A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202420029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420029

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

24 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports the property was unsuitable for her family’s needs.
2. Its decision about the resident’s right to buy request and information provided.
3. Leaks, damp and mould.
4. Outdated information about the household recorded on its systems.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The resident wished for the landlord’s allocation team to prioritise an urgent request for a housing transfer on medical and disability grounds. She further stated the property was unsuitable for her family’s needs for the following reasons:
1. Inaccessible bathroom and front door.
2. Unsafe flooring.
3. Overcrowding conditions.
4. Lack of essential adaptions.
The resident previously brought these concerns to us, considered under reference 202207823. A determination was issued on 11 July 2024.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the complaint that the property was unsuitable for her family’s needs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman has already issued a decision on these concerns, so we cannot consider the matter again.
Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident said that despite having an assured tenancy with the right to acquire the property, the landlord denied her the option to buy the property or buy a more suitable property. She stated she had also been provided with contradictory information.
The records show the landlord declined her request for the right to buy in 2014. While there was a later query on this, the landlord has stated the resident did not wish to proceed to find out about the right to acquire.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the complaint is about events which occurred more than 12 months after the matter arose, and therefore outside of the required time limits for us to look into the matter.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in March 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette.
The resident and members of the household are vulnerable, and the landlord is aware of their medical conditions.
We previously determined a complaint on 11 July 2024 under reference 202207823. This was regarding, damp and mould, aids and adaptions and the resident’s request to be moved.
On 31 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about ongoing issues. The issues she raised relevant to this complaint were:
1. She said that there was damp and mould reoccurring, and poor ventilation in the property. She said there were also outstanding repairs to the radiator valves, heating system and boiler replacement.
2. The resident said the landlord failed to update its systems about the members of her household until recently. She stated this prevented her from bidding on properties.
During August 2024 an operative attended to carry out some repairs. The resident also experienced a leak in her home. She contacted the landlord and said it had damaged her sofa. She expressed upset over the ongoing repeat issues of leaks, damp and mould.
On 14 August 2024 a damp and mould survey was completed. The surveyor found there was damp and mould in the home. He suspected the cause was related to the roof adjoining with the neighbouring property. He recommended a follow up appointment to inspect the roof, which was scheduled for 30 August 2024. He also recommended remedial works be done after the landlord had sorted out the cause of the leak. These included a mould wash, redecorating and consideration of upgrades to the boiler and radiator.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 August 2024. It apologised for the ongoing issues which the resident had been experiencing. It explained:
1. It was awaiting a report from the mould inspection that took place. Once it received the report, its repairs team would schedule in required repairs.
2. An appointment was booked for 30 August 2024 to source and fix the leak.
3. The resident was registered on its choice-based lettings system and two other property sites. She had a band B award due to medical priority since 2019. It considered its allocation policy and said that a 3-bedroom property for her household was still considered appropriate. It explained the demand for secure and affordable housing exceeds availability and informed the resident she could explore other options such as contacting local authorities directly in areas she was interested in moving to or she can rent privately.
During September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about the ongoing issues she had been experiencing within the property. She explained that a further leak happened during heavy rainfall, and she was unhappy that it had not resolved the ongoing issues. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and lack of support since her reports.
The resident stated in October 2024 she was told the bathroom extractor fan would be serviced, however the operative failed to attend. Throughout October and November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding repairs needed to the property and her concerns. She also requested her complaint be escalated; however,the landlord made an error and did not progress this.
During December 2024 the resident contacted the landlord stating the damp and mould had returned in her bathroom. She stated this had been an ongoing issue for a decade and asked it to investigate the matter.
The resident further complained on 15 January 2025, saying that despite the landlord carrying out several surveys the issue was ongoing. She was also unhappy that an operative had attended that day without any prior notice to attend to the bathroom extractor fan. Works were not completed at the time as the bathroom was being used.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2025.
1. It apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response. It confirmed the resident had requested the complaint be escalated on 2 October 2024, but this was not picked up until 20 January 2025.
2. It apologised for the poor service the resident had received and acknowledged not all repairs were completed, and repairs that had been completed were not done in a satisfactory manner.
3. It recognised there had been little communication on the state of repairs and issues the resident had raised.
4. It acknowledged there had been ongoing issues of damp and mould in the property since 2022. It apologised for not doing a more in-depth investigation into the reasons for the damp and mould.
5. It confirmed that it would be in touch by 21 February 2025 to book in outstanding repairs recommended from the August 2024 damp and mould survey.
6. It stated that the resident did not meet the criteria for right to buy at the time she enquired. Its systems also noted she did not want to consider the right to acquire.
7. In recognition of the service failures, the landlord offered:
  1. £100 for poor communication.
  2. £200 for ongoing failure to resolve.
  3. £300 for stress and inconvenience.
  4. £50 for its delay in actioning the stage 2 request.
On 9 April 2025 the resident contacted the landlord concerning outstanding repairs to the damage caused by the leak. The landlord arranged a visit for May 2025, and the operative confirmed that the leak was resolved, and the property was “bone-dry”.
On 11 July 2025 the landlord provided evidence to our Service. It stated that there were no open orders for repairs, both internal and external repairs had been completed.
The resident wrote to us on 6 August 2025. She stated that there had been no improvement in the condition of the property, despite repeated reports in 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

We previously determined a complaint on 11 July 2024 which related to damp and mould issues. For this reason, we will not reconsider events which we considered in that investigation. This investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in relation to her new complaint raised on 31 July 2024.
The resident stated she is still unable to bid for properties relevant to the recommendations made by medical professionals. This matter was previously looked at as part of an earlier investigation and therefore we will not look into raised again matters.

