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 (202342384)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342384

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

17 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the communal roof above the resident’s home.
    2. Response to his concerns about pigeons nesting in the roof cavity above his property.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a low-rise block. The landlord is a housing association. We have asked the landlord to provide a copy of the lease on 3 occasions. It has failed to do so but it has not disputed that the resident is a leaseholder. Records show it has also not disputed it is responsible for carrying out repairs to the communal roof which affects the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord has not advised it is aware of the resident’s household having any vulnerabilities. However, he has advised he has young children under the age of 3 and his wife was pregnant during the period covered by this investigation.
  3. On 29 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that “3 meter long roof panels” had fallen from the roof. He asked the landlord to attend and clear the debris on the ground caused by the fallen tiles and to organise a roof repair.
  4. On 15 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said there were pigeons nesting in the roof. He was losing heat from his home because the roof was “open”, this particularly affected his children’s room. He asked when the roof would be fixed as it had been “months” since his initial report.
  5. The resident appeared to re-send the same email on 3 November 2023. An autoreply said the landlord would contact him within 2 working days. It wrote to him again on 16 November 2023 to confirm it had logged a complaint.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2023. It said the complaint was about “delays in undertaking repairs…in the main roof” and pigeons entering “the communal loft area”. As a resolution, it understood the resident wanted the repairs to be completed. It made the following findings:
    1. Its records said the repair was “first reported on…10 November 2023”. It had raised an inspection to “assess the roof repair” and it “committed” to completing any repairs by 19 December 2023.
    2. Regarding the pigeons in the loft, it said they would move on “once they are disturbed”. If this did not happen, relevant teams would “work together and make arrangements for them to be removed”.
    3. It said it would consider the complaint closed “on satisfactory completion of the promised works” but clarified it had not upheld the complaint.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions during December 2023. He cited difficulty contacting the landlord and contractor, said his home was “freezing cold day and night” and his heating bills had increased. The property’s condition was “unacceptable”, and his toddler and pregnant wife were “sick all the time”. The landlord replied on 20 December 2023 to advise “works (had) been authorised” and would be booked in “as soon as possible”.
  8. On 2 February 2024 the resident asked for an update. He reiterated that his living conditions were unacceptable. He said the only contact he had from the landlord and contractor was “emails with…completion dates that have never materialised”. He asked for his complaint to be “continued”. The landlord acknowledged the email as a complaint escalation request on 5 February 2024. It said it would provide a response by 29 February 2024.
  9. The resident chased the complaint response on 1 March 2024. The landlord replied 3 days later. It apologised for the fact the “investigation (was) taking longer” but did not provide a new target date.
  10. On 29 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It was “sorry to note the details of the case” and made the following findings:
    1. There had been “significant internal miscommunication and failed communication with contractors”, which had caused delays.
    2. A new team of roofing contractors had recently attended and were “in the process of arranging for asbestos in the roof” to be removed. While this work took place, “any evidence of…pigeon habitation” would be removed. Any affected areas would then be sealed to prevent their return.
    3. The contractors had been asked to provide the landlord with a quote and works would be “expedited” once this was received. The landlord would update the resident when it had a “clearer understanding of the timeline for carrying out the works”. It expected repairs to be complete within 2 months.
    4. Having reviewed the case, it was “extremely disappointed to read the details”. It offered “sincere apologies” for the fact it had failed to provide a good service. To resolve the complaint, it offered £590 compensation:
      1. £240 to reflect the delay in completing repairs.
      2. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
      3. £100 for the breakdown in internal communications.
      4. £100 for its poor communication with the resident.
      5. £50 for the delay in providing complaint responses at stages 1 and 2.
    5. Following the complaint, it said it had provided further staff training regarding record-keeping and communication.
  11. Landlord records show it wrote to all residents in the resident’s block regarding roofing works on 25 July 2024. It said there had been a delay in starting the unspecified repairs and it now needed a larger scaffold. It would then “effectively undertake all of the works required which include asbestos removal, pest control works, insulation and roofing works”. It said “an internal funding review” was required and it would provide “regular progress updates”.
