A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202435432)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435432

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

2 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dampness at the property.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of a newly built one-bedroom flat since September 2022. The housing association is the owner of the building. The scheme was co-developed by the landlord and a construction company, which will be referred to as ‘the developer’.
In August 2023, the resident reported dampness in her property, primarily affecting the lounge and hallway, as well as some windows. In response, the landlord removed 2 sections of the plasterboard in the resident’s property and sent its surveyor to inspect in August 2023. The surveyor reported dampness measuring 99%. It noted that further intrusive works were needed to establish the cause, although they suspected a faulty damp proof membrane and advised that this was a latent defect that needed to be escalated to the developer.
Subsequently, the developer inspected the property in January 2024 and reported to the landlord that it had carried out some tests and concluded that the likely cause was the “resident’s lifestyle”. It said the resident should keep her heating on and the mechanical ventilation operating at all times.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property in February 2024 to carry out a damp reading before closing the holes in the resident’s home. The surveyor found that high dampness readings persisted. They subsequently left the holes in the resident’s walls exposed, pending further action. This report confirmed the findings of the first report from August 2023.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 21 May 2024, expressing her frustration at the delays and the impact the damp was having on her mental and physical health.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024. It said:
1. Investigations to establish the cause were ongoing.
2. It could not confirm a timeline for completion.
3. It offered £440 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day, saying she had been living in poor conditions since September 2022, with holes in her walls since June 2023. She said that the landlord’s surveyors had already identified the source in August 2023.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 24 June 2024. It said:
1. It was meeting with the developer fortnightly.
2. It would give the developer 28 days to begin work, after which it would contact the warranty provider.
3. It increased compensation by £100 and said it would further review the amount upon completion of the works.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord was acting without a sense of urgency. Despite several assurances, it failed to provide her with an action plan to complete the work.
2. Operatives had now filled the holes in her walls, but the cause had not been identified and addressed.
3. To resolve the complaint, she would like the landlord to accept accountability, address the underlying cause and complete the required work urgently.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is obligated to repair defects in the structure of the property. This legal obligation commenced on the day the lease was granted and remains in effect throughout the terms of the lease.
Commonly, property developers are obligated to rectify any defects found during the first years of the development, known as the defect liability period. In the resident’s case, the defect liability period lasted 2 years from the date that the lease was granted until September 2024.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight on leasehold shared ownership and new builds (September 2020) refers to the standards of good practice on complaints involving new build properties. It states that residents should be able to rely on the landlord to proactively pursue the developer on their behalf to make good any defects identified. Where works remain outstanding after the defect liability period, the Ombudsman would look to see that the landlord coordinates between all stakeholders in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard. Where resolution is prolonged, landlords should seek alternative resolutions and use their best endeavours to resolve outstanding repairs in a timely manner.
In August 2023, the landlord’s damp and mould surveyor inspected the property. They made several investigative holes in the resident’s home, and identified high damp readings measuring 99% in several areas in the living room and hallway. They left the holes exposed as further tests were necessary, including moisture testing of the concrete, cavities, and the subfloor to ascertain whether the issue was caused by faulty damp-proof course / membranes. The landlord reassured the resident it would follow the recommendation of the surveyor’s report.
In response, the developer conducted its own inspection in January 2024. It said that the damp and mould issue was caused by the “resident’s lifestyle”. It said it would take further damp reading in February 2024 before sealing the investigative holes in the resident’s property. The surveyor returned in February 2024 to measure the moisture levels, which showed readings of over 90% dampness. They also found dampness around the windows. Subsequently, the holes remained exposed pending further action.
The landlord acted reasonably by sending a different surveyor in February 2024 to inspect the property and recommend a set of works to resolve the dampness in the resident’s home. The second report confirmed the finding of the first report. However, there was no progress with the works at that time.
In its final response letter dated 24 June 2024, the landlord fully upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted that:
1. The ongoing issue of damp and mould had to be referred to the developer. It was ultimately reliant on the developer to take action. It was totally unacceptable that the resident’s property was left with exposed holes in the walls for over a year.
2. There was a lack of communication between various teams. It had since established fortnightly meetings with the developer to expedite the remedial works required to establish and address the necessary works. It stated that it intended to involve the warranty provider to resolve the issue should the developer fail totake action within 28 days.
