Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202435969)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435969

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

1 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for rehousing.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom first floor flat, on an assured non-shorthold tenancy since 2016. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident has told us he has experienced ASB since moving in to the property. In 2020, he was offered a management transfer and put in to band A on its housing register as a priority for re-housing, due to ASB from a neighbour. He was offered 3 properties but he felt they were unsuitable due to his mobility and because he thought there was also ASB at these other properties. The resident’s neighbour then moved, and his management transfer was reassessed. In November 2022 he was moved out of band A to band D because the landlord felt the threat to him from the neighbour was no longer present. He was later reassessed on health grounds and moved to band B.
  3. The resident complained on 24 November 2024. He said had been experiencing ASB and needed to be re-housed. He wanted to be reinstated at housing band A as it was high priority, and he needed to move as he was struggling to manage the steps at his existing property.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 December 2024. It explained that as there were no existing issues with the neighbour he originally complained about, it could not reinstate his management transfer. It had reassessed his application on medical ground and set up auto-bidding for him, in order to try and secure a move.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 January 2025, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 February 2025. In addition to summarising its position at stage 1, it offered him the chance to submit updated medical evidence, which could be assessed to see if it would affect his banding.
  6. The resident has told us he has provided the landlord with medical evidence already, but he remains in band B which he is unhappy about. He has said he feels abandoned by the landlord as he is unable to easily manage the stairs where he lives and needs to move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We expect any issues complained of to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case the resident reported ASB in 2020 and potentially earlier. He mentioned wanting to move in 2022 but did not make a complaint until 2024. In order to be able to conduct a fair investigation, we will not be considering issues dating back to 2020. However, we have reviewed evidence from 2022 onwards.
  2. The resident has also commented on the effect these issues have had on his health. While we are an alternative to a court, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

  1. The landlord’s records from 24 March 2022 noted the resident had a degenerative knee condition, and he had asked to be moved to another property. At that time, in order to assist the resident, it issued him with an auto-bidding form so he could more easily bid on suitable properties that met his needs.
  2. The resident sent the landlord a letter from his GP in April 2024 supporting the need for him to move properties on health grounds. The landlord also reviewed a medical self-assessment form the resident completed, which stated he lived in a property with steps and no lift, and he found steps difficult. The landlord arranged for a medical report to be done promptly, which concluded that any difficulty the resident had with neighbours, did not mean he had a medical priority. However, it acknowledged he had significant musculoskeletal problems with his joints and that using stairs would be difficult. Therefore, it decided to place him in band B for housing on the basis of medical priority, as his current home did not meet his needs. He was assessed as needing a ground floor property if there was no lift, or a property with reliable lift access but no internal stairs.
  3. The landlord’s allocation policy states that for someone to be put in band B, there needs to be an urgent need to move because their home is no longer suitable for their needs. Band A is to be used in an emergency situation, where someone’s health is at risk if they do not move. As the resident needed to be moved as he was struggling with the stairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to allocate him to band B in accordance with its allocations policy.
  4. The landlord has explained the resident has been automatically shortlisted for several properties through the automated bidding process. However, following some of the more recent bids, he has informed its lettings team that he will only consider certain areas and property types. This is also reflective of the auto-bidding form he completed on 28 July 2022, which specified he wanted a ground floor property, but also wanted a garden and he would only consider specific areas. The landlord has provided details of 6 properties that became available, but has said although shortlisted for potential offers, the resident chose not to proceed with them as they did not meet his stated preferences.
  5. The landlord has accepted the resident needs a ground floor property due to his health needs. However, while the resident would like a property with a garden and in a specific area, there may not be any, or many properties that meet all of his stated preferences. It is clear that some properties have become available, but the landlord did explain to the resident when it advised him of his banding on 8 August 2024 that, “demand for secure and affordable housing far outweighs the supply”. In addition, “we advise that tenants broaden their search areas as widely as possible as this may help shorten the time it will take to secure a move”. The landlord has provided the resident with support and information to improve his chances of finding a suitable property. It also attempted to manage his expectations in terms of trying to find a property that met his needs.
  6. It is clear from the resident’s complaint that he remains unhappy at being in band B rather than band A, but on 21 February 2025 the landlord provided him the opportunity to send updated medical evidence. It said it could then ask for an appeal of his medical assessment which may affect his banding. It also offered to send him statistics to show the availability of suitable properties over the last 2 years in the areas he was considering. It said it would give him some information on how likely properties are likely to be offered and it could also advise approximately where he was on the list. There is no evidence any more medical evidence was submitted.
  7. Overall, the landlord has taken a proactive response to the resident’s request for rehousing on the basis of health grounds. It has taken in to account medical evidence he provided, arranged a medical assessment and assigned him to an appropriate housing banding, in line with its allocations policy. It also offered auto-bidding on properties and information to help him look for properties, as well as advice on appealing his medical assessment to potentially help increase his banding. Therefore, there has been no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. As above, the resident had been in band A for housing in the past due to having reported ASB but he was removed from that band as the ASB was no longer ongoing. The landlord’s records say that on 5 December 2022 it spoke with the resident, and he said he was still experiencing neighbourhood issues. However, there is no evidence of further information being provided at that time.
  2. When the resident made a complaint nearly 2 years later, on 18 November 2024, he told the landlord he was experiencing ASB from another neighbour and had a recording of being threatened. There is no evidence of the landlord being supplied with that recording. There is also no record of the resident having reported ASB between December 2022 and November 2024. The resident has explained to us that he did not report ASB for about 3 years as he felt he may be threatened if he did report it.
  3. The landlord noted that the resident felt it was not doing enough to ensure his security and still wanted to be put in band A for a priority management transfer. However, as he did not want to name the perpetrator, the landlord was unable to take any action or facilitate a change of banding.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy says that wherever it can, it will always investigate reports of ASB from the perspective of the person or people being affected. It says that were possible it will use non-legal remedies such as mediation warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts for example. However, it could only do that if it knew who was causing the problem. As the resident would not provide that information, the landlord had insufficient information to formally record ASB on its system. It therefore provided a reasonable response by explaining that it was unable to take any action.
  5. When it responded to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that unless he wanted to share details of any incidents or allow its ASB team to investigate issues with his neighbour, it was unable to take ASB into consideration for the purposes of a management transfer. It did though, encourage the resident to report any criminal issues to the police so they could be properly investigated, if he did not want to provide it with that information.
  6. When the resident reported ASB the landlord adhered to its ASB policy and sought to obtain information, but it was not given enough information to be able to take action. However, it still provided advice on how he could also report any further issues. The resident’s request for a management transfer has been considered separately. Therefore, in terms of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure has 2 stages. It says a complaint or escalation, should be acknowledged within 5 working days and at stage 1, a response should be sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. At stage 2, a response should be sent within 20 working days of an acknowledgement being sent, confirming the complaint had been escalated
  2. In this case, the complaint dated 18 November 2024 was acknowledged 5 working days later, and the stage 1 response was sent 9 working days after that. Therefore, the landlord complied with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 21 January 2025, which was acknowledged 4 working days later. The resident was told to expect its response within 20 working days, by 21 February 2025 and it adhered to that deadline. The landlord’s complaint responses were timely and addressed each complaint raised. We therefore make a finding that there has been no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for rehousing.
    2. Reports of ASB.
    3. Formal complaint.