A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202339265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339265

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

6 October 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 response to:
   1. the resident’s request for information it held about legal proceedings that commenced in 2015.
   2. the resident’s concerns that its contact was intimidating and a form of harassment.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of her associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 3 October 2011. She lives in a 1-bedroom flat. The resident told the landlord during the complaint process that she is disabled and terminally ill. She also said this impacts her ability to remember things.
4. Between January 2023 and October 2023 the landlord conducted home visits and sent the resident written communications. These were about a variety of matters including fire safety checks, property condition surveys, upcoming building remediation repairs, and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. The resident made a complaint on 6 November 2023 because:
   1. She had felt harassed since the beginning of her tenancy by the landlord’s contact by telephone, letter, and in person.
   2. She said in the past month she had been unnecessarily disturbed by home visits about a leak she had not reported. She felt the landlord had sent “rude, accusatory, denigrating” communications about this.
   3. She referenced letters she had received from the landlord that she felt were threatening. She said it had called her  “dangerous”, a “drug addict” and had accused her of “allowing dogs to urinate under the communal stairs”.
   4. She said it had also threated to “patrol with trained dogs” and enter her property whether she was at the property or not.
   5. She had concerns that the landlord had not responded to her historic freedom of information request. As she had not been given a file of information she requested. And she felt the landlord had historically lied in court about her character.
   6. She wanted the landlord to put all its communications in writing because she struggled to remember things.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 December 2023. It said:
   1. It was sorry if the resident felt harassed by its communications and it did not intend to make her feel this way. But it did not find its recent contact unreasonable.
   2. Her housing officer had knocked her door recently to provide an update about safety issues affecting the block. It added several homes were visited that day.
   3. It had sent generic letters to all homes in the block regarding reports of antisocial behaviour. This was to explain its expectations around cannabis use and to invite residents to support its investigations.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2024 because:
   1. The landlord had “refused” to address all of her complaint. Including that it had “threatened her with the authorities”.
   2. There had been recent appointments where “large muscular men” had attended for no good reason, and this caused distress to her son.
   3. She felt the landlord’s leaflet explaining it intended to patrol around the building with dogs was active harassment.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 March 2024. It said:
   1. Its stage 1 response had focused on the “harassment element”. And had explained why her housing officer had knocked the door in October 2023 as well as why regular communications were issued to residents.
   2. It had reviewed the recent home visits and had found that it was legally obligated to carry out certain checks under building legislation. Including checks to the integrity of her front door, the alarm system, and providing the resident with its engagement strategy.
   3. It had reviewed its written communication and explained that it had issued generic letters to all residents to notify them of what it was doing to address ASB. But it had not singled the resident out as an individual. This was also the case when it provided general updates about the property through emails and newsletters.
   4. It could not find evidence to substantiate she had been harassed. And that all its actions had been carried out for a legitimate reason. It said it needed to communicate with her about certain things, particularly when it came to building and fire safety.
   5. It was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act as a social housing provider. But the resident could make a subject access request for her personal information. It provided her with instructions and a form to do this.
   6. It wanted to call her to discuss her communication preferences to make her feel as “comfortable as possible”.
9. The resident referred her complaint to us because she felt the landlord had harassed her. She wanted to be compensated for the impact of this on her mental and physical health. She also explained that it had lied in previous court proceedings about her character and had not provided her with her “full file” despite being ordered to by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). She wanted it to comply with the ICO’s ruling.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

10. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
11. The resident explained that she had made an information request to the landlord about legal proceedings it had commenced against her in 2015.  She said she had referred the matter to the ICO, who had told her that the landlord needed to disclose the “full file” to her. She said the landlord had not done so.
12. Our Scheme states at paragraph 42.j. that we may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
13. The UK’s independent authority responsible for upholding information rights is the ICO. The resident’s concerns are about the outcome of a decision made by this body, and what she says is a failure by the landlord to comply with its order. We cannot order the landlord to perform actions related to a decision made by the ICO. Therefore, she should contact them for further assistance about this. As this issue falls within the jurisdiction of another regulator, we cannot investigate this complaint.

Scope of the investigation

14. The resident told the landlord in her complaint correspondence that she felt the landlord’s correspondence was also racial discrimination. She also raised a series of concerns about some of the landlord staff, because of their ethnicity and perceived religion.
15. It is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the landlord has or has not committed a hate crime, harassment, intimidation or racial discrimination. We are also unable to make a legal finding under the Equality Act 2010.Should the resident be concerned about any of these issues, she should report this to the police or seek independent legal advice. We will assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practices and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
16. The resident said that her mental and physical health had been impacted by the landlord’s actions. She said she wanted it to compensate her for this. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. And will therefore not be considered as part of this complaint.