Leaks, damp and mould.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building. The resident’s tenancy agreement also stipulates this.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states it will investigate the cause and carry out repairs in line with the tenancy agreement. This includes:
1. Keeping homes free from rising and penetrative damp and making repairs if needed.
2. Undertaking improvement works to help manage condensation and damp.
3. Diagnosing the cause of damp and delivering effective solutions rather than temporary fixes.
4. Supporting residents living with damp and mould.
5. Training staff receive to understand damp and mould problems, including health repercussions and effective ways to address them.
6. Working with residents to manage damp. If this fails, the landlord will re-visit the property.
The policy also says the landlord will respond to reports of damp and mould and complete repairs within a reasonable time. The timescale depends on urgency. If the home cannot be lived in while repairs are done, the landlord must arrange alternative accommodation.
The landlord apologised for the damp and mould returning after 2022. It admitted it should have carried out a deeper investigation but failed to do so.
The resident reported damp and mould on 31 July 2024. She also said the heating system still needed flushing and the boiler needed replacing. Records show the landlord did not have access to the property when it visited. A heat assessment on 8 May 2024 found a power flush was not needed. On 8 August 2024 an operative repaired the radiator valve, lock shields and boiler. The operative confirmed everything was working.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy specifies response times. It states for:
1. Emergency make safe, it will attend within 4 hours.
2. Emergency repairs, it will complete a repair within 24 hours.
3. Standard repairs, it will attend within 20 working days.
4. Planned and packaged repairs, it will attend within 90 days.
In this instance the resident required a standard repair which should have been attended to within 20 working days. It is unclear why the landlord did not follow up within this specified time, however the resident had to chase for this. Furthermore, while we recognise it attempted to attend on 31 July 2024, this exceeded its 20 days’ timeframe. We find that it was unreasonable that it took over 2 months for the landlord to conduct a repair. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident reported recurrent damp and mould on 31 July 2024 and another leak on 8 August 2024. A survey on 14 August 2024 suggested the cause was likely a leaking roof shared with the neighbouring property. The operative recommended further inspection and remedial works were recommended.
The landlord booked an appointment for 30 August 2024 to fix the leak. The repair records do not confirm if the visit happened or what the outcome of was.
It is essential that the landlord keeps accurate records to show what was done and when. This ensures that works are properly followed up. In this case, the absence of reliable records made it unclear whether repairs had been completed.
On 25 September 2024 the resident further wrote to the landlord stating that on 21 September 2024 rain had come through the upstairs landing and to date this had not been resolved.
We have not seen any correspondence to show the landlord followed up the resident’s report. The evidence shows that throughout October 2024 and January 2025 the resident further complained about the recurrent issues. It is unclear what actions the landlord took, which is unreasonable because it demonstrates a lack of effective communication and a failure to respond to the resident’s ongoing concerns. As per its policy, the landlord has a duty to investigate reports of damp and mould promptly. In this case we are not satisfied this was done.
We have reviewed the repair records which show a dehumidifier was provided to the resident on 11 February 2025. It also states there were cracks on the ceiling and walls that were filled. Other remedial works suggested in the survey report dated 8 August 2024 remained outstanding. While we understand these works were to be completed after the landlord determined the cause of the leak, we find the delay to be unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response dated 14 February 2025 the landlord stated the resident would be contacted by 21 February 2025 to have the repair works booked in. We have reviewed the repair records and cannot see information to reflect when the repairs were completed.
On 9 April 2025 the resident emailed about outstanding repairs. She said she was told several times the damage would be repaired, but this was not done.
In the survey report the surveyor had recommended that once all works had been undertaken, a post inspection should be completed within 6 months. The repair record shows that on 9 May 2025 an operative attended to confirm if the leak had stopped as advised by the resident. It confirmed that everything was “bone-dry”, and the job was completed.
We find the landlord took some appropriate steps, like providing a dehumidifier and booking in repairs. However, its actions were delayed, poorly communicated and not properly evidenced. This resulted in continued distress for the resident. Therefore, we are not satisfied with how the landlord handled the repairs.
The resident raised concerns about inadequate heating and ventilation. These issues were linked to her previous complaint raised in 2023. During August 2024 survey, the surveyor had not suggested ventilation be upgraded. However, he did note that the landlord should consider upgrading the existing boiler to a more energy efficient boiler. At the time the resident had stated the landlord previously said it would upgrade the boiler, but she had received no further correspondence about this.
We understand the landlord has to budget and prioritise its resources, ensuring efficiency while directing funds towards improvements where necessary. While we recognise it was not required to upgrade the resident’s boiler, we have not seen that consideration was given to this. We would have expected to see evidence in the landlord’s records that this option was assessed and documented.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly explain its position to the resident concerning this upgrade. However, we have not seen that this was done.
Clear communication of the landlord’s position is important because it allows the resident to understand its position. Without such an explanation, the resident is left uncertain about whether their concerns have been properly considered, which can result in further distress. As we see in this case the residents expressed these concerns to the surveyor.
We asked the landlord if it completed an assessment as to whether the resident was entitled to compensation for the reported damages. In response, it stated that no damage had been reported by the resident. On reviewing the information, this is incorrect, as on 8 August 2024, the resident had informed the landlord her sofa was damaged as a result of the leak.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will insure the building but it is the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of their personal property within the home. It further states that, where appropriate, it may consider discretionary compensation for damage to personal belongings, without the matter going through insurance. This is in cases where there has been a service failure or act of negligence.
In this instance there is no evidence that the landlord considered the damage reportedly caused to the resident’s sofa or that it appropriately informed her of how to make a claim for damages caused by the leaks, damp and mould.
The landlord should clearly inform the resident of the process to make a claim through its insurers. This will help ensure the resident’s claim is fairly assessed and that any losses connected to leaks, damp and mould are considered.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there were failures regarding the handling of leaks, damp and mould. In recognition of this it offered the resident £600 compensation. This was made up of:
1. £100 for poor communication.
2. £200 for the ongoing failure to resolve issues.
3. £300 for stress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it offers:
1. £50-£100 for minor disruption and/or customer effort.
2. £100-£350 for moderate disruption and/or customer effort.
3. £350-£750 for extensive disruption and/or customer effort.
We recognise that the landlord offered compensation at the higher end of its policy guidance. This was proportionate and fair for the failures identified, including delays, poor communication and inconvenience to the resident.
We have not seen evidence that the resident made further reports of damp and mould to the landlord after the May 2025 inspection, when the property was recorded as “bone dry”. While we note a recent conversation with the resident, she stated the damp had reoccurred, the landlord must be given a reasonable opportunity to reply to any new reports.
In summary, while the compensation award was fair and proportionate for the failings identified. It did not take into account the handling of the reported damage to the resident’s sofa. This should have been addressed separately through the landlord’s insurer and appropriate guidance should have been given. As this was not done, we have found there was a service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the impact this failure caused to the resident.

