A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202344702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344702

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident and her claim that these were racially motivated.
2. The resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives alone in a 3 bedroom first floor flat. The block comprises of 3 floors.
The resident has stated the dispute began in September 2022. The neighbour who resides in the top floor flat had installed a video doorbell on the communal entrance door that is shared with both flats. The resident requested the neighbour remove this.
The resident raised a complaint on 4 July 2023 following allegations of ASB made by the neighbour in May 2023. She said the noise allegations about her were false and she asked to see the evidence. She advised the landlord she was living in fear of making any noise in case the neighbour made more allegations.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint with the following findings:
1. After reviewing the noise records, it had found that the noise levels were too high. As a result, it had issued an acceptable behaviour contract for the resident to sign and return.
2. Referencing the reported smell of cannabis, it had advised the neighbour to pass any further incidents to the police to investigate. It acknowledged the resident’s explanation that the smell was due to her use of incense sticks.
3. It confirmed it had opened an ASB case regarding the resident’s counter allegations of an abusive note and her allegation of racially motivated accusations by the neighbour. After investigating, it did not uphold either of these.
4. The neighbour had also referred to being recorded. This related to the resident having a video capture device attached to her front door. The landlord concluded that, after investigation, the previous permission it gave for this device was rescinded.
5. It offered £130 compensation, which consisted of:
  1. £100 for incorrectly giving permission to install the video capture device.
  2. £30 for the failure to respond the resident’s email dated 4 July 2023 about living in fear.
It is unclear from the records exactly when the resident escalated her complaint although she did express continued dissatisfaction on 23 August 2023. In the subsequent stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged she remained unhappy with the following points:
1. Its handling of the ASB investigation against her.
2. Feeling intimidated by her neighbour who she alleged was recording noise from their front door.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. It upheld the complaint and stated the following reasons:
1. It accepted the investigation into ASB allegations made against her had not been thorough. It had also failed to follow its policies during the investigation and did not attempt to monitor noise from the neighbour.
2. It also concluded that the video doorbell installed on the neighbour’s front door could also be used to record sound. As such, it would write to the neighbour to instruct them to remove this.
3. It offered an additional £100 compensation for its failure to follow the ASB procedure.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 28 February 2024. She advised that the landlord had not resolved her reports of ASB regarding her neighbour. She was also still receiving contact from the landlord referencing noise complaints from her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described how the ASB impacted her health. While this Service is 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. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced caused by the landlord’s failures.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will contact the complainant within 2 working days. During that meeting, it will complete a risk assessment to establish whether the report is ASB or whether it should follow its good neighbour policy instead. It will do its best to resolve the issue within 90 days and provide updates every 2 weeks.
The landlord’s good neighbour policy describes situations that would not constitute ASB. It advises these as being situations such as DIY or playing music during reasonable hours (or out of hours if it is a one off event).
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint handling policy. It says that it will acknowledge complaints with 5 working days. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days.

Allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident and her claim that these were racially motivated

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict and improve the experience of its residents. ASB cases are often challenging as options available, or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case, may not be the resident’s preferred outcome. It can become difficult to manage expectations.
The landlord responded appropriately to the initial reports of ASB against the resident by writing to advise her of the allegations. It first contacted the resident on 11 January 2023. It stated it had received 4 complaints in 3 weeks regarding high noise levels along with the smell of cannabis from her property.
After receiving more reports, the landlord issued a block letter on 24 May 2023, before visiting the resident to discuss the reports on 6 July 2023. During its communication with the resident, the landlord referenced audio recordings it used to validate the allegations. This response indicated that the landlord investigated the allegations and reviewed evidence prior to its visit.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident requested evidence of the alleged events. She also contested the fact that music was played at unsociable hours. The landlord responded by providing examples of dates and times where music was recorded within the unsociable hours of 11pm to 7am (as defined in their policy). This was an appropriate response.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It advised that when it receives a report of ASB it will investigate impartially. It stated the following:
1. There was no evidence of racial profiling in regard to allegations of cannabis use within the property. The resident had acknowledged the use of cannabis incense sticks and the landlord concluded this was a reasonable basis for the allegations made.
2. It confirmed its findings regarding the noise levels and had requested the resident sign and return an acceptable behaviour contract along with consideration to reduce the noise moving forward.
3. It acknowledged the delay in responding to an email on 4 July 2023 in relation to the impact the situation was having on her health. It had referred the case to its customer well-being team for regular check-ins and apologised for the delayed response. It also offered £30 compensation.
4. The resident declined the mediation offered by the landlord.
This was a reasonable response from the landlord. It shows that it had given due regard to the allegations, interviewed both parties and relied on relevant evidence to make its conclusions. Its offer of compensation was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for a delay of a short duration.
Having received further allegations of noise complaints on 22 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She stated that the neighbour was making recordings from the hallway outside her front door and requested the landlord complete additional investigations.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and concluded it had not completed a thorough enough investigation as follows:
1. It stated it had not independently validated the allegations with other neighbours.
2. It accepted that a noise app tool should have been used for this and not just phone recordings.
3. To correct this, it had advised both the neighbourhood officer and neighbour of the correct procedure and evidence required for future reports.
4. It also reconsidered the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased this by £100 for failing to follow its procedure.
This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It was positive for it to acknowledge its service failures and award compensation for this. The offer of £100 was reasonable and reflects the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for a failure which caused time and trouble.
Although there were failings in the landlord’s investigation, it sought to address these by providing relevant training and information to both staff and the neighbour. It also awarded proportionate compensation. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint about its handling of allegations of ASB about the resident and her claim that these were racially motivated.

