A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202410392)

Decision
Case ID	202410392
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 May 2026

Background

1. The landlord carried out a kitchen and bathroom refit scheme, following which the resident reported 2 leaks in her property from the flat above. The landlord repaired the leaks while the resident was temporarily accommodated. The resident felt delays caused damp and mould in her home, which damaged her belongings and affected her health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of leaks and subsequent damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks and subsequent damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Report of leaks and subsequent damp and mould

4. The landlord recognised that it failed to deal with the leak in a timely manner. It appropriately put things right by completing the repair work, apologising for its delay, providing proportionate compensation and additional good will gestures.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and unreasonably delayed issuing its complaint responses. It missed an opportunity to reflect on these failures and put things right for the resident.

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 23 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £150 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 offered during the complaint procedure). This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 June 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the £250 compensation it offered to the resident if it has not already done so. Our findings of reasonable redress are based on the landlord doing so. The landlord should also assess the resident’s evidence to compensate for increased electricity costs, once provided.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 22 February and 2 March 2023	The resident complained. She said: She lived in damp and mould for 2 years. The police, paramedics and mental health team were aware of her concerns and impact on her health. The leaks damaged her personal property. She wanted compensation for her health, time and money spent redecorating, and loss of earnings. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2022.
24 April 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It: Upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised that its repairs required her to be decanted. Explained it would not compensate for poor health or loss of learnings. Asked the resident to submit an insurance liability form to claim for damage to her personal property. Confirmed it had learned from the complaint and would improve its service. Offered the resident £250 compensation for delays and inconvenience.
25 May 2023	Acting on behalf of the resident, a clinician disputed the stage 1 decision and the compensation offered. She said the clinic and resident had tried to contact the landlord but were unable to speak to anyone. The clinic was worried about the resident’s mental health and wellbeing due to the distress caused by living in that flat. She requested to meet to discuss the concerns or a call back.
24 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and issued its stage 2 response. It said it: Acknowledged the resident’s concerns in her email of 27 March 2024 and meeting on 9 April 2024 and apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused. Repaired the damage caused by the leaks and carried out extra works as a goodwill gesture. Explained it needed time to identify the source of the second leak. It temporarily moved, the resident and later approved her request for a permanent transfer due to her health. Did not receive a request from the resident to escalate her complaint or return the insurance claim form to claim for damages. Offered to reimburse increased electricity costs and asked the resident to provide her energy bill. As well as an additional £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling. Accepted the resident wanted more compensation but refused claims for redecoration, property damage, health impact, or loss of earnings.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she believed the compensation did not reflect the impact on her.

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	Reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we cannot look at

6. The resident told us ongoing damp and mould in her property caused her hospitalisation and long term health issues. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we can look at

7. The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s legal obligation to keep the structure of the resident’s home in good repair. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
8. The resident told the landlord and us she was living with damp and mould for 2 years. We are unable to determine this point due to the lack of evidence from the landlord. The resident reported a leak in her property in March 2022. She lived in a guest room at this time while the landlord refitted her kitchen and bathroom. The landlord said it repaired the leak within one day. This repair was in line with the landlord’s repair policy, however, it failed to provide repair records when asked. It is unclear if the landlord did not record this or did not share it with us and this is a record keeping failing. But the resident did not dispute this account, and the repair did not appear to impact her.
9. The leak damaged the resident’s walls and dampened the carpet in her hallway. The landlord repainted the walls and replaced the carpet. As a goodwill gesture, it also replaced carpets in the bedroom and lounge. This was positive.
10. The resident reported a second leak in August 2022. This took longer to diagnose therefore the landlord appropriately approved the resident’s request to be temporarily accommodated in September 2022. The landlord completed repairs and redecoration in October 2022, so the resident could return to her flat. However, she requested to remain in the temporary flat due to health reasons. The landlord agreed to this in January 2023, which was positive. Again, it did not provide repair records when asked. Because of this, we could not reach an evidence based conclusion about the repairs. However, the resident did not dispute the events. The landlord took 42 days to complete the repair, exceeding its repairs policy. This delay caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience due to the disruption caused to her while she was temporarily accommodated.
11. The landlord accepted its delays to the leak repair caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It took reasonable steps to put this right. It appropriately explained the process to claim for property damage and offered to reimburse increased electricity costs once she provided evidence. The landlord also apologised and offered £250 compensation. This is in line with the remedies we may have ordered, under our compensation policy, to put things right for the level of failure and impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

12. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in 2022 applied when the resident made her complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
13. The landlord acknowledged the complaint after 7 working days and issued its stage 1 response 37 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay. It was not in line with its complaint policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days. This caused avoidable distress to the resident.
14. The Code and the landlord’s policy required the landlord to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. On 24 May 2023, a clinician challenged the stage 1 outcome and compensation on the resident’s behalf. The landlord did not acknowledge this escalation or start its stage 2 process. It issued its stage 2 response 236 working days later and denied receiving an escalation request. Its significant unexplained delay and poor communication prevented the resident from seeking recourse from the Ombudsman at the earliest opportunity. This caused further distress, inconvenience and frustration to her.
15. The landlord did not assess its complaint handling or learn from its failings. Had it done so, it could have addressed the resident’s concerns earlier. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings at stage 2 and offered £50 compensation, this was not proportionate to the failures we identified or align with our compensation guidance.

Learning

               Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord did not adequately respond to our information request because it did not provide repair records about the leaks. It should improve its record-keeping to ensure it captures and can provide relevant information.

               Communication

17. The landlord could improve its communication with residents by providing timely updates on the progress of repairs.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.