A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202422255)

Decision
Case ID	202422255
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord began in September 2007. The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat, with the flats sharing some communal areas. The landlord is aware the resident has mobility issues and experiences difficulties with everyday tasks, and that a carer attends the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the communal front door.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the car parking.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the car parking.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Communal front door

5. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the front door on multiple occasions. This was despite it being aware of her vulnerabilities and an attempted break-in. When it did commit to taking action, it failed to meet the timescales which it had set out to the resident.

Concerns about the car parking

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident about the car parking issues, despite recording her concerns on multiple occasions. When it carried out remarking of the bays, it initially did not repaint the numbers, leading to a further delay in resolving the matter.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident in keeping with its policy timescales at both stage 1 and stage 2.

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 16 December 2025
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the communal front door. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about the car parking. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 16 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 May 2024	The resident emailed the landlord about 3 issues. She said she had contacted it on a number of occasions since 2020 concerning 2 of these issues, which she felt had it not dealt with sufficiently. She said her concerns were as follows: The design of the communal front door meant that pressing the wrong button for the exit resulted in the entire system being disabled. This meant that access could easily be gained to the building. There had been a recent attempted burglary due to this issue. A car had struck the handrail outside her property on 1 May 2024, causing damage to it. She asked for an urgent repair to be undertaken. Her parking space outside the property was being used by contractors, which meant her carers could not use the space when visiting her. She had asked contractors not to park in the space, but due to the unclear signs, she felt they did not know which parking space she was referring to. She wanted the landlord to repaint the numbers for each space.
29 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It offered compensation of £75 for its failures in relation to the communal door and parking bays and £50 for the inconvenience. It said it would: Write to all residents by 31 May 2024 to explain how the communal front door system worked, including which door release button they should be using. It would also obtain a quotation to fit a cover over the emergency release button to make it more secure. Raise a repair for the security light which the resident said was not working. Raise a repair for the damage caused to the wall by the car crash. Seek a quote for the repainting of the parking bays, which were marked as being for residents’ use. However, it did not believe this would resolve the issue of others using the resident’s bay. Speak to its operatives and parking enforcement company to make them aware that others were parking in the resident’s bay and to ask them to monitor the matter. It accepted the resident had previously raised this concern and not received a response from it.
31 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the time taken, the contents of the landlord’s letter, and the level of compensation awarded. She noted: The landlord had issued the letter about the communal door to her on 4 July 2024, and not 31 May 2024 as stated. The cover on the emergency release button had yet to be fitted. The security light had not been repaired. The parking bays had not been repainted in the 17 years she had lived at the property. A neighbour had previously attempted to do this, but it needed redoing.
27 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It increased its compensation offer by £50 for the further inconvenience caused. It said: It accepted the letter to all residents was sent late, for which it apologised. The repair request for the cover to be fitted over the exit button had been raised by the Neighbourhood Manager on a number of occasions, but the jobs were cancelled. It could not explain the reasons for this, but it had raised a new job and expected the work to be carried out within the next 14 days. It had obtained a quotation for the remarking of the parking bays. This would be carried out before the end of October 2024.
1 September 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to set out it had misunderstood her complaint. She said: She was not unhappy that it had failed to provide instructions to residents on how to use the communal door, but that the door was constantly breaking down since being installed. This left the flats unsecured. The landlord had accepted no liability for this. Her complaint about the parking bays was over why the remarking had not previously been done. The landlord’s stage 2 response contained a reference to a complaint point she had not made. This related to her moving property and having children.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us and said she wanted the landlord to: Fix the issues and to write to residents with instructions for the door. Speak to her Estates Manager about the issues. Increase the compensation offered to reflect the time and energy she had spent dealing with the matter.

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	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident informed us that she had attempted to resolve the matter with the landlord over a significant period prior to raising her formal complaint in May 2024. To support this, she provided evidence of emails which she sent to the landlord (including to the Neighbourhood Manager) from August 2020 onwards, regarding the front door as well as other matters. She noted that there were further emails and a number of calls made to the landlord during the time. While we acknowledge the resident had been in touch with the landlord and was unhappy with various issues, she did not raise these as a formal complaint, other than in March 2022. This complaint related to an issue with the intercom which had been changed to a fob entry system. The landlord noted that 2 jobs had been raised by it, and it therefore addressed the resident’s concerns as service requests and not as a complaint.
9. Although there is evidence that the resident raised a complaint about the communal door in March 2022, she did not contact us about the matter until September 2024. This was 30 months after the landlord had treated her complaint as a service request. Our Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
10. Our Scheme also says that we may not investigate issues that were not raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal door going back to August 2020 or from March 2022. Instead, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint May 2024, which is considered a proportionate approach in the circumstances.
11. The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of its internal complaints process in August 2024. She has said that matters have recently escalated, and that the issues are related to her complaint and have affected her health. In the interests of fairness, this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we did investigate

12. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for doors and door entry systems in communal areas. It has 4 repair priorities (emergency, urgent, standard, and planned). It says it will “aim to fast-track repairs for customers who are in vulnerable situations”.
13. The resident reported issues with the front door in September 2023 via email to the landlord’s Neighbourhood Manager. While the resident has provided a number of emails to show she contacted the landlord prior to this time, this was the first instance in the 12 months before she raised her formal complaint in May 2024. The resident’s email enquired about a number of other issues for which she was awaiting an update. In her email she mentioned that the front door had broken again and that it was a recurrent issue. She asked if the Neighbourhood Manager could report the issue, and she also asked a question about the emergency button and whether the landlord would be writing to residents about the matter.
14. The Neighbourhood Manager replied to the resident on 27 October 2023 to explain they were no longer responsible for the area. While they did pass the matter onto the new manager, that individual had since left. The landlord said it would look to identify what the issue was with the communal door, and that once this was identified, it would put measures in place to stop the issue from happening again. This included exploring whether it was possible to put a cover over the emergency door release button. While this demonstrated the landlord was engaging with the resident to try to resolve the matter, the landlord’s repair records do not show that a repair was raised at that time. Instead, the first repair for the communal door for the period of investigation was not until May 2024. This was a failing. Even if the landlord suspected that a repair was not required, it should still have raised a job to enable its operative to assess the matter.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2024 to explain the communal door had broken again. There was a telephone conversation with the new Estates Manager on that day, whose appointment the resident said she had not previously been informed about. The resident followed up the telephone call by forwarding a number of emails to the Estates Manager, previously sent to the Neighbourhood Manager, concerning the outstanding issues including the communal front door. Even if the Neighbourhood Manager was no longer responsible for the resident’s area, as an employee of the landlord they should have ensured the matter was forwarded to the relevant team or individual responsible for the area. There is no evidence that this was done, which was a failing.
16. The resident then raised a complaint on 9 May 2024, in which she said there had been an attempted break-in the previous week due to the front door access being disabled once again. The resident explained that while there was no evidence anyone had tried to gain access to her flat, the issue had triggered her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The resident set out in her complaint that the issue of the doors being regularly disabled could be attributable to residents not understanding which button needed to be pressed to leave the building, as opposed to a fault with the system. She added no instructions had been provided by the landlord since the door system was changed in 2022. The resident has provided photos showing the 2 release buttons for the communal door. Although the buttons are coloured differently, they are very close to each other, and both say ‘exit’ under them. Given this, and the landlord providing no evidence from its operatives that there was a fault with the communal doors, the resident’s suggestion was a reasonable one.
17. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it would obtain a quotation for placing a cover over the emergency exit switch. This would mean the switch would be more secure and less likely to be pressed in error by residents. The landlord also agreed to write to residents to explain how the system worked. It said it would do so no later than by 31 May 2024. However, it did not meet this deadline. Instead, it wrote to residents on 4 July 2024, after 24 working days. No explanation was provided by the landlord for the delay. The landlord’s letter to residents, while covering the communal door issue, was brief. It also missed an opportunity to provide a photograph showing both buttons, clearly labelling which was the one that residents needed to press to exit the building, and which was the button they should not press unless it was an emergency. The letter also failed to mention that the landlord was obtaining a quotation to place a cover over the button.
18. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response on 27 August 2024 that the job to fit a box over the emergency exit button had been cancelled on several occasions for “unexplained reasons”. Given both the length of time and number of occasions the resident had raised this matter, and especially as there had been an attempted break-in, this was a failing by the landlord. It also pointed to no one overseeing the repairs to ensure that they were raised and the work was followed through. The landlord did, however, attempt to resolve the matter by raising a new repair for the issue and informing the resident the job would be carried out within 14 days. We note from the repair records that the job was completed on 28 August 2024, the day after the stage 2 response was issued. This was appropriate and demonstrates that the landlord was trying to repair its relationship with the resident.
19. Overall, there were a series of failures which had an impact on the resident. These included unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to reports of the communal doors system failing, as well as unexplained delays in it raising the job it had committed to in its stage 1 response (providing a cover to the emergency switch). The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and she had mentioned the lack of security had triggered her PTSD. However, it did not make appropriate use of this information or act in accordance with its policies relating to vulnerable individuals. This led to avoidable distress and inconvenience. There was also evidence of poor communication, poor record keeping, and lack of accountability. Given this, a finding of maladministration has been made. The positive action taken at times by the landlord, and its acceptance of failings in its formal responses and offer of compensation, have prevented a finding of severe maladministration.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £175 for poor communication, delays and inconvenience. It did not provide a breakdown of the compensation in relation to the issue of the communal door. Given the timescales involved and the failings set out above, we consider the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to its failings. We have therefore increased the compensation award for distress and inconvenience to £400.
21. The amount of compensation we have ordered is in line with our remedies guidance. The guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affects the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of concerns about the car parking
Finding	Maladministration

