A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202430971)

Decision
Case ID	202430971
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat which is part of a new build estate. She was given the property with an allocated parking space by the landlord and displayed a permit for this. In June 2022, she experienced a leak into the communal car park, directly affecting her parking bay. This led to her submitting a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the communal car park.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the communal car park.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak affecting the communal car park

6. The landlord acknowledged some of its communication errors with the resident. It also provided remedies to put things right and attempted to demonstrate it learnt from outcomes from its own investigation. While it remains reliant on the developer to action the repairs, communication errors were repeated after its final response, and the leak remains unresolved. The resident also experienced further distress and inconvenience due to its repeated communication errors.

 

 

Complaint handling

7. There was a minor delay by the landlord in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This would not have caused significant detriment to her. Excluding this error, it followed its complaints policy.

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 24 December 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £400 (inclusive of the £250 previously awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a leak affecting the communal car park.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 24 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 14 November 2023 and 24 November 2023	On 14 November 2023 the resident submitted her complaint about a pipe in the car park that was still leaking, which caused damage to her car. On the same day, it told her it would either consider it as a formal complaint or a service request. It then acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 24 November 2023.
1 December 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It told her: Contractors were told to repair the leak in car park, and it was sorry for the delay. As the leak was affecting the use of her parking space, it offered to pay towards parking costs in a nearby car park, this would have amounted to £453.60 for 3 months. To keep any parking payment receipts and it provided her a direct point of contact. About the details to claim for damaged items through its liability insurance.
16 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She set out that in 2022 the leak caused damage to her car. Her car was initially repaired through insurance, but the leak was still ongoing. She said the contents of the leak did not look like water and felt it could cause burns to people walking underneath it. She believed parking at the nearby car park was impractical. She also felt it did not explain its 2 stage complaints process to her.
Between 18 October 2024 and 4 November 2024	The landlord tried to call the resident on this date and sent its stage 2 acknowledgement letter.  It tried to call her again on 4 November 2024, but it has not recorded why.
8 November 2024	The landlord called the resident. It followed up in writing and: Confirmed the contents of the leak was investigated and it was not “foul water”. Access to neighbours’ flats was required to find the source of the leak. Provided a parking compensation form for £498.90 (for the nearby car park).
11 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident and said: The responsibility of this repair was with the building developer (and under warranty). The developer did not find blockages or the source of the leak, so further investigations were required. It found it “challenging” communicating with the developers, so it had escalated the issues to the directors of the developers. It understood that the developer should complete repairs by 28 February 2025. Since its stage 1 response it had not recorded contact with her and accepted it failed to keep her updated. Due to this it awarded £250 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. A specific staff member would call her by 15 November 2024 about parking reimbursement. It had learnt from her complaint and further training was provided to staff about the importance of clear communication and accurate records.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 13 November 2024 the resident referred her complaint to us. She wanted increased compensation, which equated to 25% of her rent level over a 2-year period. Following this, on 14 November 2024 she told the landlord there was miscommunication by it because the staff member had already called her on 8 November 2024.   Both parties discussed the complaint on 21 November 2024. It clarified the £498 parking form was calculated up until the expected developer repair completion date. It said would require receipts for parking payments and it would not award the equivalent of 25% her rent level in compensation. It reiterated the substance leaking was just water and that water contains minerals causing discolouration.   In November 2025 she told us that the leak continues to affect the communal car park, and it had not told her about any expected repair timescales.

 

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 a leak affecting the communal car park
Finding	Service failure

