A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202340670)

Decision
Case ID	202340670
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported her neighbours had family members staying with them permanently which she described as a source of disturbance and annoyance to her. She also reported experiencing anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise disturbances from her neighbours. The resident has a number of physical and mental health disabilities which she has disclosed to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of ASB, noise and overcrowding relating to a neighbours’ property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, noise and overcrowding relating to a neighbours’ property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, noise and overcrowding relating to a neighbours’ property

4. The landlord did not recognise the resident had made reports of ASB, overcrowding and noise issues earlier in November and December 2023. There was a delay in responding to the reports.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed in issuing complaint responses. Its responses contained some inaccuracies. It opened a new complaint which covered issues that should have been addressed previously.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

 

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 (inclusive of the £50 it previously offered but did not pay to the resident) made up as follows: £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its handling of reports of ASB and noise from the neighbours and overcrowding at their property. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2024	The resident made a complaint to the landlord that: Her neighbours had a lot of people “permanently staying over”. The children were loud and kept her awake at night which was affecting her mental health. The landlord had not taken action despite her previous reports.
6 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said there might be a delay in issuing the complaint response.
27 March 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response as follows: It apologised for the delay in its response. It had no record of any previous reports of ASB about dogs barking from the resident. It asked her to provide a full account of what had happened and when, following which it could consider further action.
28 March 2024	The resident wrote to explain that she had never complained about barking dogs as the noise was coming from the neighbours themselves. She said she had not reported the ASB previously despite it having gone on for years.
17 April 2024	The resident wrote again to ask for escalation of her complaint. She said there was a ‘foul smell’ coming from the neighbouring property and a child had been kicking a football against a wall. She sent in an audio recording of this alleged noise.
29 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
31 May 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response as follows: It apologised for the delay in the complaint response. It had tried to contact the resident for details on the reported ASB but had had no response. It did not have previous reports of the alleged ASB. It had listened to her audio recording but did not consider it sufficient evidence to take action. Staff would reach out to her again to arrange a suitable time for discussion and to obtain more information.
3 June 2024 (Referral to the Ombudsman)	The resident referred the matter to our service.
8 September 2024	The resident made a further complaint to repeat her concerns about the landlord not taking action against her neighbours’ overcrowding.
23 September 2024	The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response. It said: It carried out unannounced visits to the neighbours on 5 August and 3 September 2024, but was unable to gain access. It would continue to investigate the alleged overcrowding issues. It advised the resident on how to report any future noise nuisance/ASB, providing contact information of the relevant teams.
Between 8 May and 27 June 2025	The resident made another complaint about the landlord’s lack of response to her reports of overcrowding/ASB by the neighbours.
27 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident reported the neighbours’ overcrowding in December 2023 but it only got in touch with her in February 2024. It said it completed unannounced home inspections and found no evidence of overcrowding or breach of tenancy by the neighbours. It offered £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its failure to respond to her initial reports caused.

 

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 handling of the reports of ASB, noise and overcrowding relating to a neighbours’ property
Finding	Service failure

What we have considered

6. We have considered the landlord’s actions from December 2023 to 27 June 2025. We have seen records up to that date and can see that after completion of the stage 2 complaints process on 31 May 2024, the landlord carried out further actions. It also opened two more related complaints and issued more responses to the resident. As they all relate to the same issues, we have considered these actions as a whole.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, noise and overcrowding relating to a neighbours’ property

7. The landlord stated in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it did not have records of the resident previously reporting any alleged overcrowding/ASB. It said it had been unable to obtain more information from her. This was inaccurate, as the landlord was later able to confirm she had in fact made reports in November and December 2023.
8. However, we also note the resident had herself told the landlord she had not made previous reports. The communication between the parties was at times confusing, which may have affected the landlord’s responses. It was only after issuing its stage 2 response that the landlord clarified that the resident had in fact been reporting the alleged ASB/overcrowding issues to its neighbourhood team.
9. The landlord did not keep updated records. There was an internal lack of communication, which led to a delay in its taking action to address the alleged ASB/ overcrowding issues. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience and confusion.
10. After the landlord issued its final complaint response, its subsequent actions were reasonable. It carried out unannounced home inspections to try to collect evidence on the alleged ASB/ overcrowding issues. It kept the resident updated on its findings and tried to manage her expectations in a fair manner, explaining that in the event of confirmed overcrowding, it would send a warning letter rather than evict the neighbours immediately.
11. The landlord reviewed the video evidence sent by the resident and explained to her that the footage only appeared to show guests coming and going, which it said was not a breach of tenancy. It also explained how she could provide further evidence of alleged noise/odour issues. There is no record that the resident engaged with the relevant teams to make further reports of noise/odour issues.
12. In May 2025, when the landlord was able to gain access to the neighbours’ property and confirmed there were no overcrowding or hygiene issues, it wrote to the resident to provide an update. This was a positive step to confirm there were no further actions needed to resolve the alleged issues.
13. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that it missed the resident’s reports back in late 2023. It only stated in a new stage 1 response letter in June 2025 that it should have responded to the reports in December 2023 sooner. It apologised to her and offered £50 in recognition of any upset and inconvenience this might have caused.
14. We consider the landlord should have further acknowledged that it originally missed her reports back in November/December 2023 and that it did not address them when she made a formal complaint. It missed an opportunity to respond at an earlier stage, investigate the reports and intervene through its internal complaints process. The lack of response caused distress and inconvenience for the resident which was significant in light of her vulnerabilities.
15. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of alleged ASB, noise and overcrowding issues from the neighbours. We have made orders for it to make a further apology for this and to pay the £50 which it offered to her in June 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint both at stages 1 and 2. At stage 1 it delayed by 5 working days. At stage 2, it delayed acknowledging her complaint by 4 working days and issuing the final response by 5 working days. There was no record that it contacted the resident to say it needed an extension at any point. It apologised for this delay in its responses.
17. Both complaint responses contained inaccuracies. As noted above, at both stages the landlord stated the resident had not reported the alleged overcrowding/ASB before, which was inaccurate.
18. The landlord later opened a new complaint for the resident and issued a stage 1 response in June 2025. This was more than 1 year following its original stage 2 response (May 2024). However, this response addressed some of the events from late 2023 and early 2024, which should have been considered during the original complaint.
19. It was positive that the landlord’s later complaint response acknowledged that it failed to respond in good time to her initial reports. However, it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code to open a new complaint about matters that were or should have been considered in an earlier complaint. By June 2024, the resident had already referred the matter to us. Opening a new complaint about the same issues complicated the process unnecessarily and caused confusion.
20. If the landlord wished to address the issue after conclusion of its internal complaints process, it should have written to the resident and us to explain it had identified a failing which it previously overlooked and would like to offer remedy.
21. Due to the reasons stated above, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order above for the landlord to apologise for this and pay compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and information management (KIM) set out that landlords should ensure its databases are capable of adequately capturing information about residents (including vulnerabilities) and repairs. Staff should be able to easily access information they require as this is essential for evidence-based decision-making.
23. In this case, if the landlord had kept centralised records of the resident’s reports of alleged ASB, noise and overcrowding issues earlier, it could potentially have provided a more informed response and carried out the appropriate actions sooner.