A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202429307)

Background

1. The property is an end of terrace house. The resident’s tenancy began in October 2022. The resident said that part of her roof fell off in high winds in November 2023, leaving a gap and access for birds. She also raised concerns about vegetation affecting use of her parking space.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about damaged roof cladding.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damaged roof cladding.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found:
   1. The landlord did not suitably engage with the resident’s report that it had not fixed the roof. It put the onus on the resident to report this to this as a new repair which unreasonably delayed a resolution at the time of the complaint.
   2. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling delays at both stages, but its offer of compensation was not proportionate to recognise the impact of its poor complaint handling.

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.

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.

6. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including gutters and the roof, in line with the tenancy agreement. Residents are generally responsible for clearing pests within the premises, but the landlord should resolve any structural repairs that may allow pests into the property. The landlord aims to make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and do standard repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 90 working days.
7. The landlord’s records indicate that it raised a repair following the resident’s reports that the roof was “collapsing” and causing a leak on 20 November 2023. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s specific communication about the incident or whether the repair description was accurate at the time. Its records indicate that it attended on 5 December 2023, within its standard repair timescales. Given the description of the work, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the matter urgently under its emergency timescale due to the potential safety concerns.
8. Job notes following the visit on 5 December 2023 indicate that it found the roof was not collapsing, and there was no leak. The landlord has provided pictures taken during the inspection which show that the plastic “edge” (fascia) to the gable end of the roof was missing. This should have been evident as the fascia was present on the other side of the roof (visible in the inspection photo). Publicly available images of the estate also show that many buildings are identical and also have a white fascia in place.
9. While the roof may have not “collapsed”, or caused a leak, it is unclear why the landlord didn’t identify that the fascia was missing and take pro-active action to resolve this given it was a potential source of water ingress, and a repair it was responsible for under the tenancy agreement. It missed an opportunity to identify and raise suitable repairs. It is evident that it later found repairs were needed as the resident had described in her complaint, and could have addressed the matter sooner. The landlord should ensure that qualified contractors proactively engage with visible repair issues rather than solely relying on a job description. In some cases, residents may not have the technical knowledge to describe the specific repair, and may result in similar failings in the future.
10. In her complaint on 26 January 2024, the resident specifically said that part of her roof had previously fallen onto her neighbour’s car in November 2023 and the landlord had not yet fixed the damage. We would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord investigated her concerns by asking for more details if needed, reviewing previous inspection reports, and arranging a new inspection if necessary.
11. The landlord said, in its stage 1 complaint response on 23 February 2024, that it had previously inspected on 5 December 2023. However, it did not engage with her concerns that the issue remained unresolved, and part of the roof had fallen away. It was unreasonable that the landlord put the onus on the resident to report the repair again via its contact centre rather than investigate or make internal arrangements to do so. It was on notice that there was still a repair issue from 26 January 2024 and was in a position to arrange a further inspection or works at the time, rather than solely rely on the inspection notes from December 2023. Had it engaged with her concerns, it may have identified that it failed to act on her initial report appropriately.
12. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 24 February 2024. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2024, its records indicate that the resident had raised a repair, and it had attended to inspect on 27 March 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have commented on its findings and communicated what it intended to do to resolve the situation within its stage 2 complaint response given that it was aware at this stage that work was needed.
13. Its failure to investigate the matter through its complaints process led to a delay in it identifying work needed and resulted in the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution following the complaint. The landlord may have avoided causing inconvenience to the resident had it suitably engaged with her concerns. We have found that the delay in addressing her concerns from November 2023, and its ineffective handling of her ongoing reports was likely to cause distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. This warrants financial compensation to put right the impact on the resident.
14. We note that the resident continued to pursue her concerns about the roof repair and birds nesting in the loft space in April 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have opened a new complaint at the time given her ongoing dissatisfaction and that it did not address her concerns about the roof within its stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2024. She has explained that the landlord completed a repair on 8 October 2025, but it had not fitted the plastic fascia, and scaffolding remains in place.
15. The length of time it has taken to resolve the roof repair is concerning given that it was first made aware of the problem in November 2023. With this in mind, we have ordered the landlord to investigate its handling of the repairs and its communication with the resident from April 2024 to date and offer compensation should it find service failings on its part.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the initial complaint on 26 January 2024 stated that it aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If all or part of the complaint remains unresolved, the resident can escalate their complaint to stage 2. It aims to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. Its policy timescales were in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time of the complaint.
17. The resident raised her complaint on 26 January 2024, and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 February 2024, 20 working days later. She then escalated her complaint on 26 February 2024, and it responded at stage 2 on 3 April 2024, 26 working days later. Its response timescales at both stages were not in line with its policy or the Code, which was a failing. It recognised the delay in responding at both stages and offered £25 compensation. However, we have not found that this was proportionate to put right the complaint handling failings identified.
18. The landlord failed to suitably manage the resident’s expectations about when she would receive a response at either stage. It gave a broad timescale at stage 1 (which was outside of its policy timescales), and while it said its stage 2 response would be delayed on 15 March 2024, it did not provide any information about when she could expect this by. This was likely to cause uncertainty to the resident.
19. While the resident did not pursue these concerns after the complaints process, the landlord did not address her concerns about a damaged rear door, or her request that it paid for the scratch on her car. It would have been appropriate for it to have investigated the door complaint by seeking information on what remained outstanding. It should have also responded to her request for it to pay for the scratch on her car by referring her to her car insurance or its liability insurer given that she felt it was responsible due to a lack of grounds maintenance. In addition, as set out above, it did not engage with her reports of the damaged roof which caused an avoidable delay in putting matters right.
20. When the resident asked to move the complaint to stage 2, the landlord did not seek to contact her to gain clarity on the scope of the complaint in line with its policy. A resident should not have to explain the reasons they wish to escalate a complaint, and the onus was on the landlord to ensure that it had a suitable understanding where her reasons for dissatisfaction were unclear. It missed the opportunity to respond to outstanding concerns or put things right at the time of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation to put right the impact of its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord did not suitably engage with inspection photos and ignored an apparent repair issue. It later found it needed to complete repairs which were apparent at the time of the initial report and inspection. It should ensure that it completes quality inspections and proactively engages with visible repair issues, rather than solely relying on a resident’s description of the repair.

Communication and complaint handling

22. The landlord should ensure that it is providing expected response dates to residents when acknowledging a complaint to effectively manage expectations and monitor its complaint team’s performance.
23. The landlord should ensure it is addressing each aspect of a resident’s complaint and resolutions sought. Some of the complaint handling failings could have been avoided had it taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the resident to seek clarity on her complaint and sought to put things right through its complaints process.