A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202322161)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322161

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

9 May 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of defects to her:
  1. Windows.
  2. Kitchen sink.
2. Reports of leaks in her bathroom.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property. She has lived in the 1-bedroom flat since March 2022 when it was newly built. The property developer was responsible for the repairs/defects reported during the events the resident complained about.
Between April and June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was or could be a leak affecting her bathroom 4 times. The landlord instructed repairs and the developer appointed contractors to carry out the work. She also reported other issues, including a loss of hot water, draughty windows, and a leak under her kitchen sink.
The resident complained on 26 May 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the defects she reported. She stated that:
1. It took 3 days to restore hot water in her home.
2. Works to reinstate her kitchen were outstanding after a leak from under the sink was repaired in early 2023.
3. She had reported a problem with her windows in December 2022 and, after 3 failed appointments, she was still waiting for them to be inspected.
4. Each of the investigations into the cause of damage in her bathroom were ineffective and it had been ongoing for a year.

The resident said she was seeking compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her home, increase in her energy bills, and loss of wages from the 3 failed window appointments.

On 6 June 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the complaint about multiple defects. It said that, following a discussion with the resident, it had agreed a plan of action to resolve her complaint. This was that:
1. A specific point of contact would oversee the outstanding works to ensure they were completed within the relevant timeframes.
2. All outstanding repairs in the bathroom would be completed by 31 July 2023.
3. Compensation had been awarded at £466 for the distress and inconvenience caused, including for the 3 days she was without hot water.
4. Learning had been taken and shared with its staff and contractors around record-keeping, missed appointments, and the importance of meeting timescales.
In late June 2023 the resident complained that since her last complaint a new issue had arisen in the bathroom. She said:
1. There was now black mould which was affecting her and her partner’s health because they are both asthmatics.
2. The developer had advised she would need to be temporarily rehoused for 6 days while the resulting damage was repaired.
3. She wanted to be compensated for any out-of-pocket costs, distress, inconvenience and for the impact on her health.
The landlord provided a new stage 1 response on 3 July 2023. It agreed that the damp and mould should have been addressed much sooner. To resolve the complaint, the landlord said:
1. The developer had scheduled the outstanding repairs for the next week.
2. It had awarded compensation of £135, made-up of £100 for the distress and inconvenience and £35 for the delay in completing the repair.
3. The resident could complete a liability claim form and send it to its insurance team.

It also explained that the work was planned to take 1 day, not 6 days. The landlord advised the resident would need to find and cover the cost of a hotel. It said she would be reimbursed by the developer for reasonable costs incurred.

The resident escalated her complaint 2 weeks later. She said she was unhappy because:
1. The landlord had not mentioned the mould problem.
2. The repairs were still outstanding.
3. It had not considered the full impact on her.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 3 August 2023, it said its initial response was correct about the “considerable delay” in repairing the leak. It added that, while the works were not completed when the stage 1 said they would be, this was partly because the resident had not been able to stand the cost of the hotel. The landlord confirmed it had covered the costs and the repairs had been completed. It awarded a further £100 (£235 in total), for the additional delay and poor communication.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded for the defects relating to her kitchen, windows, and bathroom. She was also unhappy with how long it took to pay the compensation for the complaint about the bathroom repairs. She said the issues complained about caused her worry over her health and an increase in her energy bills. The resident is seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her:
  1. Windows.
  2. Kitchen sink.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident escalated her concerns about the windows and kitchen sink repairs. As such, the landlord did not consider this matter at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, and these concerns have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
We recognise this may be a disappointing outcome. Establishing whether an issue is within the Ombudsman’s remit can be complex and requires careful consideration of the facts and evidence. The resident may wish to request the landlord to escalate these concerns. However, given the passage of time it may decide not to consider the matter any further. We would expect any decision from the landlord to investigate the matter now to be made in accordance with its policy.

Scope of investigation

The resident said in her complaint that the mould in the bathroom caused her health to worsen. The courts or a liability insurer are best placed to consider whether there is a link between damage to someone’s health and the actions or inactions of the landlord. In personal injury claims, both parties usually appoint independent medical experts to provide insights, which is not something we do. Consideration in this investigation will be given to any distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part may have caused.