  12. When providing information to this investigation in February 2025, the landlord’s repair records did not indicate that repairs had been completed. We later asked it for further clarity around any works completed, but it did not respond. The February 2025 update did clarify that “no pest control works (had) taken place” regarding reports of pigeons nesting in the roof space. It said the issue was related to a “repair and…no proofing has been identified at this time”.
  13. In an update provided in April 2025, the resident told us he had now instructed solicitors as the roof was still not fixed. The landlord had been sent a letter before action in March 2025. He had not received any recent correspondence from the landlord. He said the fact the repair remained outstanding meant the property was so cold his wife and 2 young children were staying abroad.

Scope of investigation

  1. In this case, the landlord issued its final complaint response in May 2024. That marked the end of its internal complaint procedure (ICP), and we have not seen evidence that events which took place after May 2024 have been the subject of any further complaint(s) from the resident. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may use our discretion to consider events which occurred after the end of the ICP, where there is evidence subsequent events arise from the matters originally complained about. In this case, the events between May 2024 and April 2025 are linked and centre around the same issue – the resident’s request for the roof to be repaired. We have therefore decided to consider events up to and including April 2025 within our investigation.
  2. We note the resident raised concerns about the effect the delayed repairs, and the reported resultant heat loss from his property, have had on the health of his family, particularly his young children. While the distress this may have caused is acknowledged, we will not consider this aspect of the complaint. This is because the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury or illness. Independent medical experts can be appointed to give evidence and indicate whether there is any causal link between a landlord’s action or inaction, and any reported health concerns.
  3. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.
  4. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident also raised concerns over communal lighting and a tree affecting his garage. These were not raised by the resident in the original complaint. The landlord declined to consider these concerns within its stage 2 response for this reason. It was entitled to take this position and, as such, we will not consider these issues within this investigation. However, we note the resident did raise these issues when he first reported the fallen roof tiles in June 2023. We therefore recommend the landlord contacts the resident to establish whether these issues are still ongoing and/or whether he wishes to log a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. When a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress it offered “put things right” and resolved the complaint in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Records show the resident first reported an issue with the roof on 29 June 2023. There is no evidence this was acted upon. When the landlord did not uphold the complaint at stage 1, it said the resident had not reported the issue before November 2023 and there had been no service failing. The evidence seen shows this was not a fair reflection of events. Whether this was because of poor record keeping or the lack of a thorough investigation, the landlord’s complaint response was inaccurate and would likely have caused the resident frustration. The facts which informed the landlord’s decision to not uphold the complaint were not backed up by the evidence it held within its own records.
  3. Given the evidence showed that issues with the roof were reported in June 2023, the landlord failed to respond appropriately as 5 months passed before it raised a repair order. We note it only did so after the resident complained. Its response was inappropriate, and the resident was caused time and trouble in contacting the landlord to chase the repair. The landlord missed the opportunity to respond at an earlier date. Its error was compounded when it failed to acknowledge this delay in either of its complaint responses.
  4. When the landlord did raise an order, it classed it as a standard priority repair and an appointment was booked for 11 December 2023. The appointment date was in line with its responsive repairs policy, which set a 20 working day target. However, although a contractor attended on 12 December 2023, works were not progressed. By the time the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024, 138 working days (accounting for holidays) had passed, yet the repair remained outstanding. The stage 2 complaint response acknowledged “significant internal miscommunication” and communication issues with contractors. Repair records indicate that asbestos was identified within the communal loft space and needed to be removed prior to any works being completed. However, none of these reasons, which were either avoidable or could have been resolved more promptly, justify such a significant delay.
  5. It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the repair delays and the effect this would have had on the resident. It was reasonable that it accepted poor communication, both with its contractors and the resident, had contributed to him receiving a poor service. The offer of an apology and compensation of £590 (of which £540 was related to the delayed repairs) went some way towards “putting things right”, in line with its policies and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It gave an update on the repairs, stating it had arranged for new roofing contractors to carry out the repairs and that it “expected” these to be complete within 2 months. This was reasonable.
