A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202404259)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404259

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 June 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 the:
    1. Resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in August 2001. This is a joint tenancy with her partner, and they are both referred to as the resident in this report. The property is described as a 3-bedroom house. The landlord advised that the resident has physical health conditions. The resident has young children living with them in the property.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould around 9 January 2024. The landlord noted it attended and carried out works. On 4 April 2024 the resident reported that the property was covered in black and green mould and was affecting theirs and their children’s health. The landlord arranged a survey for 24 April 2024, but it said it was unable to access the property.
  3. The resident submitted a formal complaint around 30 April 2024. They said the condition of the property was getting worse and affecting their physical and mental wellbeing. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 28 August 2024. It acknowledged there was a failure in its service provision and assured the resident that works would be undertaken to address the damp. It confirmed a survey had been scheduled for 6 September 2024.
  4. The landlord attended on 6 September 2024 and noted the resident was not home. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 around 15 October 2024.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 7 November 2024. It acknowledged it had failed to re-arrange the survey following the aborted visit on 6 September 2024. It also apologised for the poor communication and assured the resident that the survey would be re-arranged by 13 November 2024. The landlord awarded £525 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due its overall handling of the case.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted

  1. Following a survey on 18 November 2024 the landlord identified mould growth was present in the kitchen, bedrooms, hallway, porch and rising damp in the living room. It recommended works including:
    1. Further investigations to assess the cause of the rising damp, determine if porch roof space is insulated and undertake a full review of the rainwater goods and existing gulleys.
    2. A full mould wash to the affected areas in the property.
    3. Re-lay wool insulation within the loft space where lifted and lay additional insulation to the eaves to prevent cold bridging.
    4. Installing a French drain to the perimeter of the building to further prevent any rainwater penetrating the walls at low-level.
  2. The resident advised us on 6 January 2025 that there had been no progress despite numerous visits by the landlord to the property.
  3. The landlord noted on 27 March 2025 that the resident declined any further visits to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained that the damp and mould issue had been ongoing for many years. She said a survey was conducted 2 years ago, but the landlord did not follow up the works. The resident said she raised a formal complaint in January 2021, but we have not seen evidence that this exhausted the landlord’s complaints process or that she referred the case to us at the time. We have, therefore, considered the events that occurred from January 2024 which were also investigated under the complaints process.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy recognises that when damp and condensation occur, this can lead to mould growth and the potential of a health impact. It further states the landlord will:
    1. Diagnose the cause of damp correctly and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the damp not just the symptom.
    2. Undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements within a reasonable timescale.
    3. The timescale will depend on the severity and urgency of the problem and on the complexity of the solution and the remedial works required.
    4. Provide support to residents whilst living in property that has damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will:
    1. Aim to resolve standard repairs within 20 working days.
    2. Seek to identify vulnerability at the first point of contact through proactive engagement with customers, encouraging their disclosure of matters which need to be considered in the prioritisation of their repair.
    3. It will ensure, at the earliest opportunity, that residents are advised of any changes or delays to their appointment.
  3. Our knowledge and information spotlight report (KIM) highlights how landlords’ services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information. It explains that this can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
  4. Following our review of the evidence, the repairs records provided by the landlord has limited information. The stage 1 response and other internal notes suggest the resident reported damp and mould in January 2024. The landlord also noted it attended and recommended follow-on works, but dates of any appointments or visits, findings from its inspections and works recommended were not recorded in the repairs log. The landlord has not demonstrated it updated its records accordingly in this case. This is not appropriate.
  5. We have not seen evidence of actions taken by the landlord between January and April 2024 following the resident’s report. On 4 April 2024 the resident reported that the walls and ceilings had black and green mould. The landlord’s records indicated it visited on 24 April 2024 but noted it was unable to access the property. While this is noted, the landlord has not demonstrated from the records provided, that the resident was given reasonable notice of the appointment in line with its policies.
  6. The resident complained around 30 April 2024 that the situation was getting worse and starting to affect her physical and mental health. This was approximately 1 week after the unsuccessful visit. The repair had also exceeded the 20 working days timescale published in its repairs policy. Despite the resident’s concerns, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered prioritising the repair due to any vulnerabilities in the household as stated in its policy. This was not appropriate.
  7. The resident expressed ongoing concerns to us on 18 July 2024 and to the landlord around August 2024 that the condition of the property was making her and her daughter unwell. They said the landlord had not taken their concerns seriously or responded to the complaint. It is not appropriate that the landlord had not diagnosed the cause of the damp, determined any remedial works or communicated any reasons for the delay with the resident approximately 8 months after their initial report.The evidence shows this caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience due to the delays and lack of communication.
  8. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response dated 28 August 2024 that it failed to arrange follow on repairs after its initial visit in January 2024. It said a further appointment was not arranged until the resident made contact in April 2024. It also acknowledged that it failed to follow up the matter proactively, when it was unable to access the property on 24 April 2024. The landlord said the delays could have been avoided if it had clear, accurate and up to date records of the repairs. This demonstrates some learning by the landlord.
  9. The landlord emphasised the importance of putting things right and agreed the following:
    1. £350 to be awarded to the resident for the time and trouble, distress, inconvenience and poor communication.
    2. An inspection to take place on 6 September 2024 to assess the extent of works and an action plan.
    3. Improvements to be made to communication between its teams and its residents.
    4. An improvement to its record keeping and the monitoring of repairs as this also has caused a delay.
  10. The actions agreed were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s commitment to put things right. Its contractor attended on 6 September 2024, but it was unable to access the property because the resident was not home. It took reasonable steps in contacting them but aborted the visit after it had waited 25 minutes for the resident to return home. From the evidence available, the landlord did not reschedule the appointment until November 2024. This was after the resident requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2. This was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response on 7 November 2024 that it should have arranged a new survey when it was unable to access the property on 6 September 2024. It apologised and offered an additional £100 for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also assured the resident it was keen to resolve the damp issues and would work with them to arrange suitable appointments due to their hospital appointments and treatment sessions. It advised the resident it would not be able to resolve the issue if access was not granted. This was a reasonable response and showed the landlord’s willingness to work flexibly with the resident due to her health needs.
  12. However, there were further delays by the landlord following its successful survey on 18 November 2024. Although further investigation was recommended, as well as extensive and intrusive works to address the damp and mould, we have not seen evidence that this was communicated with the resident. Given that the landlord’s damp and mould policy may consider temporary decants to facilitate repairs where necessary, we have not seen evidence that it considered this option. Also, the landlord failed to demonstrate it provided support to the resident, who had continuously reported an adverse effect of the damp and mould on their health.
  13. The landlord’s communication with the resident did not improve despite its commitment to make some changes. While its records from January to February 2025 suggests some visits were carried out (possibly a mould wash), the resident continued to express concerns about the repeated visits by surveyors with no clear direction on the next steps. We have seen from the evidence that this had caused the resident frustration and a lack of trust in the landlord. This is noted from the landlord’s contact notes on 27 March 2025 that the resident and their child were unwell and did not want any further visits to the property.
  14. From the evidence seen, the landlord had taken an unreasonable length of time (approximately 14 months) to address the damp and mould in the property. It is noted this was partly due to the resident not being available for the appointments offered on 24 April and 6 September 2024, but it acknowledged it could have done more to engage with her and resolve the repairs.
  15. Despite thecompletion of the survey in November 2024, the landlord has not demonstrated it communicated its action plan with the resident as stated in its stage 1 response. This was a missed opportunity to put things right within a reasonable timeframe.
  16. We recognise the landlord followed its compensation policy in offering £450. This was in line with service failures that have caused extensive disruption and significant effort by the resident to get a resolution. We also welcome the landlord’s learning from the complaints and its commitment to put things right. However, these did not far enough to resolve the issue as it has not evidenced it applied this in respect to the resident’s case.
  17. As of April 2025, the repairs remained outstanding. It is noted that the landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 1 April 2025, asking them to allow access and that failure to comply may result in further action. It would have been reasonable to follow this up with a letter setting out its plan to eradicate the damp and mould in the property.
  18. Due to the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. To address the inconvenience and distress to the resident caused by further delays, we have awarded £750 compensation which replaces the landlord’s offer of £450. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to take reasonable steps to engage with the resident to resolve any outstanding repairs.