8. During the defects period it was the developer’s responsibility for repairs to the car park and leaks affecting the area. This was the case for 2 years as the property was a new build. After the defects period ended in April 2024, some repairs could be actioned by the warranty provider. If the landlord did repair any defect before checking with the developer or warranty provider first, the warranty could have been invalidated.
9. In this case, the issues were reported before the defect period ended. The evidence showed the property was still under warranty and the developer did not dispute its responsibility to fix the leak. While we cannot assess the actions of the developer, given that the landlord has a relationship with the developer, it should have reasonably chased and ensured the issue was resolved for the resident.
10. We can see the resident first reported the issue to the landlord on 16 June 2022. On the same day the landlord appropriately liaised with the developers to try and fix this for the resident. The evidence showed the developers told the landlord the leak was resolved on 20 June 2022, but the resident reported the leak remained active on 23 June 2022. The landlord told the developers about this, and they reported the leak was resolved on 12 July 2022.
11. On 11 July 2022 the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to her own motor insurance policy, which she could potentially recover costs from its insurer if deemed liable. We can see the resident was aware of this and subsequently pursued her claim and her car was repaired. This was reasonable.
12. On 22 September 2023 the resident put the landlord on notice that the leak was still active, and her car could be damaged. On the same day, the landlord was advised by its contractors that the property was still under the defects period. There is no evidence the landlord relayed this to the developer until 10 November 2023. Its speed of communication was unreasonable in the circumstances. The developer then visited the property on 27 November 2023.
13. Given the resident’s further concerns about damage, it was appropriate the landlord provided the resident with details to make an insurance claim for any subsequent damage to her car via its liability insurance in its stage 1 response.
14. While in the landlord’s stage 1 response told the resident that repairs were raised with the developer, it did not chase the developer until 22 April 2024. The landlord indicated to the resident it would give 3 months for the developer to conduct repairs. In these circumstances, the landlord reasonably measured the resident’s expectations as the issue was complex. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to promptly chase the developer from 1 March 2024. By it not doing so, this demonstrated poor communication and a lack of urgency to help resolve the issue for the resident.
15. In contrast, from 15 May 2024 until 1 November 2024 the evidence showed the landlord reasonably pursued the developer to address the issues. While the leak was ongoing, this was outside the landlord’s control as it had communicated effectively with the developer in this period.
16. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not tried to update the resident until she escalated her complaint. The poor communication was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, and it offered £250 in compensation for this. It also relayed to her the steps taken by the developer to try and resolve the issue at that stage.
17. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, she told the landlord about concerns of the liquid contents stemming from the leak. It was reasonable that the landlord confirmed to the resident on 8 November 2024 that the contents of the leak had been tested and it was water. The landlord is reliant on the professional opinion of contractors and there was no conflicting evidence about the liquid contents of the leak.
18. Where the resident’s parking bay was unavailable, it was reasonable for the landlord to find her alternative parking. The landlord offered to reimburse costs for the alternative parking and it is reasonable for it to ask for evidence of any costs, which we can see it did.
19. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it also told the resident to expect a call regarding reimbursement for parking. This call between the parties had happened 1 working day prior to it issuing its final response. The resident disputed the landlord’s position that she was required to provide proof of parking payments. We have not seen evidence that she provided the landlord with any parking receipts to show quantifiable financial loss. This was despite the landlord telling her in its stage 1 complaint response to evidence her parking expenses in the nearby car park.
20. In summary, the landlord should have continued to pursue the developer and update the resident about the steps taken to resolve the issue. In its formal responses, it sought to put things right and offered £250 in compensation. It also said that it had learnt from the outcomes of this case and conducted further staff training. However, while it acknowledged its errors, it told the resident repairs would be completed by end of February 2025.
21. The evidence showed the leak was not resolved by then. There is also no evidence that since February 2025 that the landlord proactively updated the resident. The resident has also told us she has not heard from the landlord since then. This was unreasonable and the resident’s expectations were mismanaged by the landlord. Had the landlord not attempted to put things right, we would have found maladministration. As the landlord identified learning about its communication, but repeated these errors, a finding of service failure has been made.
22. Having considered the above, the total the landlord offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We have therefore awarded an additional £150 in recognition of this, in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

23. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
24. The landlord was 3 working days over target in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1. While this was a minor failing, the resident was aware the landlord had received her complaint on the day she submitted it. The landlord provided a formal response at stage 1 and 2 within its complaints policy timescales.
25. In the resident’s escalation request she said the landlord failed to explain its complaints process to her. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord clarified its complaints process in its final response. We can also see that in its stage 1 response, it clearly set out which stage the complaint was at and how the resident could escalate the complaint.

Learning

Communication and knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. Our spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds recommended that:
    1. During the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer. Landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf.
    2. Landlords must ensure that there are effective communications between all parties.
    3. Landlords need to be clear with residents at the beginning of the contract as to how it will respond both during the defects period and once this has expired.
27. Had the landlord considered the above recommendations, it may have mitigated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and avoided communication errors.
28. Additionally, the landlord was unable to substantiate a contact trail between it and the developer from 22 September 2023 until 10 November 2023 and 1 March 2024 until 22 April 2024. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management suggests a landlord has a minimum record keeping standard as part of the service level agreement with third parties. As above its overall communication with the resident was poor. However, it was positive that it recorded its contact with the developer accurately from April 2024 onwards.