Response to bathroom leaks

Prior to the resident making a formal complaint, she had reported on 1 April 2022 to the landlord that there was a potentially worsening leak in her bathroom. The records show that she then experienced recurring problems with a leak from her toilet.
The cause of a leak within the home can sometimes be challenging to identify and fix. The fact that a leak reoccurs is also not necessarily an indication of a failing. In such cases, we would expect to see in the records that the cause was investigated promptly. We also expect reports to be responded to within the appropriate timescales set in the repairs policy.
In the resident’s case, the landlord’s responsibility was to instruct the developer to complete repairs. This involved allocating a timescale based on the potential risk posed by the issue, in-line with those published in its repair policy. In such cases, we would expect to see the landlord had oversight of the repairs and was doing everything it could to ensure issues were dealt within the required timescales.
The landlord acknowledged in its responses that it took too long to resolve the leaks. It also said it identified failings in its communication with the resident. Its decision, overall, was appropriate. While the landlord took accountability for failings, it did not provide sufficient detail or explanations for its decision and identify where and why things had gone wrong. This was not in-line with the landlord’s complaints policy, which echoed the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), to “address all the points that are raised, and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. It was also potentially a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify learning. We will say more on this under the complaint handling section. Now we go on to consider if the remedies the landlord provided were proportionate to its failings and the impact of these on the resident, based on the available evidence.
The records show that the landlord instructed the first report of a possible leak to be attended to within its 24-hour timescale for emergency leaks. This was appropriate given the resident’s description that the damp looked to be spreading. However, the timescale was exceeded by around 40 days because the first attendance was on 13 May 2022. During this time, the landlord chased the developer 4 times asking for updates and reminding it of the repair timescale. The developer advised that it was attempting to obtain an update from the plumber who attended. The evidence shows, therefore, that the landlord took some reasonable action and that it was fulfilling its role to facilitate the repair.
In our spotlight report on new builds and shared ownership, published in September 2020, we highlighted the importance of effective communication in cases where a developer is responsible for a repair or defect. While there is evidence that the developer was in contact with the resident at times, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord contacted the resident itself, and kept her updated. This would have been reasonable in view of its relationship with the resident. Therefore, as broadly acknowledged in its responses, the landlord’s communication around the initial report fell short of the required standards and expectations.
The resident reported that the leak had recurred on 17 May 2022. While this must have been inconvenient to the resident, the available records show it was repaired on the same day. This was within the landlord’s emergency timescale. It is our view then that the landlord responded to the second report of a leak appropriately and in-line with its policy.
In early December 2022, the resident reported that some tiles in her bathroom were moving and grout was missing. The repair logs show that the landlord instructed for this to be investigated within its routine timescale of 20 working-days. This was a reasonable timeframe as there was no indication of an obvious leak, based on what was known at the time. However, it took until 10 April 2023 for the issue to be investigated. This means the repair timescale was exceeded by around 65 working-days.
Based on the records, we have seen this delay was largely due to the developers’ flooring contractor. We have seen that the landlord was regularly in contact with the developer during this time. However, again there is no evidence, that we have seen, that it was proactive about contacting the resident. Rather, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times for updates. The landlord therefore missed opportunities to reassess the situation, share information, and to potentially consider if there was any further action it could take. It therefore has not shown that it did enough to fulfil its role in addressing the third reported problem in the bathroom.
The works to repair the tiles, which had been reported in December 2022, were further delayed. The records indicate this was because the landlord received no instruction from the developer or its plumber. We recognise that there was an obligation on the developer to repair the issues in this situation. The landlord was though required to ensure these were dealt with and within an appropriate timescale. It was aware of the issue with the tiles lifting, it would therefore have been reasonable for it to check if these still needed to be addressed. It took the resident chasing the issue on 26 April 2023 for the work to be reraised. The lack of proactiveness on the landlord’s part and its lack of communication with the resident was a failing. It was a missed opportunity to raise the follow-on works sooner.
During an appointment to reinstate the tiles on 6 June 2023, the tiler found evidence of an active leak. The repair logs show the landlord instructed the repair to be completed within its emergency timescale. It was then rectified on the same day. Therefore, the landlord responded appropriately and because of this the issue was addressed promptly.
According to the available records, the resident first reported the presence of black mould in her bathroom when she complained on 22 June 2023. The landlord raised an instruction for the mould to be treated within its routine timescale. We have seen evidence that it enquired with the developer. They reported that there was some “minor” mould behind the toilet and was, in its view, unlikely to pose a risk to health. Even so, the landlord still also asked the developer to prioritise the cleaning, if possible, because of the vulnerabilities in the household. The records show the mould was treated on 21 July 2023, which was in the allocated timescale. We are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the mould problem was addressed within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows that the landlord communicated the developer’s approach to cases where a resident needed to be temporarily rehoused in late June 2023. It also reiterated these in its stage 1 response addressing the resident’s complaint about the ongoing bathroom issues. As explained, in this scenario, the developer was responsible for the repairs and associated costs. It was reasonable therefore for the landlord to advise the resident to follow the process. However, we have also seen that the resident advised that she was not in a financial position to bear the costs. It would have been reasonable to at least explore this further with her. This was another example of where the landlord’s communication could have been better. The fact that the landlord did cover the costs, when it was not obligated to, was however positive and showed a commitment to resolving the situation.
In summary, we agree with the landlord’s decision that there were communication failings that caused or contributed to some of the delays in addressing the bathroom repairs. The actions it took to put right the complaint were, in our view, reasonable. It apologised, had oversight of the repairs, liaised effectively with the developer and resident, awarded compensation, and shared learning.
The resident advised us that she is unhappy with the amount of compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may pay between £100-£350 for “moderate” disruption or inconvenience caused. This is in the mid-range of the scale that we would order, under our guidance on remedies, where distress and inconvenience has been caused and is not long-lasting. Amounts above this, both under the landlord’s policy and our guidance, are awarded for more significant or serious impacts. The policy allows for compensation to be paid based on a percentage of rent paid when a tenant is unable to use their bathroom for more than 48 hours.
There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident lost the use of her bathroom entirely for more than 48 hours. It was appropriate then for the landlord to pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord offered £466 in response to the first complaint and £235 for the second complaint. It is not possible to ascertain how much compensation had been apportioned to each failing/element of the initial complaint by the landlord as it did not provide a breakdown. However, we are satisfied that the overall sum was proportionate and fair. It is our view, therefore, that the amount of compensation was reasonable and in-line with the amount we would have ordered.