The resident’s reports of ASB

It is not in dispute that the resident made a counter allegation of ASB against her neighbour on 19 July 2023. The allegations involved a note that the neighbour had left on the resident’s door. The resident felt this note was abusive in its tone. The allegations also included the use of video devices. She has also referred to loud music, noise from above and lingering at her front door.
The landlord addressed some allegations as part of its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It concluded that the note left by the neighbour did not contain any abusive or foul language. It appropriately advised that the sending of a note does not constitute a breach of tenancy and it could not take any further action regarding this. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and is in line with its good neighbour policy on residents taking the first steps to resolve disputes.
The landlord provided a more detailed explanation of its stance involving video doorbells. It advised the resident that, due to privacy regulations, it needed to revoke the previously granted permission for her device. This was due to the neighbour having to pass the resident’s front door to access their own flat. As such, she was asked to remove the device by 31 August 2023. This was an appropriate request from the landlord.
The landlord accepted it had incorrectly given the resident permission to install the device. As such, it offered £100 compensation for its mistake. This is a reasonable offer and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for a minor failure that does not affect the overall outcome.
However, the landlord confirmed that, while it had asked the resident to remove her video device, the neighbour could retain theirs. It advised that this was due to the location of the neighbour’s flat, meaning no other resident would pass that front door and activate the device. It said it had however requested the neighbour remove a secondary camera overlooking the front of the building. This approach by the landlord created a further divide between the parties in relation to their ASB allegations due to a perceived level of bias.
On 23 August 2023, the resident raised concerns regarding the location that the sound recordings were made from and requested a more comprehensive investigation into the allegations made against her. She stated the recordings could have been made from outside her flat or by the video device on her neighbour’s door.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents such as ASB case notes, risk assessments, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s case. To date, we have only received a log showing around 30 phone calls made between 17 July 2023 and 5 March 2024.
Although there were only limited corresponding notes detailing the conversations, we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it sought to correct its stage 1 findings in relation to the neighbour’s doorbell. It advised that, after further research, it was possible that the device could be used to capture any noise being made within the resident’s property. As such, it advised that the neighbour would receive a request to also remove their device to ensure the same privacy laws were not breached. It was correct for the landlord to review its stage 1 response and to complete further investigations into the devices being used by the neighbour.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have applied the same standard to both residents from the outset. Its failure to thoroughly review this at an early stage and show consistency in its approach likely caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience in search of a resolution.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a victim centred approach when investigating ASB. It aims to contact the party reporting ASB within 48 hours and where possible agree an action plan. It also aims to keep fortnightly contact. The records show that it did have telephone conversations with the resident, but there was no record of a risk assessment, an agreed action plan or a discussion about how it would approach the investigation. This was a failing and likely contributed to the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Its offer of compensation for the incorrect CCTV permission was fair. However, it delayed in addressing the neighbour’s CCTV. Also, there is no evidence that it followed its ASB policy in responding to the counter allegations. It did not record any complainant interview, risk assessment, or action plan. It did not recognise these failures in its stage 2 response. As such, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 for its failure to follow its ASB process.

The associated complaint

The resident raised a complaint on 4 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. This is a period of around 25 working days. This was outside the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. As such, this constitutes a service failure.
On 23 August 2023 the resident requested to escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 18 September 2023, which is 13 working days outside of timescale in its policy. It issued the stage 2 response on 5 October 2023.
The landlord did not addressed these delays in its responses or set out any learning from outcomes or actions it would take to put things right for the resident. As such, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to follow its complaint handling procedure.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The records provided show the landlord failed to appropriately manage the complaint in line with appropriate timescales.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about the resident and her claim that these were racially motivated.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation (inclusive of the £100 it awarded at stage 1 for the incorrect permission for her CCTV device). This is comprised of:
  1. £200 (inclusive of the £100 mentioned above) for the failings identified in its handling of her ASB reports;
  2. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Conduct an interview and risk assessment with the resident to understand the cause of any ongoing ASB and agree an appropriate way for incidents to be addressed.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders in line with the above timescale.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £130 compensation that it offered in its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.