From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202332747)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332747

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

16 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the pipework in the kitchen to resolve the resident’s reports of a foul odour and water safety concerns.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 6 October 2014. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor in a purpose-built block. The resident lives with her son who is under 10 years’ old. The resident and her son both have asthma.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, its contractor attended the property on 19 April 2023 to address the resident’s concerns regarding the kitchen pipework. The pipes were descaled and fully cleared during the visit.
  3. On 24 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy about the protracted repair to the pipework that had been reported to the landlord between 2022 to 2023 in the kitchen and that this often caused a foul odour. The resident acknowledged that following this repair the water was cleaner and fresher. She remained concerned about the water quality and had contacted Thames Water who advised that it was an issue that the landlord’s property department would need to resolve. She said that she had been buying bottled water and additional cleaning products due to her concerns.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 28 April 2023. It said:
    1. This was the first time that its new team had been made aware of the issues, and it apologised if its former team had not passed on the concerns.
    2. Its contractor had attended the property on 19 April 2023 regarding concerns about the kitchen sink pipework. The pipework was fully cleared as the resident had advised in her complaint.
    3. It apologised for the delay in resolving the matter and awarded £225 compensation comprising £75 for poor communication, £50 for the quality of the work and £100 for distress and inconvenience.
    4. It had spoken to the relevant team to reinforce service standards.
  5. On 20 September 2023 the resident raised a further complaint about the same issue concerning the kitchen sink pipework and a foul odour. She said a plumber had replaced the tap. She had felt that the issue was either to do with drainage or the tap. She asked if other tenants in the building were experiencing similar issues. She also said that the landlord had refused to raise a works order to investigate the issue with the kitchen pipework and the foul odour.
  6. The landlord responded to the 20 September 2023 complaint sending a second stage 1 response on 17 October 2023. It said:
    1. It apologised that the resident was unable to raise a works order due to a change of contractor. It said that the resident would have been informed of this when she reported the repair. It had raised a works order on receipt of the resident’s complaint and an appointment would be arranged.
    2. It was satisfied that its contractors had resolved the issues raised on each visit. No issue had been found with the water supply and the blockage of pipework was often the cause of slow draining water and odour.
    3. The resident should use a strainer to keep debris out of the pipes. It gave some general advice to use a sink unblocker and to pour a kettle of hot water down the kitchen sink drain once a week.
    4. No other households had reported similar issues.
    5. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 18 October 2023. She advised that both her and her son were experiencing unexplained symptoms such as vomiting episodes and that she was concerned about the safety of the tap water.
  8. The landlord issued its final response on 6 November 2023. The landlord reiterated its response at stage 1 and did not uphold the complaint, other than referencing a delay in acknowledging the complaint and responding at stage 1. It said that there was no reference to a smell ever being reported from the water supply. The landlord said it had raised a new works order to investigate the odour coming from the water from the kitchen tap with a target date of 28 November 2023.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to us on 15 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that her son and her own health has been affected by the issues she has raised concerning the pipework and associated foul odour. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and specific health conditions of the resident’s household.
  2. Matters of liability for damage to health are best suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This investigation does not therefore consider the specific impact on the resident or her son’s health.
  3. The resident mentioned the quality of the water in her complaint. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider issues that are the responsibility of another body. In this case, it is not disputed that Thames Water would be responsible for the quality of water. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
  4. The landlord and resident have both referred to an earlier report from October 2022. However, the landlord has advised us that this related to the bathroom sink and not the kitchen pipework. The resident has raised a separate complaint regarding the bathroom. For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation has focussed on the events from the resident’s report and initial complaint concerning the kitchen sink pipework and foul odour from April 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 6 November 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the pipework in the kitchen to resolve the resident’s reports of a foul odour and water safety concerns

  1. The landlord’s records do not confirm the date of the resident’s initial report of the issue with the kitchen pipework and foul odour. Its contractor descaled and cleared the kitchen pipework on 19 April 2023. The resident reported in her complaint of 24 April 2023 that the completed work made the water cleaner and fresher. However, she still expressed concern about the water quality, and the fact that she used bottled water. She also reported that the water company had said that there was an issue that the landlord needed to resolve.
  2. The landlord awarded compensation in its initial stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023 for a delay in completing this work, along with its poor communication. The landlord’s records do not indicate how long the delay was, nor why the quality of work and communication was poor. The resident said that the repair had been protracted so this indicated that the issue must have been going on for some time. The landlord’s explanation that the identified failings were due to a new team being set up was inappropriate. It should have kept complete and accurate records so that it could provide the correct information to the resident.
  3. The lack of detailed records evidenced that the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The landlord had no records of the email trail that the resident sent to us during our investigation showing that she had emailed the landlord on 1 June 2023 to say that the smell had come back.
  4. This was sent to the complaints team who replied on 5 June 2023 saying no other resident had experienced this and that previously excessive hair and a pencil was blocking the u-bend. This related to the bathroom rather than the kitchen. The resident replied the same day to ask if there was a photo of this. She felt that it could have been a lolly stick and said that maybe the sink water drain dispenser needed changing and asked if this was something the landlord would do. There is no record that the landlord responded to this question. It did however raise a further works order on 5 June 2023 which was appropriate. This may have been when the resident reported on 20 September 2023 that the tap had been replaced. However, there is no record of this work.
