A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202503656)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She reported a sewage smell in the property. Repeated visits from the landlord to carry out repairs had not resolved the smell.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of a sewage smell in the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a sewage smell in the property.
   2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a sewage smell in the property.

4. The landlord did not carry out the repair in line with the timescales in its repairs policy. Delays were caused by poor record keeping, poor communication and the progression of the work not being adequately monitored.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failing.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

6. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that there had been multiple visits by various contractors and that the sewage smell remained unresolved. It did not state when the smell was first reported but records show a work order for a bad smell was initially raised on 20 August 2024. This was 6 months prior to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
7. The landlord had attempted to resolve the smell during these repeated visits. Initially the sewage smell was thought to be related to a sink blockage. The air vents were then investigated, and a potential leak was identified and addressed. However, the sewage smell remained.
8. It was not unreasonable or a failing that multiple visits were needed to identify the cause of the sewage smell. We appreciate that causes of repairs can be complex and can require multiple investigations to identify and resolve. However, in these circumstances it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure it kept the resident updated, attended appointments as scheduled and effectively communicated with contractors. The landlord did not do this.
9. In her escalation email, the resident said contractors had not been provided with the relevant information by the landlord. The resident felt this had contributed to the delays she had experienced and for the sewage smell being unresolved.
10. The landlord acknowledged this had been a problem in its stage 2 response. It stated staff training had been carried out on record keeping and the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up-to-date records. This was an appropriate remedy but did not put things right as the record keeping problems continued after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
11. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication having fallen short of expected standards. It said the resident’s emails had not been responded to in a timely manner and she had not been kept updated. This was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge.
12. However, it did not effectively put things right with its communication as the resident had to continue chasing the landlord after the stage 2 response to progress the repair. This was not reasonable. We would expect the landlord to monitor the progress of the job to ensure the work was carried out in line with its repair timescales and for the resident to be kept updated.
13. In its stage 2 response the landlord said to resolve the smell it had arranged for a specialist contractor to carry out the work. This was appropriate. It said the contractor would be in touch shortly and it expected the work would be completed no later than 21 March 2025.
14. The landlord only progressed a CCTV survey after the resident chased it on 4 March 2025. The landlord raised the work order on 6 March 2025. However, the resident was not contacted about the job and chased the landlord again on 17 March 2025.
15. The landlord contacted the contractor, and an appointment was booked in for 20 March 2025. The work order notes showed that one of the reasons booking the job was delayed was because the landlord had not issued the schedule of rates with the work order which the contractor had needed.
16. On 20 March 2025 the CCTV survey was carried out. However, the wrong stack pipe was surveyed as the landlord had not stated which stack pipe needed the survey. The contractor surveyed the stack pipe serving the toilet whereas the problem was thought to be originating from the sink which used a different stack pipe. This meant another appointment was needed to carry out the correct CCTV survey. This error delayed the resident receiving a resolution to the ongoing sewage smell.
17. The resident chased up the landlord about the outstanding work on 25 March 2025. As a result of this, an appointment for the correct CCTV survey was booked for 2 April 2025. This survey was carried out as scheduled. It was identified that an air admittance valve had failed and needed replacing.
18. On 8 April 2025 a work order was raised to replace the valve. This work order was not marked completed until an appointment on 7 July 2025. This was 3 months later and took considerably longer than the 20 working days specified in the landlord’s repair policy.
19. One of the reasons for the delay in this work order being completed was because the contractor could not find the valve size that was needed. Any delay due to a problem with the availability of parts was reasonable. There was also one appointment with no access due to the resident being in hospital. Any delay caused by the resident not being available for a scheduled appointment was reasonable.
20. The resident experienced delays and frustrations with appointments not being attended. There was poor record keeping which meant we have been unable to establish why an appointment on 24 April 2025 did not go ahead as scheduled. Other appointments were cancelled on the day of the appointment due to contractor sickness and as the correct part had not yet been sourced.
21. Another appointment was a no show from the contractor. The resident contacted the landlord about this, and it was arranged for a supervisor to attend later that day. While this was an appropriate response to put things right, the resident should have been notified if the original scheduled appointment could not go ahead.
22. The replacement part was not found but the valve was repaired by some soldering. While the landlord recorded the repair was completed on 7 July 2025, the resident disputes this. She said further repairs for the sewage smell were logged in August 2025 before it was fixed. The resident provided us with the references for repairs reported in August 2025. We have been unable to establish if any work was carried out in that month as the landlord did not provide us with repair records for August 2025.
23. On 13 November 2025 the resident told us that the sewage smell had returned from 9 November 2025. The resident told us that she had not reported this new occurrence of the problem as she found it stressful to deal with the landlord.
24. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation at stage 1. This was not unreasonable as it was taking the necessary steps to try and identify the cause of the smell. However, as it had been 4 months since the resident had reported the problem, it would have been reasonable to consider offering some compensation for the time taken to resolve the matter. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation can be awarded for this reason.
25. In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded the resident £325 compensation. This was made up of £150 for time and trouble, up to 21 March 2025 which was the date it expected the repair to be completed by. The landlord also awarded £100 for stress and inconvenience and £75 for poor communication. This was fair and appropriate compensation which was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
26. However, this compensation was awarded up to 21 March 2025 and the smell was not logged by the landlord as resolved until 7 July 2025. This was 3.5 months later. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by further delays and poor communication.
27. On 13 November 2025 the resident told us that the sewage smell had returned from 9 November 2025. The resident told us that she had not reported this new occurrence of the problem as she found it stressful to deal with the landlord.
28. It is recommended the landlord carry out another inspection of the property to investigate the return of the sewage smell.

29. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 December 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 17 January 2025. This was greatly in excess of the 5 working days within which the landlord must acknowledge a complaint as per its complaints policy and the Code.
30. There were no other failings identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint either at stage 1 or stage 2. All the other timescales in the Code were adhered to.
31. The landlord apologised for the delay in dealing with the resident’s escalation request in its stage 2 response. It awarded the resident £25 compensation for this delay. This was a proportionate amount of compensation.
32. We have found that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving its complaint handling failure.

Learning

Record keeping and communication

33. Our Spotlight Report on repairs and maintenance explains the importance of the landlord keeping accurate records and having good communication with contractors and residents.
34. In this case, some records were incomplete or lacking the correct information and the jobs raised did not have adequate oversight from the landlord. This meant there were delays and the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for the work to be progressed. We would encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations and best practice in our Spotlight Report to ensure it keeps accurate and complete records.