22. Our explanation in paragraphs 8 and 11 about the communal door and what we did not investigate also applies to the issue of the car parking.
23. The resident’s concerns about the car parking related to 2 issues. These were firstly that the bays needed clear remarking, including the numbers, and secondly that other parties (including the landlord’s operatives) had been parking in her space. This meant that when her carer attended, they could not park in the resident’s space and valuable time was spent looking for an alternative parking space.
24. We understand from the photos provided by both parties that there are bays allocated to the residents of the building. In the case of the resident, she had previously swapped spaces with a neighbour, so she was not using the space originally allocated to her by the landlord. These spaces are situated outside of the front entrance to the building. The landlord has said that the spaces are for residents’ parking only and that it has instructed its operatives not to park in the resident’s space on multiple occasions. In addition, a parking enforcement company also monitors the spaces.
25. The resident provided photos which show both her old, allocated space and the car parking she currently uses. She also provided a number of emails to both the Estates Manager and the Neighbourhood Manager, which raised the issue of the parking. It is clear from the photos that the numbering has faded/eroded over time and is unclear. Given the numbers have eroded, it is not clear why the landlord had not taken steps to obtain a quotation for the bays to be repainted until after the resident had made her complaint. This was a failing.
26. The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted that the resident had made prior requests over the matter which it had recorded. However, it had failed to provide a response to the resident. While it did apologise to her, it did not provide any explanation why it had not followed through on the matter previously. Although the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that it could obtain a quotation for remarking the bays, it was doubtful that this would resolve the matter for the resident. Instead, it said that this would not resolve others using her parking space. The resident had been clear that the parking space was being used by the landlord’s operative. There was no mention by the resident of other individuals using her parking space.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out that it had obtained a quotation to remark all the parking bays and that this would be carried out before the end of October 2024. We have been provided evidence from the landlord that it contacted its operative to request the bays be remarked in August 2024. The landlord’s operative provided evidence that they carried out the work to repaint the parking lines on 14 October 2024. However, the remarking of the bays was limited to painting the lines showing the boundaries of the individual bays. The numbers had not been repainted. Following a visit by the landlord to the estate on 17 October 2024, it contacted the operative to inform it that the numbers had yet to be painted and that they should also be done. We have not seen any evidence that the painting remained a concern for the resident after this time. Having looked at the landlord’s original instructions to its operative, while these mentioned the repainting of the bays, they neglected to mention this should also include the numbering of each bay. This was a failing by the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the issue on the first attempt.
28. Although the landlord said that it spoke to its operative about not parking in the resident’s space, it has not provided contemporaneous evidence which shows that it informed its operatives of this issue. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not always been the case here. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
29. Although the landlord had an element of control over the information about parking which it could pass to its operatives, it did not have the same control over private individuals using the space. With those individuals, the landlord said it had a parking enforcement company monitoring the spaces, with the power to issue parking fines. This was reasonable.
30. In summary, while the landlord said it relayed the resident’s concerns over the parking in her bay to its operative, it has not provided us with evidence of this. The lack of appropriate action and/or documentation was a failing by it. There were also delays in it in carrying out the remarking of the parking bays, and even when it instructed its operative to carry out the work it failed to clearly set out the full scope of the work which was required. This meant that there was a further delay before the operative could complete the works. Given this, we have made a finding of maladministration.
31. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £250 to put things right for the resident. The compensation has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	No maladministration

32. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process. It also requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord’s applicable complaints policy reflects these expectations.
33. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent out its stage 1 response in keeping with the timescales in its policy. While the case handler who looked at the complaint informed the resident in an email of 14 May 2025 that there could be a delay in sending out the response, it did not need additional time.
34. The landlord’s stage 1 response set out that if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, she needed to contact it within 20 working days to set out the reasons why she remained unhappy. Its complaint policy did not specify any deadline by which any request for an escalation had to be made. The resident contacted the landlord outside of these timescales due to ill health. There is no evidence that the landlord sought not to escalate the complaint, which was appropriate. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and provided its response within the timescales contained in its policy.
35. Although the resident replied to the landlord following its stage 2 response, explaining that it had not clearly understood the nature of her complaint, both of its formal responses and the acknowledgment email sent out prior to the stage 1 response set out what it understood to be the resident’s complaint. These is no evidence that, after receiving the acknowledgment email on 14 May 2024 or the stage 1 response on 29 May 2024, the resident questioned the landlord’s understanding of her complaint.
36. As there was no evidence of any delays by the landlord in addressing the resident’s concerns or issuing either the stage 1 or stage 2 responses, we have made a finding of no maladministration. We have also noted that the landlord continued to communicate with the resident following the issuing of its stage 2 response. This included addressing the error in its stage 2 response (referring to a request by the resident to move).

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord should ensure that records of all communication are kept, including face-to-face meetings and telephone conversation with residents. This includes any commitments to which it has agreed, or any follow-up action which it needs to take.
38. The landlord should ensure that its operatives are provided with clear and accurate information about residents. This should include details of the parking spaces allocated to them (their numbers as well as their physical location).

Communication

39. There were issues with the landlord’s communication throughout the period investigated. It delayed n actioning repairs to the communal doors and dealing with the remarking of the parking bays,despite repeated reminders by the resident. While it acknowledged this in its formal response, it did not offer any explanation for its failure. It also did provide the resident with regular updates.