The landlord acknowledged that there were failures in progressing the investigative work needed to confirm and address the cause of the damp issue. It said that the responsibility lay with the developer to take action, which was accurate. Despite two reports however, the developer maintained that it would not carry out further work on the resident’s property. The difference in opinion and the subsequent delays were not explained to the resident which caused frustration.
In June 2024, the landlord said that if the developer had not started work to address the cause within 28 days, it would approach the warranty provider. There is no evidence that it did so or that it explained to the resident why it had not done so. This was not appropriate. there is also no evidence that the landlord sought any other resolutions to complete the repairs at that time.
On 1 July 2024, the landlord closed the resident’s case. There is no audit trail to explain its decision-making process, and no evidence that it explained or forewarned the resident either. The resident found out on 17 July 2024 when she emailed the landlord to follow up on progress following their final response letter.
Due to the lack of action by the landlord the resident contacted the warranty provider on 4 August 2024. The warranty provider contacted the landlord for consent as a joint owner of the property. The landlord acted appropriately by allowing this, and the resident became the main point of contact for the warranty provider. The warranty provider did not progress the claim, stating that it needed a formal complaint from the resident to the developer. It said it was unable to open the case based on the resident’s complaints to the landlord.
In October 2024, the developer and the landlord instructed a joint expert surveyor. Their report confirmed the earlier two findings from September 2022 and February 2023. All three independent surveyors stated that further investigative steps were necessary to determine the cause. They suggested this might be a latent defect, and none identified the resident’s lifestyle as the probable cause. However, the developer again refused to carry out further work, claiming the issue was caused by the resident’s lifestyle. While we acknowledged that the landlord was reliant on the developer to take action, the landlord failed to challenge the developer’s assertion that the cause was the resident’s lifestyle for months. It did not follow up on the latent defect or approach the NHBC quickly enough. In its final response letter, it promised the resident it would take action, but then a few days later, it closed her complaint.
Evidently, the resident did not have quiet enjoyment of her property. She faced the inconvenience of having to chase the landlord to take action. She works as a teacher and is unable to take annual leave, meaning her parents had to facilitate inspections and appointments that had been ineffective. She said she had been left with holes in her walls for a year, only for them to be filled and then drilled again a few weeks later. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, we have ordered the landlord to oversee the repairs to completion as set out in detail in the orders section below.
In its final response letter, the landlord offered £540 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged that this may not be sufficient to put things right and it said that it would review the compensation once the issue was resolved. Given the length of time the issue has persisted, the efforts the resident has made to progress the repair, and the fact that to date, very little progress has been made, the landlord’s offer of £540 does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. We have relied on our remedies guidance to calculate further compensation.
During the course of the complaint, the landlord also requested that the resident keep the heating on low at all times and stated that it would reimburse her for the increased energy consumption. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to specify the information it would need from the resident in order to reimburse her once the repairs have been completed.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord identified learning from the case. A further order has been made below for it to do so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dampness at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to follow the steps below sending evidence to the Service at each stage:
1. The landlord must take all steps to ensure the developer starts the works within 6 weeks of the date of our decision, which could include:
  1. Writing to the developer to tell it to start the works.
  2. Enforcing the developer to complete the works via legal means, including taking legal advice on its liability for defects, or asking the NHBC to accept a warranty claim.
  3. Completing the works itself and recharging the developer, based on the legal advice it receives, if the developer does not complete the works
2. Once the developer has completed the works, the landlord must, within 7 days of the windows being installed:
  1. Complete a post-work inspection and take baseline damp readings in the property.
  2. Write to the resident and confirm how and when it will monitor the damp and mould, including regularity and what steps it will take with the developer or NHBC if it fails to take further action or accept responsibility.
The landlord must pay the resident a total amount of £950 for the impact of its failure over 2 years. This includes the £540 already offered following its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord must provide evidence of payment to the Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident explaining what information it needs from her to calculate her excess energy usage caused by keeping the heating on low. It should then calculate the amount and pay it to the resident. It should also consider whether further compensation is due in recognition that the matter has not been resolved and the impact on the resident is ongoing.