The associated complaints

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints handling process. It would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgment.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed. The resident complained on 30 April 2024, but the response was not sent until 28 August 2024. This was approximately 3 months after the complaint was raised, far outside the 10 working days published in its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised for it and offered £25 compensation. The amount offered was below the £50 minimum recommended in its policy for failure to follow its complaints policy.
  3. There was some learning by the landlord as it responded to the stage 2 complaint within the expected timescales. We have not seen a copy of the complaint, but the evidence shows it responded on 7 November 2024 within approximately 17 working days of acknowledging it. The landlord also acknowledged that the £25 offered for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint was not appropriate. It revised this from £25 to £75. These actions were appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s policy highlights the importance of resolving a complaint without the need for escalation. However, it failed to use its complaints process to resolve the outstanding issues at the earliest opportunity. It said in the stage 1 response that it needs to keep residents updated with the reasons for any delays and agree an action to resolve the matter. We have not seen evidence that the landlord put this in practice throughout the complaints process. This was not appropriate.
  5. We have also noted that the stage 2 response slightly contradicted the stage 1 response. There was a clear admission of a service failure in the stage 1 response, where the landlord apologised that it did not do enough to ensure the failed appointment on 24 April 2024 was re-arranged. However, the landlord expressed a different view in the stage 2 response, as it said it had tried to contact her following the appointment but was unsuccessful. This suggested it was going back on its earlier apology. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
  6. Due to the above we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have not awarded additional compensation as the £75 awarded offered by the landlord is in line with our remedies guidance. This is where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not fully put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of our Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £825 (this includes the £425 previously offered) broken down as:
      1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the damp and mould.
      2. £75 for the time and trouble due to its handling of the complaints.
    3. The landlord should follow up the resident’s damp and mould concerns. It must:
      1. Write to the resident with an action plan to address any outstanding repairs.
      2. This should include the schedule of works and the expected timescales for completion.
      3. Assess any risks to the resident being in the property (due to health concerns) while the works are being carried out in line with its damp and mould policy. Where required it should consider alternative accommodation to facilitate the works.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Set out any measures it would put in place to improve its communication and record keeping considering the failures it identified in its complaint handling.
    2. Arrange training to the relevant staff on the importance of adhering to its internal policies and procedures especially when dealing with residents with health issues or vulnerabilities.
    3. Consider measures to assist complaint handlers with monitoring actions agreed following complaint investigations.