A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202328230)

Decision
Case ID	202328230
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident lived in the property with her 2 young children. She contacted the landlord to report a window repair in July 2022 and went on to report the poor condition of other windows in September 2022. Further to this she made a complaint in October 2023. She was concerned about the welfare of her children because of condensation and mould reportedly caused by the gaps in the windows and referred to poor communication from the landlord and cancelled repairs.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. the condition of her windows and associated subsidence at the property.
2. access to the communal front garden.
3. complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and associated subsidence at the property.
We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access to the communal front garden.
We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and associated subsidence at the property

The landlord’s failure to act promptly and communicate effectively on serious window and subsidence issues caused avoidable delays and had a prolonged impact on the resident. However, it acknowledged its failings and provided fair redress in its final complaint response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access to the communal front garden

The landlord acted proportionately by inspecting the property, identifying hazards and engaging with the neighbour.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy leading to lengthy delays in providing its responses. However it later apologised and offered suitable compensation, which was proportionate to the failing.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should carry out a site inspection to confirm that the communal path and gas meter access are clear. If obstacles remain, it should take appropriate action in line with the tenancy agreement and update the resident accordingly.
The landlord should review our Spotlight Report,” Damp and Mould – It’s Not a Lifestyle”, which urges landlords to move away from blaming residents and instead take responsibility.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: there had been a lack of communication and repeated failed call backs since August 2023, which was causing her frustration. works kept being cancelled because of the planned programme without sufficient communication. the cold air coming through the gaps in the windows was causing condensation and mould and she was concerned for her children’s health.
28 November 2023	The resident made a subsequent complaint. She said that: there were issues with condensation, mould and cold air coming through her windows. she was going into debt with her energy supplier. she had no vent in her kitchen and could not open the kitchen windows. her children had been unwell and she had medical evidence to show this was due to the living conditions at the property. she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and being unable to lock her windows affected her mental health. she was finding it difficult to contact her housing officer. the trees in front of the property affected the light levels in her property, and she suspected these were the cause of the subsidence at the property. one of the neighbours was blocking access to her gas meter in the front communal garden and causing an obstruction to her means of escape.
7 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, it said that: it upheld her complaint and apologised for the distress caused by not replacing her windows. its cyclical team had agreed to the works, but it first had to investigate the subsidence at the property before the windows could be replaced. it had inspected the windows on 4 December 2023, and interim works were planned for 8 December 2023. it offered £350 compensation, made up of: -£150 for the time it will take to repair the windows -£100 for distress and inconvenience -£100 for breakdown in communication The landlord promised regular updates to the resident in the coming February, May and August.
8 December 2023	The resident contacted the landlord, declining the compensation offered. She was not happy with the interim repairs being completed on the windows and said her children had been unwell as a result of the living environment caused by the condition of the windows.
23 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The response: summarised the actions and events in relation to her complaint. provided a timeline for the works planned to the trees and windows. confirmed the front garden was communal and said its housing management team had put actions in place to address this. apologised for its communication performance. offered compensation of £1000 made up of: -£200 for the time it will take to repair the windows -£500 for the disruption and effort -£200 for the communication breakdown -£100 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1 and escalating her complaint to stage 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked the Ombudsman to progress her complaint for investigation on 12 April 2024.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and associated subsidence at the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord responded to the resident’s initial report of a window repair within its 20-working-day timeframe by raising a repair for the bedroom window on 31 July 2022 and attending on 8 August.
After acknowledging the windows were “unsuitable for normal use”, the landlord escalated the repair to a full replacement of 2 windows and told the resident on 3 October 2022 it had accepted a quote for this work. However, the landlord reversed this decision the following day, reportedly because the window replacement was already on a planned programme. It did not update the resident, despite having promised an update within 5 working days. Whilst the landlord was entitled to observe its planned programme, it should have updated the resident and explained what it planned to do to resolve her concerns in the meantime. The landlord had unfairly raised the resident’s expectations, and because she was vulnerable she may have needed extra support or reasonable adjustments, which it cannot evidence it considered.
In October 2022 the landlord raised a further repair after contact from the resident, which it later cancelled after several unsuccessful attempts to schedule the appointment. After this time, there is no evidence the landlord progressed the issue or updated the resident until December 2023, over 12 months later. The landlord stated in its final complaint response that during this time there was a (delayed) referral to its surveyors for a subsidence inspection and a window repair raised, but it cannot evidence this and acknowledged it had not updated the resident at the time.
The landlord’s communication fell below expected standards. It failed to keep the resident informed about key decisions, including the reversal of its commitment to replace windows and the outcome of the April 2023 subsidence inspection. The prolonged gap in communication from November 2022 to December 2023 left the resident without updates, causing significant distress and uncertainty. The landlord had previously acknowledged the resident’s frustration after numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact her housing officer for updates, but the communication continued to be inadequate until the stage 2 complaint response when we saw some improvements. While the use of text message reminders and on-route notifications for repair appointments was a positive communication tool used by the landlord, these measures did not compensate for the lack of timely progress updates regarding scope, timeframes, or interim arrangements.
After the resident complained in October 2023, citing concerns for her children’s health due to the condition of the windows, the landlord was proactive in arranging an inspection. Although it had been aware of the condition of the windows from a previous inspection, it was appropriate to re-inspect and ascertain the current condition in case of any further deterioration. This inspection again confirmed significant defects, identifying the need to replace windows in the living room, kitchen, and bedrooms. It also identified settlement in the building (subsidence). This supported the resident’s reports of drafts, condensation and mould.
In December 2023 the landlord said it did not dispute that the windows needed replacing, but it had to address the issues of subsidence found at the property before it could progress this. It raised an order to carry out interim responsive works as a temporary measure, including installing draft excluders to the windows. It made a communication plan with the resident to ensure consistent updates and clear expectations. This positive approach helped maintain transparency, reduce uncertainty, and re-build trust with the resident.
In January 2024, the landlord’s internal records noted that the windows had been draught-proofed and did not require replacement, which directly conflicted with the October 2023 inspection findings and observations made by its contractor in December 2023. Between September 2022 and January 2024 the landlord had changed its position on the window replacement 4 times but had not updated the resident. This inconsistency appears to have been caused by communication gaps between the landlord’s responsive repairs and planned maintenance departments. This also led to delays in its decision-making.
Furthermore, the landlord’s internal comments that the resident should “vent the property and have the heating on” in January 2024 inappropriately attributed the issues to lifestyle factors rather than addressing the known defects. This position placed unfair responsibility on the resident despite clear evidence of property-related causes. These actions represent significant communication failures, both internally and with the resident. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to review our Spotlight Report on “Damp and Mould – It’s not a lifestyle”, which calls for landlords to adopt a shift from blaming residents to taking responsibility, to restore trust and safeguard residents’ health and wellbeing.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord gave the resident a written summary of the next steps and an estimated timeline. It set expectations by explaining that subsidence can take time to investigate, which was a fair approach and showed improved communication and constructive planning. Since the close of the landlord internal complaints process, the windows have been replaced at the property. The landlord also put a clear plan in place to investigate and monitor the subsidence at the property in the longer term.
Although the landlord improved its communication at Stage 2 of the complaints process and eventually completed the works, this does not make up for the earlier long delays and poor communication. Overall, these failures show a breakdown in service and accountability, which amounts to maladministration. However, in its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its mistakes, apologised, and offered £900 compensation for the delays, disruption, and poor communication. This offer was in line with our remedies guidance and, in our view, provided a fair resolution to the complaint. We have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows, and this finding is conditional upon the landlord making the payment of compensation it has offered.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access to the communal front garden
Finding	No maladministration

