A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202453484)

Decision
Case ID	202453484
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives on the sixth floor of a block. The resident complained to the landlord about leaks into her flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks from above.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks from above.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord took too long to resolve the initial leak. Its communication was poor.
   2. When another leak occurred, it identified the source of the leak was the flat above. It was not responsible for this repair. However, it failed to show it communicated its repair responsibilities appropriately. The landlord’s compensation offers were not sufficient given the circumstances of the case.
   3. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed. The landlord did not acknowledge this or offer appropriate redress.

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 23 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £910 made up as follows: £785 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of leaks. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 23 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident about its offer to complete some internal decoration works.
The landlord should review its record keeping practices against the recommendations made in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about a leak into her flat. She said it had caused damage to her walls.
2 July 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: It logged a repair on 8 February 2024. It completed works to a pipe and stopcock on 2 April 2024. Scaffolding was required for further works. An appointment was booked for 27 July 2024. It would complete all works to resolve the leak by 12 August 2024. It had not contacted the resident with updates or a timeframe. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £360 compensation.
3 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said a leak had reoccurred.
7 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: On 7 April 2025 it found a leak was coming from the flat above. It raised works to rectify the issue but had not been able to gain access. It made multiple attempts to contact the leaseholder of the flat above. It was now pursuing legal means of access. It would monitor the case to ensure the repair was concluded. It partially upheld the complaint. It offered a further £300 compensation. This included £25 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and compensation. She said leaks had caused damage and damp.

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	Handling of leaks from above
Finding	Maladministration