  6. However, the repairs were not completed within 2 months. The landlord had also previously set a repair deadline of 19 December 2023 in its stage 1 response. In both complaint responses, the landlord committed to complete the repair by a certain date and on both occasions it did not. This was not appropriate. Records show the landlord repeatedly failed to adhere to repair deadlines it set, both in general correspondence with the resident and as part of steps it committed to by means of putting things right during the complaint procedure. This unfairly raised expectations and would have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. It would have damaged his confidence in any other promises it made in relation to repair deadlines.
  7. Prior to completing this investigation, we asked the landlord to clarify whether roof repairs have been completed. It did not respond. Records show that n December 2023 a contractor submitted a quote for works including renewing a fascia, soffit and guttering, eaves ventilators and 6 interlocking roof tiles. There is no evidence these repairs have been attempted. Repair records show that as early as 6 February 2024, the landlord was aware that an asbestos test was required. While we understand the discovery of asbestos may have delayed roof repairs, there is no evidence it managed this situation effectively.
  8. We also asked the landlord to provide records regarding any asbestos surveys or related works, but it has not done so. Internal correspondence indicated a survey would be sent out “by the end of play today” (6 February) and later indicated that a survey was carried out at some point before 27 April 2024. A case note referred to “Asbestos findings – report attached” and “works required to remove…may cause delays…action plan being reviewed”. It said it was unable to close the resident’s complaint “as yet until we know what is needed re (asbestos) removal”. The stage 2 response sent a month later said a new contractor was “arranging for asbestos in the roof to be safely removed”.
  9. It is accepted a landlord needs to ensure the safe removal of asbestos before works can be carried out. However, at the time of its stage 2 response, 3 months had already passed since it was aware of the presence of asbestos in the loft space. It was unreasonable things had not progressed during that time, as it would have known further investigation and repairs would be needed before repairs to the roof could be completed. The landlord should have prioritised these investigations and considered the effect a delayed roof repair may have had on the resident and his family and the integrity of the building. From the evidence seen, it remains unclear, as of April 2025, whether the asbestos has now been removed. This is an unacceptable delay, for which the landlord has not provided any satisfactory explanation.
  10. Aside from the delayed repairs themselves, we have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the fact the resident’s wife was pregnant, or that there were young children in the home when it was managing the repair or calculating its compensation offer. This was particularly concerning as the resident said it was his children’s bedroom that was affected by the reported heat loss and the smell from the pigeons nesting above. As there is no evidence it considered how the situation impacted on a vulnerable household, it cannot show it acted in line with its responsive repairs or compensation policies. This was not appropriate and meant the resident was not treated fairly.
  11. Similarly, there is no evidence it considered the resident’s concerns about reported heat loss at all, nor the fact that his heating bills had increased as a result. It could have contacted him to discuss this further at any time, such as asking him to submit utility bills. Aside from the time taken to complete the repair and the inconvenience this caused, the landlord cannot show its overall response, and its final compensation offer considered all the relevant issues and concerns raised. This did not treat the resident fairly. As a result, we do not consider its offer of £540 compensation at stage 2 was reasonable redress.
  12. As there is still no evidence repairs have been completed – now almost 2 years since the resident first reported tiles falling from the roof – we have made a finding of severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal roof above the resident’s home. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation that more fairly reflects the effect of its failure to carry out works between June 2023 and May 2024, and its ongoing failure to complete the repair by April 2025. It is also ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this case and draw up an action plan for completing all repairs – and proofing works – within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons nesting in the roof cavity above his property

  1. Records show the resident first reported pigeons nesting in the roof cavity in October 2023. The landlord said in its initial complaint response that it believed the pigeons would “move out once they are disturbed” by the roof repairs. It said its Neighbourhood and Environmental Services teams would liaise and “make arrangements for (the pigeons) to be removed” is that was not the case.
  2. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable. Internal correspondence shows it considered the matter was related to the roof repair and that it believed once works were completed, any issues with pigeons would also be resolved. In our opinion, this was a reasonable position for it to take as proofing works may not have been effective while the hole in the roof remained.