On 26 October 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection at the property and noted obstacles (plant pots) on the path which constituted a safety hazard, citing the need for their removal. The tenancy agreement states residents must not leave or store any items in communal areas, and the landlord is entitled to remove and dispose of any such items, including plants and pots.
In November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that her neighbour had blocked access to her gas meter in the communal front garden and had obstructed her means of emergency escape from the property.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said its housing team had been in contact with the neighbour and put actions in place. It confirmed the garden was communal and for all residents to enjoy and asked the resident to report any further concerns about access so it could address the issue in line with the conditions of tenancy agreements.
The landlord’s initial response to communal garden access concerns was proportionate, given it inspected, identified hazards, engaged the neighbour, and clarified communal rights. Since the close of the internal complaints process we can see that the landlord continued to progress this matter by taking appropriate action, we have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s policy states it must acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and contact the resident to clarify the scope of the complaint after a further 1-2 working days. The landlord failed to do this at either stage which is contrary to its procedure and a complaint handling failure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2023, 42 working days after the resident had complained. This was outside of its procedure which allowed 10 working says to provide a full response.
The resident indicated she remained dissatisfied with the condition of the windows on 8 December 2023 and said she did not accept the offer of compensation. The landlord should have accepted this as escalation of her complaint but failed to acknowledge this.
Despite our intervention in January 2024, the landlord delayed issuing its stage 2 complaint response, which was finally provided on 23 February 2024. This was 51 working days later and not in line with the 20-day response timeframe in its complaint procedure.
In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and escalation request and offered £100 compensation. This offer was in line with our remedies guidance and, in our view, provided fair resolution for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and escalation request. We have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling and this finding is conditional upon the landlord making the payment of compensation it has offered.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Good record-keeping is essential for clear communication, accountability, and protecting vulnerable residents. Decisions should be logged with dates, reasons, and next steps. The landlord should consider its processes around how it maintains consistency in its records and shares information across teams to avoid future confusion and delays where responsive repairs overlap with planned maintenance.

Communication

Operational tools such as text message reminders are helpful, but they should be used alongside consistent progress updates. The landlord should review its repairs communication processes to ensure residents receive clear timelines and regular updates at key stages of the repair journey.