  5. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) highlights the importance of keeping accurate records. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and to properly monitor the completion of work. The landlord published a review report on 16 July 2024 in response to a wider order that we issued following similar record keeping and communication issues. The landlord has taken some positive steps to improve its practice. It would be advisable to review this along with its self-assessment based upon our Spotlight report to see if there are further improvements that it can make.
  6. The landlord’s repairing responsibilities are set out within the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in Section 11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Landlords must keep water supply installations, including drinking water, hot water and heating, in good repair. They must also ensure that the property is fit for human habitation at the start and throughout the tenancy according to Section 9A of the same Act. Additionally, landlords must protect against infection and address hazards like sanitation and drainage, as outlined in the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  7. The resident’s subsequent complaint of 20 September 2023 indicated that the issue of a foul odour from the kitchen sink was not resolved. The resident said she felt that the landlord was not taking the issue seriously and that it had told her that it would not open a job for this due to its policy. There is no record that the landlord said that this was the case, so it is not possible to confirm this report. The landlord said that the resident would have been told at the time she reported the repair again that it was changing contractors so there would be delay. However, no records have been seen that evidence that this was the case which was inappropriate.
  8. Our recent Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust (May 2025) highlighted the type of issues we see where there is a change in contractor. We have seen that landlords often use this to explain why there are delays in arranging repairs. The landlord should review this report and its recommendations to enhance trust and collaboration with its residents, staff and contractors. This is relevant in this case since the resident reported that her experience has led to a lack of trust in her landlord.
  9. The landlord’s records evidence that a works order was not raised following the 20 September 2023 complaint until 31 October 2023. Its contractor attended the property on 7 November 2023, 35 working days after the resident raised the issue, but reported that there was no access. It attended again on 15 November 2023, 41 working days after the resident’s report, but there was an error on the associated report. The description of the work to address the blocked kitchen sink did not match the photographs which were of work to the bathroom sink. It is, therefore, not possible for us to determine whether any work was completed to the kitchen pipework at this point.
  10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will complete standard repairs within 20 working days. The delay was therefore not in line with the landlord’s policy. However, there were some mitigating circumstances concerning the change of contractor that impacted on the landlord’s ability to meet the required timescales. Whilst it is understood that this could cause delay, the landlord needed to ensure that there were some business continuity measures in place to meet its policy timescales to ensure a smooth transition between contractors.
  11. The landlord showed a lack of empathy in its complaint responses. It quoted in its complaint response of 17 October 2023 that “on past occasions (emphasis added) excessive hair and a pencil have been found to have been blocking your U-bend”. It is not clear, why the landlord mentioned one repair to the bathroom sink as this was a separate complaint. It was notable in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 November 2023 that the landlord said that “there is no reference to a smell ever being reported from the water supply”. This again demonstrated that the landlord’s poor record keeping given that the resident specifically reported the odour in her earlier complaint of 24 April 2023. This would have made the resident not feel listened to and that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. This is explored further in the complaint handling section below.
  12. The landlord also was dismissive when it responded to the resident’s email of 25 September 2023 when she asked to take her complaint further. The landlord responded by saying that it was not able to help with the resident’s enquiry suggesting she should contact Thames Water.
  13. It is understandable that the resident would feel worried about the pipework in the kitchen supplying drinking water when there was a recurrent foul odour. This was especially the case, since the resident described her and her son’s unexplained symptoms such as vomiting. This also explained why the resident felt the need to spend money on bottled water and additional cleaning products as well as obtaining a water quality report dated 27 September 2023.
  14. Thames Water’s covering letter to the report of 9 October 2023 said that a plumber should conduct some work to ensure the proper backflow protection of the cold kitchen tap. It described the water temperature from the cold tap being “unusually high”. It advised that in line with the Water Fittings Regulations 2009, the cold water pipes should be installed in such a way that the “water will not be warm when it is drawn off the tap”. It suggested a plumber examine the supply to ensure the correct lagging of the hot water pipes to reduce the warming of the cold water system.
  15. Whilst the landlord correctly advised that the water company is responsible for the quality of the water, the landlord could have taken a more proactive approach. It would have been reasonable, as the property owner with responsibility for the installations supplying water into the property, to have contacted the water company directly. In conjunction with this, it could have investigated whether there were any repair issues causing the issues reporting back to the resident to provide reassurance that the property was habitable. Instead, it relied on the resident to provide the water company’s report and associated recommendations.
  16. Shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 6 November 2023, the landlord met the resident at the property on 9 November 2023. The landlord emailed the resident the same day saying it could not smell any odour, and after drinking a glass of the tap water in front of the resident it said this “tasted normal”. It recognised though that this was an intermittent issue. It asked the resident to share the Thames Water report with its contractor. The resident shared the Thames Water report with the landlord on 15 November 2023.