Outdated information on its system.

The resident complained that the landlord failed to update her household records. She said that more than 9 years ago, she told the landlord that her husband lived with her along with her children. Because the landlord did not update the records, she was disadvantaged when bidding for properties.
We reviewed the evidence provided. On 9 September 2020, an Occupational Therapist assessment confirmed that the resident lived at the property with her husband and two children.
On 7 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord again, stating that her husband and three children lived with her. On 8 February 2024 the resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord about her medical condition and confirmed the household members. A further medical letter dated 18 March 2024 repeated details of her household. Despite this, the landlord did not update its records until 2024.
The landlord’s policy requires it to keep household information updated so that residents do not need to repeat personal details at every contact. The evidence shows the resident provided information about her household on several occasions. The landlord failed to update its systems in a timely way.
In summary, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of updating the resident’s records. Once discovered by the resident this caused avoidable distress and inconvenience as she realised her household circumstances were not considered when she was bidding for properties.
We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy, as well as our remedies guidance. As we find there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, we have made an order of £200 compensation. We find this amount to be proportionate, fair and in line with our guidelines.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and aims to provide a full response within 10 working days. If still unsatisfied the resident can request a review of the complaint. It will aim to provide a response with its decision within 20 working days. In cases where an extension is required for stage one it will allow a maximum of 10 working days and for stage two a maximum of 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 31 July 2024. The landlord provided a stage one response on 19 August 2024. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two on 2 October 2024, however this was not acknowledged until January 2025. The landlord provided a stage two response on 14 February 2025. During this period, the resident had chased the landlord for a response. In its formal response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delay in actioning the stage two request and offered £50 compensation.
While we find it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy. This amount wason the low end of compensationfor minor disruptions and customer effort. The compensation policy states it usually awards between £50 -£100. Considering the length of time which it took for the landlord to address the resident’s complaint and this resulting in further delays in resolving the matter we find the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation, while on the lower end of the scale is reasonable redress in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and is in line with our remedies guidance.
In summary, we acknowledge the landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation. We consider this offer to be a reasonable redress for the service failure identified, and therefore we will not ask the landlord to increase this offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint that the property was unsuitable for her family’s needs is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about its decision about the resident’s right to buy request and information provided is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of outdated information on its system.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £950 compensation. This includes its previous offer of £650. It also includes additional compensation of:
1. £100 for its handling of leaks, damp and mould.
2. £200 for its handling of outdated information on its system.
The landlord should clearly inform the resident of the process to make a claim through its insurers regarding her sofa.
All orders should be completed within four weeks of the date of this investigation. The landlord must provide evidence to us showing it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation.

The landlord should arrange a further inspection of the resident’s property to confirm the damp and mould issues have fully been resolved. It records should accurately reflect the outcome of this visit.