5. The resident told us leaks had continued since 2023. She emailed the landlord on 19 August 2023 about leaks near her kitchen and bedroom window. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s response to this report. In her 14 March 2024 complaint, she said the leak was still unresolved.
6. It was unclear when the landlord raised repairs for this leak. We have not seen records of this repair. The stage 1 response contained incorrect information. The landlord said it raised repairs in February 2024 and completed some on 2 April 2024. The resident said this was wrong and that no one had attended or carried out repairs. We saw no evidence of repairs completed at that time. The landlord’s record‑keeping was inaccurate.
7. The landlord’s internal correspondence from April 2024 shows it attended in February 2024 and identified the need for external works. These works required access to a downpipe using scaffolding or equipment. The landlord explained this to the resident in a call on 9 May 2024. There is no evidence it updated her before this. The landlord accepted at stage 1 that it failed to contact her or give a timeframe for the works.
8. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would complete the leak repair by 12 August 2024. The repair was finished on 19 November 2024. This was far outside the 20‑working day target in its repairs policy. Leak repairs can be complex. The landlord needed permission to use equipment on land it did not own. However, it did not keep the resident updated. She had to chase for updates in August and September 2024. The landlord failed to act on learning from its stage 1 investigation about its communication.
9. On 27 March 2025, the resident reported a containable leak. It was unclear if this was a repeat of the previous leak or a new one. Later on, the resident confirmed she had no leaks between November 2024 and March 2025. We therefore assume that the landlord’s works in November 2024 had a positive affect on the water ingress. The landlord inspected the leak promptly on 1 April 2025. This was appropriate because at this point it believed the issue was external. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for external repairs.
10. Inspection notes said the leak was from the flat above. On 3 April 2025, the landlord told the resident the leaseholder above must repair it. It confirmed it did not carry out repairs inside leasehold homes. This aligned with the lease. This states the leaseholder must repair the interior, including any pipes and drains serving an individual flat. It returned to the property on 10 April 2025. It confirmed the leak was from the flat above. Records show the landlord tried to contact the leaseholder. It sent a letter on 7 April 2025, requesting evidence that the leak had been found and fixed. It followed up again in May 2025. These were appropriate actions.
11. In its stage 2 response on 7 May 2025, the landlord said it had raised repairs but could not access the flat above. It said it was taking steps to gain access and would complete a post‑inspection by 30 June 2025. However, its records show that on 16 April 2025, it categorised the repair as shared ownership and not its responsibility so cancelled the work orders. This meant it could not carry out the actions promised in its final response. The information in the stage 2 response was inaccurate and likely caused confusion for the resident.
12. The landlord told us it raised the repairs in error. It said it had not communicated the cancellation of the jobs to the resident. Repair records show a note from 16 April 2025 requesting contact with the resident to confirm the leaseholder of the flat above was responsible for the repair. There is no evidence this happened. Its stage 2 response on 7 May 2025 contradicted the repair records. This was poor record keeping. Complaint records show it closed the stage 2 actions on 27 June 2025. Again, there was no evidence it updated the resident. The resident told us the leak was resolved. It was not clear when this happened, or how.
13. In her complaint, the resident said the leak had damaged her ceiling and walls. The landlord did not address this point in its complaint responses. On 15 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of damage. It provided a liability claim form and details of its insurance team. On 25 September 2024, it confirmed that, as a shared owner, she was responsible for internal repairs. It advised her to claim on her home insurance or the landlord’s insurance. It sent another claim form. Under the lease, the resident is responsible for internal repairs. The information the landlord provided aligned with its compensation policy. This says damage claims should go to the relevant insurer. It was unclear if the resident pursued a claim or what the outcome was but the landlord’s advice was appropriate.
14. The landlord said that after the complaints process ended, it raised works to complete some internal decoration. Records show it sent this job to its contractor in December 2025. This was a positive step to repair its relationship with the resident although it is not clear how it communicated this to the resident. The landlord said the job was closed after several failed attempts to contact the resident. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident again about this.
15. In summary, the landlord delayed and communicated poorly when handling the first leak. It did inspect the March 2025 leak promptly. It found the leak came from the flat above and was the leaseholder’s responsibility. However, its communication about responsibility was poor. Its final response said it had raised works, but it had already cancelled them.
16. The landlord tried to put things right by offering £635 in compensation. It also raised internal decoration works, even though it was not responsible for them. However, the compensation did not fully reflect its poor communication, the inaccurate information given, or the impact on the resident over several months on both occasions. We have identified additional failings and ordered a further £150. This aligns with our remedies guidance when a landlord’s offer of redress is not proportionate to its failings and these have caused an adverse impact.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with this.
18. The resident raised her complaint on 14 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the next day, in line with its policy and the Code.
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 July 2024, 74 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay. It did not meet its policy or the Code. The evidence shows the resident followed up on her complaint in April 2024. The landlord contacted her on 9 and 20 May 2024. However, there was no evidence it agreed an extension with her. It also failed to update her on when to expect a response.
20. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 April 2025. This was within the 5 working day timeframe in its policy and the Code. It responded to the stage 2 complaint on time.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it failed to action the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days. It was unclear which escalation request it meant. Internal emails from June 2024 show the resident had asked to escalate her complaint, but the landlord had not yet issued the stage 1 response. We saw no evidence of another escalation request before 3 April 2025. The landlord’s record‑keeping is unclear.
22. The Code requires landlords to respond to all issues raised in a complaint. The resident said the leak had damaged her walls and ceilings. The landlord did not address this point in its complaint responses. Its complaints policy says it will not accept issues of legal liability, such as insurance claims, as a complaint. The landlord responded about this issue outside its formal complaint reply. However, it failed to follow its policy and explain why it did not consider this point as part of the complaint.
23. The landlord offered £25 for its complaint handling. This related only to its late actioning of an escalation request. It did not identify or explain its delay at stage 1. As a result, it did not remedy its poor complaint handling. The compensation did not address the failings we identified or the time and trouble caused to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered total compensation of £125 to reflect the adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

24. The landlord’s response at stage 1 was delayed. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly responding within the prescribed timescales and communicating about extensions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The information in the landlord’s stage 1 response about completing repairs was inaccurate.The landlord also did not provide full repair records for both leaks. Landlords should maintain accurate records of repairs. Clear, correct, and accessible records provide an audit trail. They also enhance landlords’ ability to respond to problems when they happen.

Communication

26. The landlord acknowledged at stage 1 that its communication about the initial leak was poor. The landlord failed to show it had taken learning from this. Its poor communication continued.