  17. The resident reported to us during this investigation that the issue was still outstanding and that the landlord had not completed Thames Water’s recommended work. The recommended works to put some lagging on the pipework to prevent warm water being drawn from the cold water tap and to ensure proper backflow protection were identified in October 2023. Whilst there was no evidence that the drinking water was undrinkable, the landlord had the had an opportunity to improve the situation in line with the recommendations and to provide a potential resolution. This would have given reassurance to the resident concerning the water safety given her expressed concerns and worry. Those concerns had meant that the resident was continuing to use bottled water despite the landlord’s earlier work completed in April 2023.
  18. The Ombudsman considers that these issues did amount to maladministration for which orders have been made. The landlord had previously awarded compensation of £225 in respect of delays and its communication issues. Its compensation policy states that it can award up to £350 where there is moderate disruption and/or customer effort. This was consistent with its policy at that earlier point.
  19. However, the Ombudsman considers that this does not adequately address the failings that have occurred during the internal complaints process. This includes the delays, communication and record keeping issues and the fact that the issue is unresolved to date. It also fails to account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have considered the resident’s reports and actions taken, but also note that the inspection results did not evidence an issue with the drinkability of the water. We have considered the additional time and trouble in trying to get the landlord to take the issue seriously.
  20. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £600 (inclusive of the £225 previously offered). This comprises £350 in respect of the landlord’s delays and errors identified and £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised an initial complaint on 24 April 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 28 April 2023. This was within the 10-working day response time required by the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It identified some learning that it had shared with its team. This was reasonable.
  2. The resident’s email of 1 June 2023 to the landlord’s complaints team indicated that the issue was unresolved. The landlord needed to consider at that point whether it should escalate the complaint. However, there is no record that this happened or that the landlord checked with the resident that she wanted to escalate her complaint which was inappropriate. The resident raised a further complaint on 20 September 2023 about the same issues. The landlord reset the complaints process back to stage 1. Whilst the resident had not said that this was an escalation request, the complaint was made within 6 months of the previous complaint about the same issue. The landlord failed to recognise this was about the same issue. To go back to stage 1 meant that there was inevitable delay in the complaints process and in the resident being able to refer her case to us. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  3. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. It also caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience along with the time and trouble in pursuing a resolution to the issues raised.
  4. The landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response of 17 October 2023 was delayed as it was sent 20 working days after the resident’s further complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code timescales and was therefore a failing.
  5. The resident specifically requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 18 October 2023. The landlord’s final response was issued to the resident on 6 November 2023. This was within 20 working days of the specific escalation request which would have been reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code. However, as mentioned, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s 20 September 2023 complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process and failed to do so. This meant that it took 34 working days after the 20 September 2023 to issue its final complaint response. The delay was therefore inappropriate.
  6. Whilst the initial complaint of 24 April 2023 was upheld, the resident’s later complaint was not upheld. Therefore, no further compensation was offered. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord could have considered some discretionary compensation in respect of the delays in complaint handling. This could be up to £100 for minor disruption and customer effort to £350 for moderate disruption and customer effort. The landlord whilst acknowledging a delay failed to offer any compensation for this which was inappropriate.
  7. As mentioned above, the landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate empathy with the resident’s situation. It was inappropriate to mention an unrelated repair to the bathroom in its complaint response of 17 October 2023. This also demonstrated that the landlord failed to properly investigate the complaint and the background to it. Further evidence of a poor complaint investigation was when the landlord said in its final complaint response of 6 November 2023 that it had no record of a previous report of a foul odour. This was clearly inaccurate as mentioned when the resident reported this specifically in her earlier complaint of 24 April 2023. It is also further evidence of record keeping failings if the landlord was unable to trace the complaint history.
  8. The Ombudsman considered that these combined failures amount to maladministration for which orders have been made. After carefully considering our Remedies Guidance as above, an appropriate level of compensation is £150. This recognises the additional distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue the complaint. It also is to recognise the avoidable delay and errors in not escalating the complaint appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the pipework in the kitchen to resolve the resident’s reports of a foul odour and water safety concerns.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident from a senior leader in respect of the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident directly £750 compensation (inclusive of the £225 previously awarded). This comprises:
    1. £350 (inclusive of the £225 previously awarded) in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the pipework in the kitchen to resolve the resident’s reports of a foul odour and water safety concerns. This appropriately recognises the delays, poor communication and record keeping.
    2. £250 in respect of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident in trying to get the landlord to resolve the issues of the foul odour and water safety concerns.
    3. £150 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This appropriately recognises the identified failings to escalate and investigate the complaint appropriately, the delays causing the resident distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing a resolution.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the kitchen pipework and to issue a schedule of works detailing any required repairs if it has not already done so. It should refer to the Thames Water report recommendations. It must send a copy of the schedule of works to the resident and to us outlining the expected completion date of any identified repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the recommendations in our recent Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust (May 2025). The landlord should complete a self-assessment based upon this report and its recommendations to enhance trust and collaboration with its residents, staff and contractors.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management, based on our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) along with its own report, to consider whether there is further learning on the management of repairs and record keeping that it can adopt to prevent similar failings.