A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202434687)

Background

1. The property is a flat on the ground floor of a purpose-built block with 2 entrances. The landlord installed new communal doors at the front and rear of the resident’s block in November 2023. The resident contacted the landlord in December 2023 to report that the new doors were causing excessive noise when they were closing. She also contacted the landlord in May 2024 to say that the noise from the doors was disturbing her. The landlord’s records show that it does not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the front and rear communal doors.
   2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the front and rear communal doors.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it did not take adequate steps to understand the impact of the reported noise from the doors on the resident.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the appropriate timescales.

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.

7. Some of the correspondence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 30 September 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
8. Our role is not to establish whether the noise from the doors was excessive or unreasonable. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the doors was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
9. Under the terms of the lease agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure, exterior and communal areas of the building in repair, which includes the communal doors.
10. Following a visit by the landlord to the resident’s property, she wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2023 to confirm that the front and rear communal doors were very noisy and were disrupting her sleep. She expressed concerns about the legal consultation process (under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and asked for an explanation about the landlord’s decision-making leading to the procurement of the doors. She also wrote to the landlord on the same day to say that a contractor had attended that day and had behaved rudely when asked if he could address the noise from the doors.
11. The landlord replied on the same day (1 December 2023) to apologise and said it had asked the engineer to find a solution to the noise from the doors. The landlord therefore said it would contact the contractor. It was reasonable that the landlord had agreed to contact the contractor as it said it had asked the contractor to find a solution to the noise and the contractor had not done so.
12. The landlord raised an order on 8 December 2023 to adjust the soft closer on the communal door because it was not working and the door was closing very loudly. However, the job notes say that the job was cancelled as it was a duplicate. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord followed up its request for the contractor to find a solution to the noise nor that it provided a meaningful update to the resident. This was unreasonable as the resident had asked the landlord on 1 December 2023 when the engineers would revisit to address the noise and had emphasised that the noise from the doors was disrupting her sleep.
13. The landlord raised an order on 15 May 2024 to repair the soft closer on the communal door as it was closing very loudly and causing a disturbance. The landlord’s records show that a contractor attended on 18 June 2024 and adjusted the door. The contractor therefore attended 23 working days after the order was raised. This was longer than the 20-working day target for standard repairs and the delay was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
14. The landlord’s records show that on 24 May 2024 the resident again reported problems with the soft closure mechanisms on the communal doors as the doors were closing loudly. She asked for the landlord to inspect/assess the doors. In response, the landlord visited the property in June 2024 to monitor the level of noise from the doors. As the resident had reported noise from the doors, it was reasonable for the landlord to monitor the noise from inside the resident’s property. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident afterwards to confirm whether it thought the level of noise was unreasonable when heard from inside her flat. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not given clear written confirmation of the extent to which it considered the noise from the doors to be a problem.
15. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 June 2024 to ask for an update as she said the doors were still very noisy and disruptive. She said the doors were not fit for purpose and the landlord had ignored residents’ recommendations and observations made during the consultation process. She said the landlord had wasted the money it had spent on the doors. She followed this up by making a stage 1 complaint on 1 July 2024 in which she asked the landlord to change the doors or the soft closers.
16. The landlord raised an urgent order on 4 July 2024 to adjust the door closers on the communal doors. The contractor attended on 5 July 2024 and adjusted the closers on the front and back doors. The contractor had therefore attended promptly after the landlord had raised the order and the landlord was entitled to rely on the work carried out by the contractor.
17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2024 and said it had raised an order to adjust the communal doors. It said it had recommended changing the door closers to soft closers. As the resident had continued to report concerns about noise, it was reasonable that the landlord had raised an order to adjust the doors and potentially change the door closers.
18. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended the job on 9 July 2024, which was an appropriate timescale given that it had assigned the job an urgent priority. The landlord’s records state that the contractor found a bad connection on the rear door, which it repaired and it also adjusted the closers on the front and rear doors. Again, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor to carry out appropriate adjustments or repairs. However, we have found that the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident during this period was unreasonable. For example, we have not seen any evidence that following the contractor’s adjustments to the door closers on 5 and 9 July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm the work had been done and to check whether it had made a difference in relation to the noise.
19. The landlord’s lack of communication led to the resident contacting the landlord various times during July 2024. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 8, 17, 18, 26 and 30 July 2024 to say the noise from the doors was loud and disruptive and to request updates. She added that there had been no communication with residents regarding the repairs that had recently been carried out and, following these repairs, the doors were now very stiff and difficult to open. She attached a video of the rear door closing.
20. The landlord responded on 30 July 2024 and said it would attend the next day with the regional supervisor to check the doors. In its stage 2 reply on 30 September 2024, the landlord confirmed that its contract manager and a supervisor from the contractor had visited at the end of July 2024 and concluded that no further action was needed in relation to the doors. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that the visit had taken place and to discuss the outcome with her. The lack of communication was again unreasonable as she had advised the landlord on various occasions that she was finding the doors noisy and this was disrupting her sleep.
21. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 August and 3 September 2024 to report that the noise from the doors was causing her psychological stress. The landlord raised a further order on 24 September 2024 for an engineer to check both doors as they were noisy when closing. The job notes say that the engineer checked the closers on both doors on 25 September 2024 and found they were working correctly. The contractor had therefore attended promptly to check the doors. However, again we have not seen any evidence that the contractor or the landlord discussed the findings with the resident while on site. This was unreasonable given the number of times the resident had reported the noise from the doors and the impact she said the noise was having on her.
22. The landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident about the reported noise was a missed opportunity to assess the impact on the resident by visiting her property to listen to the level of noise. This may have helped the landlord better understand the extent of the problem and enable it to discuss potential solutions to mitigate the impact on the resident. It is clear from the resident’s emails that the landlord’s lack of communication added to her sense of not being listened to regarding the reported noise from the doors. The landlord’s lack of communication was therefore unreasonable.
23. One of the other elements of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had not paid sufficient regard to residents’ observations during the section 20 consultation for the replacement of the doors. We have found that the landlord did not respond adequately to these concerns during the complaints process. In its stage 1 reply, it said the cost of the doors was comprised of the cost of materials, labour, fitting and the new intercom and in its stage 2 reply it did not address the issue at all.
24. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not addressed the question of whether it had taken residents’ views into account during the procurement process for the new doors. The resident had raised this on various occasions, such as on 1 December 2023, 24 June 2024 and 1 July 2024. The resident had raised this as part of her complaint and our Complaint Handling Code says: “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord’s records show that it reviewed its handling of the section 20 process and wrote to the resident in July 2025. Whilst this was a welcome step, it was a failing that the landlord had not investigated the resident’s concerns during the complaints process itself.
25. One of the resident’s other concerns is about the quality of the doors that the landlord installed. We do not consider this to be a matter that we can investigate because it would require a technical assessment of the doors against the specification used by the landlord to procure the doors and a comparison with the previous doors. It is beyond our expertise to make determinations on such matters. The resident may wish to take independent legal advice if she believes the landlord has breached the requirements of the lease or its other legal obligations in relation to the doors it installed.
26. The resident expressed concerns about the cost of the doors. Again, we do not have the expertise to decide whether the doors represented good value for money. The First-tier Tribunal has the expertise and authority to consider matters relating to costs incurred by landlords and the reasonableness of service charges.
27. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the front and rear communal doors:
    1. The landlord did not provide an update to the resident within a reasonable timescale after advising her in December 2023 that it had asked the contractor to find a solution to the reported noise problem.
    2. The landlord did not provide a timely update to the resident to confirm its findings following its visit to the property in June 2024.
    3. Neither the landlord nor the contractor contacted the resident during or immediately after the contractor’s visits on 5 and 9 July 2024 to confirm the work had been done and to check if it had made a difference to the reported noise.
    4. The landlord did not contact the resident during or immediately after its visit on 31 July 2024 to let her know the visit had taken place and to discuss its findings.
    5. The landlord did not arrange for the contractor to contact the resident during its visit on 25 September 2025 to discuss its findings.
    6. The landlord did not respond during the complaints process to the resident’s concerns that it had not taken residents’ observations into account during the section 20 consultation.
28. The failings were largely around the lack of communication with the resident about the reported noise from the doors and the lack of any meaningful discussions with her about whether the adjustments made by its contractor had made a difference. Also, the landlord did not communicate clearly to the resident the extent to which it considered the noise from the doors to be unreasonable when heard from inside her property.
29. The landlord’s failings in relation to its communication meant that the resident was often unaware when adjustments had been made to the door closers or when the landlord/contractor had visited to check the noise levels from the doors. This added to her distress and uncertainty about whether the landlord was taking any steps to address the reported noise. It also resulted in the resident writing to the landlord several times to request updates/action and this added to the level of inconvenience she experienced.
30. In summary, we do not consider the landlord took adequate steps to properly communicate with the resident and to understand the impact of the reported noise on her. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident during the period from 1 December 2023 to 30 September 2024 due to the landlord’s failings in responding to her concerns. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or made any attempt to put things right.
31. Although the resident described experiencing fatigue, stress and sleep disruption caused by the reported noise, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
32. We can see from events that happened after the stage 2 response that the landlord has attempted to carry out an acoustic survey. We can also see that the resident declined this offer. However, in our view it is important for the landlord to understand whether the noise levels from the communal doors, as heard from inside the property, are reasonable. We have therefore ordered the landlord to reoffer to arrange an independent acoustic survey from within the property and to write to the resident with the findings and planned action resulting from the survey. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident explaining the extent to which residents’ views were taken into account during the section 20 consultation.

33. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
34. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy on 3 July 2024. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 10 July 2024, which was 5 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
35. The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 3 September 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy on 4 September 2024.
36. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 30 September 2024, which was 18 working days after sending the acknowledgement. The landlord therefore sent its stage 2 response within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
37. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling as it responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord did not routinely write to the resident following visits by its staff in response to her reports of noise from the doors. It is important that the landlord follows up any visits by writing to the resident to confirm its findings and set out the next steps.

Communication

39. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not proactively provide her with updates about works carried out to the communal doors. The landlord should review how it can improve communications with residents who report communal repairs.