  3. However, this position became unreasonable once it was clear roof repairs were delayed and unresolved. In its original response, the landlord said its Neighbourhood and Environmental Services teams would be able to look at the issue if the pigeons were not scared away by the repair work. But there is no evidence it took further steps to deal with, or investigate, the resident’s reports. The landlord’s records do not evidence that it inspected the roof, engaged with pest control service or even properly considered the concerns raised regarding the noise and smell the pigeons were reportedly causing and the effect this had on his pregnant wife and young child. While its stage 2 response said new contractors would clear away “evidence of pigeon habitation” and seal “any affected areas”, this has not yet happened. As a result, the landlord cannot demonstrate its response was appropriate and that it treated the resident fairly.
  4. In an update to this service, the landlord confirmed that “no pest control works have taken place”. It said the issue related to a roof repair and “no proofing has been identified (as being needed) at this time”. This was not a reasonable position and was not in line with the July 2024 update it provided to residents within the block. When roof repairs were not progressed in a timely manner, it should have shown a joined-up approach and reassessed the situation regarding the pigeons’ reported presence in the loft cavity.
  5. Over a near 2 year period, the landlord would have missed multiple opportunities to recognise the potential for ongoing, and increasing, disruption to the resident and his family. Its failure to do so was unacceptable. The lack of evidence that it addressed his concerns in any meaningful way would have been left the resident feeling he was not being listened to.
  6. Due to the lack of action the landlord took regarding the pigeons in the loft cavity above his property and the resulting effect their presence was having on the resident and his family, we have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. It is also ordered to apologise to him and carry out an inspection of the roof cavity. It should clarify whether it will take any interim steps to address the issue while the roof repairs remain outstanding and what steps it will carry out once the repair is complete, such as any cleaning or redecorating of affected areas in the roof cavity and within the resident’s home.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £50 to reflect the delays in providing its responses at stages 1 and 2. While it was positive the landlord acknowledged the delays, in our opinion this did not adequately reflect the length of delay at stage 2, around 4 months, or the lack of updates. Records show the resident had to chase the landlord when the original target date expired as he had not been updated. This was unreasonable. While it advised the complaint had taken longer than 20 working days to investigate, it failed to explain why or provide a timeframe for when he should expect the response. This was not in line with section 4.26 of its complaints policy. It also failed to provide a reason why it needed more time.
  2. Additionally, as noted above, the landlord’s stage 1 response was at times factually incorrect. It said the resident had not reported any issues with the roof before November 2023, which was untrue. This appeared to be the reason it declined to uphold the complaint and as such, its decision was flawed. This was either an indication of a poor complaint investigation or poor record keeping.
  3. The landlord’s responses also failed to fully address concerns raised regarding the loss of heat in the property, the noise and smell from the nesting pigeons and the impact of these things on his family. Its responses gave no indication these issues had been considered, although its initial summary of the complaint had noted heat loss as one of the concerns raised. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not fully address the complaint.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were poor. While it did offer a small amount of compensation for providing both responses outside of target, this did not reflect the level of delay at stage 2 or address the other failings identified. We have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to better reflect the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal roof above the resident’s home.
    2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons nesting in the roof cavity above his property.
    3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report regarding its handling of the roof repair and its response to the reports regarding pigeons nesting above his property.
    2. Pay the resident £2150 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £1500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs and the time and trouble that the resident has incurred in pursuing this (including £50 for each month they have remained incomplete since the initial report in June 2023).
      2. £400 for the failure to appropriately address reports regarding pigeons and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused.
      3. A further £150 to better reflect its poor complaint handling and impact on the resident.
    3. These awards are in addition to, not instead of, the £590 previous offered.
  2. The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, carry out a further inspection of the roof cavity and draw up an action plan for any identified outstanding works. It should share a copy of the action plan with the resident and this service.
  3. The landlord is then ordered to complete all identified outstanding works, including asbestos removal if this has not been done already, within 12 weeks of the completion of the inspection and action plan ordered in paragraph 44

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss the reported issues with communal lighting and a tree affecting his garage. It should establish whether the issues are still ongoing and whether he wishes to log a new complaint so these can be addressed.