Home visits

17. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about some home visits that had occurred. It is noted that the resident feels she has been harassed by the landlord since 2013. We expect residents to raise their complaints in a timely manner, so that the issue can be investigated while it is still ‘live’. We have therefore focussed on events and home visits from January 2023 onwards.
18. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about some home visits that had occurred. The resident said she felt intimidated by men trying to access the property to test the safety of her front door, the fire alarm system in her home and to investigate leaks from neighbouring flats. She explained that she felt the visits were unnecessary, and that the operatives had been intimidating because of their ethnicity and size.
19. The landlord said it had conducted those visits as part of its responsibilities as a social landlord. It explained that the majority of the visits were to ensure it was compliant with building safety legislation. It said it was checking the resident’s entrance door to ensure it could act as a fire door in the event of an emergency. It also noted the resident’s door had not been checked at a previous appointment. It added it was ensuring the fire alarm system was functioning while it was arranging wider fire remediation work to the building. The landlord explained during the complaint process that it was sorry if this had been perceived as harassment and that this was not its intention.
20. We have seen evidence the resident was appropriately given advanced written notice of these appointments. As part of the wider response to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower in 2017, the landlord is legally responsible under the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure the safety of its tenants by enhancing building safety standards in high rise buildings. The measures to test the entrance door and alarm system were being carried out for both the resident’s safety and all the residents in the building. Therefore, we consider the landlord was acting proportionately and appropriately in the circumstances to carry out necessary building safety checks as part of its legal obligations.
21. The landlord also explained its operative was trying to trace a leak at a neighbouring property. Because of this it said it had asked the resident for access to her home to help with its investigations. It later wrote her to all the residents on the same level, explaining it may require access to this effect.
22. We recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and why she may have been worried about the unannounced visit and potential disruption. However, the resident has a contractual obligation in her tenancy agreement to provide access to her property in the event of an emergency. This is so that the landlord can carry out repairs to adjoining properties. Therefore, it was not unreasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to engage with the resident about this issue. We have seen no evidence which suggests that the landlord handled this unreasonably or inappropriately.

Letters

23. The resident explained that she had received letters which had accused her of being a drug addict, throwing items out the window, and keeping pets that were causing a nuisance. And that the landlord had said it would “patrol with dogs”, which she found offensive. She also said she had received a letter where it had told her it could enter her property at any time. She said she felt harassed and intimidated by the landlord communications.
24. The landlord said in its complaint response which letters it had sent and why. It said that the letters and leaflets it sent to the resident was part of raising awareness of ASB issues being experienced at the building. As well as setting out its expectations, obligations of residents under the tenancy agreement, and the measures it was putting in place to deter the ASB. It explained these letters were not directed at the resident specifically nor had it said or implied that the resident was responsible for the ASB.
25. We have reviewed the written communications the resident received from the landlord about these issues. The letters detailed there had been various unacceptable behaviours reported. This included but was not limited to individuals throwing things out of windows, urinating in lifts, and smoking drugs in communal areas. The letters appropriately explained this was a tenancy breach and would be monitored and addressed. We found no evidence that the communications were individualised, or that it was suggested that the resident had carried out these acts. It is also common – and good practice – for landlords to send such generic correspondence when it has received a series of reports, but it is unable to establish who the perpetrators are. We also note the tone of the letters was neutral and generic. The landlord reasonably explained this to the resident during the complaint process.
26. We also understand the landlord sent all residents generic letters about its resident engagement strategy. This included a section where it discussed building safety and the need to carry out remediation works and associated inspections. Some of the letters stated that if it was unable to agree access with residents, it would consider different approaches, including legal action and forced entry.
27. We consider the landlord is legally obligated to have a resident engagement strategy. This so that residents are aware of important safety information and enable them to participate in decisions about the building. Therefore, it was reasonable to provide its residents with information about its strategy.
28. Further, there was no evidence the landlord said it would force entry to the resident’s home. The letter explained that residents would need to provide reasonable access, for it to carry out safety inspections and structural safety related maintenance to keep the building safe. It noted that in situations where access was not provided, it would need to take further action. There was nothing to suggest that this letter singled out the resident. Nor that it would force entry to the resident’s home. We consider the letter was a generic statement intended to explain its position in the event of no access.

Ongoing communications

29. The resident said during the complaint process she wanted the landlord to limit its communications with her. She later said wanted all communications with her to be in writing. The landlord said it could not guarantee all its communications would be in writing as there were circumstances where it may need to engage further with the resident, such as when it is carrying out safety checks at the property. But it offered to call her in its stage 2 response so that it could try to discuss this further. This was to try to agree to an arrangement for communications to make her feel “as comfortable as possible”.
30. We recognise that as part of its responsibilities, the landlord will at times need to contact the resident regarding essential matters. Such as for repairs, safety checks, and other core tenancy functions. This is so that it can provide necessary services to the resident that it is legally obliged to carry out. While it would not be practical to cease all communication, the landlord also recognised it could limit non-essential contact, such as sending newsletters or general updates. This approach reflects a commitment to being responsive and customer focused, while demonstrating a willingness to collaborate with the resident to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement.

Conclusion

31. Overall, we found the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to understand and investigate the resident’s concerns. It also explained its decision making clearly and tried to be fair when coming to a resolution. For these reasons we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

Complaint handling

32. Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time the resident made her complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
    1. Issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
    2. Issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 23 working days of the resident’s complaint. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. Further, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to explain its delay or agreed a revised timeframe to issue its response. This was a departure from its obligations in the Code. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable for it to do so, and to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
34. We recognise, however, the landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 response within 17 working days. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
35. We understand the resident escalated her complaint because she felt the landlord had not answered all the elements she had raised. The landlord recognised it had focused on the harassment element of the complaint in its stage 1 response. It then appropriately went on to address all the concerns the resident had raised, in detail, during its stage 2 response. This included her freedom of information request and each of the visits and letters the resident had explained she was concerned about.
36. However, we note the landlord did not recognise this as a failure in its obligations under the Code to answer the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Nor did it apologise or acknowledge that this caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience progressing the complaint. Instead, it said it did not deem there were any service failures. This was not appropriate in the circumstances. Because of this, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge its failure and to try to put things right.
37. For these reasons we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It must apologise and pay the resident compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures.

Determination

38. In accordance with 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information it held about legal proceedings that commenced in 2015 is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s contact was intimidating and a form of harassment.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

41. Within 28 calendar days the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the impact of its failures in its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £50 to recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.