Associated complaint

The Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time the resident complained adhered to the timescales and principles of the Code. This included a requirement to:
1. Respond promptly and within defined timescales.
2. Address all aspects of a complaint and provide clear reasons for a decision.
3. Explain what actions it will take to put things right and when these will happen and ensure they are completed.
We are largely satisfied that the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in-line with the requirements of the Code. It responded to both complaints within the required timescales of 10 working-days at stage 1 and 20 working-days at stage 2. As explained earlier, we have also seen that it took some appropriate actions to put right the complaint.
The landlord’s responses, however, both failed to address specific issues the resident raised about:
1. Each report she made of a bathroom repair/defect and how it responded.
2. The mould problem and the impact she said this had on her.
3. Her requests to be compensated based on a proportion of the rent and service charge she had paid.
None of the responses included sufficient explanations or detail to support the decision and the remedies offered. Explanations are important in showing a resident and the Ombudsman that a landlord has investigated concerns thoroughly and taken full accountability of its failings. The landlord failed, in our view, to address the complaint in a clear and transparent way and to the standards required under the Code.
The stage 1 response to the complaint about the ongoing bathroom repairs advised that the compensation was being processed and would be paid within 10 working-days. However, the evidence shows that the payment was made on 7 August 2023. This was more than double the timescale it gave. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord contacted the resident to inform her of any delay. We do not find the landlord’s actions here amounted to a failing, because it did ultimately pay the compensation. Rather, it was a shortfall and a further example of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident, which was a theme in this case.
While we acknowledge the landlord followed some of the requirements of the Code in its handling of this complaint, it failed to provide adequate responses. It therefore missed an opportunity to take accountability for its specific failings. We have ordered the landlord pay compensation, in-line with its policy and our guidance on remedies. However, we have not ordered it to show learning in this case. In July 2024, the landlord complied with our wider order for it to arrange an independent review of its policy and practices. The review looked at its handling of complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her:
  1. Windows.
  2. Kitchen sink.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about leaks in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologise to the resident for not providing explanations and addressing all of the resident’s concerns.
2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the complaint handling failings.

Recommendation

We have seen evidence that the landlord has paid the resident the £235 awarded for the ongoing bathroom issues. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it has paid the compensation of £466. If it has not done so, the landlord should pay this and provide proof. This is because it was one of the reasons we made found it had reasonably addressed the complaint.
The landlord should consider reminding staff about ensuring that any compensation offers are broken down and clearly communicated so that they are transparent.