A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202413497)

Background

1. The resident has reported damp and mould in the property and has complained about the landlord’s approach to resolve it. The resident has also complained that the landlord has not completed the repairs she has reported. The resident lives in the property with her young children. 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
5. There was a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we have found that the landlord did not:
   1. Communicate clearly and on time with the resident.
   2. Manage the resident’s expectations regarding the need to inspect the property or carry out mould washes.
   3. Keep the resident up to date on the progress of the repairs.
   4. Demonstrate empathy for the resident’s circumstances, in particular when she raised concerns about her children’s health.
   5. Acknowledge or respond to the resident’s escalation request on time.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident has explained that she has been reporting issues for several years. This report will focus on the landlord’s response from March 2024 up to January 2025, because this is what the landlord has considered in its final complaint response.
8. The landlord wrote to the resident in March 2024 explaining it needed to move the resident in the downstairs flat in order to undertake work in her bathroom. The resident responded to the landlord the same month. However it did not respond to her which would have caused likely frustration and inconvenience. The resident had asked the landlord to provide a timeframe for the repairs but it did not do so, it missed an opportunity to demonstrate it understood the resident’s concerns and was taking them seriously. This led to the resident making her first complaint ship.
9. It is noted that the resident originally declined an inspection of the property. Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays which occurred solely because of the resident declining or missing appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
10. Given the landlord’s position that repair works could not be completed until the property had been inspected, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence it had continued to take steps to arrange the inspection. For example the landlord could have reminded the resident of her obligation to allow access for repairs or discussed with the resident if there were any barriers to her allowing access. In light of the severity of the mould reported and the fact that mould is a hazard, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if it was appropriate to take enforcement action under the tenancy agreement to try to access the property.
11. The landlord explained to the resident that it could not start works in the property until the property below was vacant. The resident remained unclear on why this was the case which caused distress. It is unclear what steps the landlord was taking to ensure works were completed as soon as possible. We understand that there can sometimes be unavoidable delays to repairs, however we expect to see evidence that the resident was kept up to date on the progress and what actions the landlord was taking. Additionally, it is unclear how long the landlord expected the remedial work to take because the resident received conflicting information, this has caused likely distress and confusion.
12. The resident reported that the damp and mould was impacting her children’s health. While the landlord acknowledged her concerns, it did not demonstrate that it had taken this into account when deciding what action to take, or that it had taken steps to offer support or advice to the resident. This would have caused distress. The resident has explained that she feels that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and asked to be treated as a “human being and not a number.”
13. The landlord is of the opinion that the work required in the property cannot be completed without the resident being temporarily rehoused (also known as being decanted). The resident has explained that she was previously temporarily rehoused and this was traumatic for her, so she does not want to do this again. We can see that the landlord offered the resident £500 per week to stay with friends and family, or to pay for a hotel or gym membership that the resident can use for bathroom facilities. However, we cannot see that this offer was made before September 2025. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline this offer in its stage 2 response. While we understand the resident’s concerns about being temporarily rehoused, the landlord has followed its policy by making these offers and we would not order it to offer anything further.
14. The landlord has attempted to carry out some repairs in the property while the resident is living in it. We can see that the landlord attended to complete a mould wash but this was declined by the resident because she was concerned her child was allergic to the chemicals. It is unclear if the landlord took steps to assure the resident that the mould wash was safe or what chemicals it would be using in order for her to make an informed choice.
15. In its final response, the landlord said it would be in touch by 31 January 2025 to discuss further remedial works, it is disappointing to see that this did not happen which caused further distress to the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to show the resident that it had learnt from its complaints response, and continued to offer poor communication.
16. The landlord’s offer of compensation goes some way to reflect and redress the distress reported, but the evidence shows that there was further failures that have not been accounted for which would have caused likely further inconvenience and distress. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns about her children’s health into account, provided meaningful updates, or managed the resident’s expectations. While some inspections have taken place, it is unclear what action the landlord intends to take to resolve the mould or reported repairs to ensure the property is safe for the resident.
17. Taking this into account, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp, mould, and repairs. An order has been made to the pay the resident additional compensation of £200 for the impact of its failings outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

18. The landlord took 9 days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, this was within the timeframes set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and was appropriate.
19. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 2 July 2024, but the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint in line with the Code which caused a delay in the resident receiving a response. When the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s complaint, it responded within 20 working days which is in line with the Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged its failure and offered £25 in recognition of its delay to escalate the resident’s stage 2. We consider that this amount is proportionate to delay experienced and in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure that did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint but caused inconvenience.

Learning

Communication

21. Had the landlord managed the resident’s expectations, responded on time, and provided meaningful updates about the progress of the work, it may have gone some way to maintain the landlord/resident relationship.

Record keeping

22. 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.