landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s initial complaint at the time, and it has not provided a copy of its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. This means we are unable to determine whether the stage 1 complaint issued by the landlord on 16 February 2024 was done so within its published timescales. This was another failure by the landlord in its record keeping and complaint handling.
The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024, but it did not progress her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. This was a failure by the landlord which was contrary to its complaints policy as it should have escalated her complaint. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress as she had to contact the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing her complaint.
The landlord then responded on 14 June 2024, 79 working days after it should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process. This was a failure by the landlord in its complaints handling which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
It was positive that the landlord offered the resident £100 for the delays in it responding to her stage 2 complaint but it did not address the further failures in its complaint handling highlighted above. As such, we do not find the amount the landlord offered adequately reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its complaint handling errors, which amount to maladministration.

We will order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards of this range where there has been failure by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. This should replace its original offer of £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1320 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of the leak, if it has not already done so.
2. Pay the resident £396 for the costs she incurred by hiring her own contractor to investigate the source of the leak.
3. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of her complaint. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
4. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should replace the original offer of £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.