A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202534568)

Background

1. The resident lives in aflat which is serviced by a centralised communal heating system.She is responsible for paying the heating supplier for her heating and hot water. She told the landlord the property was in a state of disrepair and it had failed to carry out the repairs in a timely manner. This included noting that she had been without heating and hot water for 3 years. She also saidthe windowswere poorly fitted and brokenand she had concerns regarding unsafe electrics.In addition, the resident noted she was subject to ongoing domestic abuse and needed to be rehoused.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken and ill-fitting windows.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about unsafe electrics and request to be temporarily rehoused.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
   5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for all communication to be in writing.
   6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of broken and ill-fitting windows.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about unsafe electrics and request to be temporarily rehoused.
6. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
7. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for communication to be in writing.
8. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

9. The resident has been without heating and hot water for almost 3 years. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay in replacing the heat interface unit (HIU) and offered the resident significant compensation during the complaints process, the resident still does not have heating or hot water. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress given the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident over a significant period of time.
10. There was a 6-month delay in repairing the front door window. Whilst the landlord offered the resident compensation it failed to arrange for the other windows to be inspected following the resident’s reports that they were never repaired and were unsafe.
11. Whilst the landlord explained the criteria for emergency rehousing to the resident and arranged for the electrics to be checked, there is no evidence an inspection was carried out.
12. Whilst there was an initial delay in responding to the resident’s request to move permanently, the landlord did later provide her with rehousing advice and asked the police for supporting evidence. It also offered her compensation.
13. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to keep the resident updated using her preferred communication method. It updated her records to prevent recurrences of this and offered compensation.
14. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and our complaint handling code (‘the Code’).

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.

What we did not investigate

15. The resident has referred to a possible impact upon her physical and mental health. While these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health.
16. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused for a court or insurer to consider. They are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Compensation

17. The landlord offered the resident £2250 compensation in its final complaint response.
18. It has not been possible to establish what proportion of the compensation was attributed to each aspect of the resident’s complaint. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.
19. This Service’s compensation policy allows us to attribute specific amounts to each part of a resident’s complaint and demonstrates a fair approach in considering the overall offer. Based on our assessment, we have determined the following:

• £1800 of the total compensation award relates to the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water
• £200 of the total compensation award relates to the resident’s complaint about broken and ill-fitting windows
• £100 of the total compensation award relates to the resident’s complaint about unsafe electrics and request to be temporarily rehoused
• £100 of the total compensation award relates to the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused
• £50 of the total compensation award relates to the resident’s request for all communication to be in writing

What we did investigate

20. It is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the period from when the resident first reported issues of no heating or hot water. This is because the resident was without heating and hot water for a significant period of time and the landlord considered this timescale in its complaint responses.
21. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping heating installations in good repair and working order. The resident is responsible for paying for any charges, including gas costs whether metered or billed, although it is unclear who is responsible for setting up the account. In this case, the resident was charged for her heating on a ‘pay-as-you-go basis’ by the heating supplier.
22. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 10 October 2023 that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
23. Whilst the landlord raised a repair in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, the job was later cancelled. This was because it was sent to the wrong contractor. Further jobs were raised in November 2023, but again the jobs were cancelled as they were sent to the wrong contractor. There is no evidence the landlord arranged for the repair to be completed. This was a failure and meant the resident was left without heating or hot water.

24. The housing records confirm the landlord raised a further job in December 2023 but was unable to gain access to the resident’s home in January 2024. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in repairing the central heating system at this point.
25. The landlord arranged for an independent organisation to carry out an inspection of the property on 10 April 2024. This confirmed the HIU was disconnected in November 2023 by the landlord and the resident had no heating or hot water. It was noted the resident relied on portable electric heaters, although it is unclear whether these were provided by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any equipment to obtain hot water. The surveyor recommended the HIU was overhauled or replaced. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information at this point. This was a further failure.
26. A repair was raised on 6 June 2024, but again the job was cancelled as it was sent to the wrong contractor and the resident was left without heating and hot water. The landlord did not arrange for the HIU to be replaced until 2 September 2025. This was almost 2 years after the resident reported she had no heating or hot water.
27. The resident told the landlord on 10 October 2025 that she had been without heating and hot water since moving into the property in June 2023. She said this was because the HIU was disconnected by the landlord after a chemical fire. The resident also said she had repeatedly asked the landlord to replace the boiler, but it did not do anything.
28. The resident told the landlord on 16 October 2025 that she was hospitalised during the winter due to the cold and was awaiting heart surgery. She also said she was unable to bathe as she was too unwell to boil multiple kettles for hot water. In addition, the resident noted she felt ‘‘neglected, ignored, and deliberately dismissed despite repeatedly crying out for help.’’
29. The housing records confirm a new HIU was installed on 24 October 2025. The contractor was, however, unable to test if it was working because there wasa large debt on the meter. The contractor asked the landlord to contact the company responsible for supplying the heating.
30. The landlord confirmed on 29 October 2025 that the resident had not opened an account with the heating supplier and there was a significant debt on the meter.
31. The landlord noted on 30 October 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that a repair was raised in December 2023 after it disconnected the HIU. It acknowledged the resident had been without heating or hot water for a significant period of time and the delay was unacceptable.
32. The landlord confirmed the HIU was replaced on 24 October 2025 and tested by its contractor. It also said the heating supplier attempted to reconnect the supply on 27 October 2025 but was unable to do so due to the outstanding debt. It said the resident had previously been advised to contact the supplier to confirm her account details. This provided clarity.
33. The landlord acknowledged it should have provided the resident with clearer information on how to clear the debt. It also confirmed the heating system was working and provided the resident with details on who she needed to contact if she had any heating account issues. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
34. The resident told the landlord on 1 November 2025 that the company responsible for the heating was in the process of adjusting her account and she wanted confirmation when the landlord would restore the heating system. She told the landlord on 7 November 2025 that its claim that the lack of heating was due to a meter debt was misleading. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s home on 17 November 2025 and noted the resident had no heating or hot water despite there being credit on the meter. It said the HIU had not been installed correctly.
35. It is unclear from the housing records when the HIU was inspected or when the heating supply was reconnected. The resident told the landlord on 28 November 2025 that an engineer visited on the previous day, but the heating was still not working and the hot water was intermittent.
36. The landlord noted on 4 December 2025 in its final complaint response that an energy accountwas not created for the resident’s property and this led to a debt building up. It said a request had been made to create an account and the outstanding balance would be recovered at 25%. It also noted an issue had been identified with the HIUon the 17 November 2025 and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to rectify the problem.The landlord offered an apology for the delay in identifying the fault with the HIU and increased its overall offer of compensation from £300 to£2250.
37. Based on our assessment, we have determined that £1800 of the total compensation award relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
38. The landlord’s actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the resident continued to experience problems with no heating or hot water after the landlord issued its final complaint response. Whilst the landlord arranged to visit the resident’s home on 11 March 2026, it is unclear from the housing records what the outcome of the visit was. The resident told this Service on 26 May 2026 that she still does not have any heating or hot water.
39. In summary, the resident has been without heating and hot water for almost 3 years. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the delay in replacing the HIU and offered the resident significant compensation during the complaints process, the resident still does not have heating or hot water. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress given the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident over a significant period of time.
40. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to inspect the HIU and arrange for the necessary repairs to be completed. An award of additional compensation has also been made in accordance with this Service‘s compensation policy and is based on our formula for cases involving no heating or hot water, covering the period from when the landlord issued its final complaint response up to the date of this report.

41. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 27 January 2025 that the front door window had been smashed. The landlord boarded up the window on the same day in accordance with the timescales for emergency repairs as set out in its repairs policy.
42. The landlord arranged for the window to be reglazed on 17 February 2025. Whilst this was in accordance with the 20-working day target timescale for completing standard repairs, there is no evidence the landlord attended the appointment. This was a failure.
43. The front door window was not reglazed until 11 August 2025. This was 6 months after the resident reported it had been smashed. The situation is likely to have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. It was evident she was concerned about her safety and the risk of her ex-partner returning to the property.
44. The resident told the landlord on 24 October 2025 in her complaint that there were broken and ill-fitting windows in her home. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the windows to have been inspected at this point. This was a failure
45. The landlord confirmed on 30 October 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that the front door window was replaced on 11 August 2025. It acknowledged the delay in completing the work and noted it should have kept the resident updated. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint.
46. The landlord said the resident had not raised any further concerns about the windows and she should report any further problems. This was not appropriate given she had previously told the landlord the windows were ill fitting and broken.
47. The resident told the landlord on 7 November 2025 that the windows were never repaired and they were unsafe. The landlord was copied into 2 emails sent by the resident on 12 November 2025 and 13 November 2025 in which she noted there were gaps in the windows. Again, the landlord failed to inspect the windows or arrange for any repairs to be carried out.
48. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 4 December 2025 in its final complaint response and increased its overall offer of compensation from £300 to £2250. Based on our assessment, we have determined that £200 of the total compensation award relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
49. The landlord’s actions cannot be considered reasonable redress given it failed to investigate the resident’s claims that the windows were unsafe and had never been repaired. An order has been made for the landlord to inspect the windows. The financial offer of £200 was reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of additional compensation.
50. In summary, there was a 6-month delay in repairing the front door window. The landlord also failed to arrange for the other windows to be inspected following the resident’s reports that they were never repaired and were unsafe.
51. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

52. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlordon 28 November 2025 that the electrical wiring on the boiler was exposed and she had been electrocuted. She said the property was unsafe and the landlord needed to provide her withtemporary rehousing.
53. The landlord raised an emergency repair on the same day to check the electrics. Whilst this was appropriate, the job was cancelled because it was sent to the wrong contractor. The resident told this Service an electrician attended on 29 November 2025, but it is unclear what work, if any was undertaken. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
54. The landlord told the resident on 1 December 2025 that temporary rehousing would not be considered unless the property was deemed unsafe by its contractor. This provided clarity and was consistent with its decant policy. It also said its contractor had made contact with the resident to arrange an appointment to visit her home.
55. The landlord noted on 4 December 2025 in its final complaint response that its contractor visited the resident’s home on 29 November 2025, but she declined access. This contradicted information recorded on the housing records and the resident’s account of events. She said she did provide access. The landlord confirmed a further appointment would be arranged within the next 7 days. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged an earlier appointment given the serious safety concerns raised by the resident.
56. The landlord confirmed the process for agreeing a decant to the resident. This included noting that the property needed to be inspected and deemed unfit for habitation before temporary housing could be offered. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It also increased its overall offer of compensation from £300 to £2250. Based on our assessment, we have determined that £100 of the total compensation award relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
57. The landlord’s actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the landlord failed to arrange for the electrics to be checked in a timely manner and it remains unclear if, or when they were inspected.
58. In summary, the landlord explained the criteria for emergency decants to the resident and arranged to carry out an inspection of her home. Whilst this was appropriate, there is no evidence an inspection was carried out.
59. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to check the electrics in the resident’s home. The financial offer of £100 was reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of additional compensation.

60. It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
61. The resident told the landlord on 10 October 2025 that she had been subject to domestic abuse and needed to be rehoused. She noted the landlord had previously placed her in temporary accommodation but said this was not suitable and she had no choice but to leave for safety reasons. She identified a property that she said would meet her needs and asked the landlord to move her urgently.
62. The landlord told the resident on the same day that a safeguarding case had been opened and a member of the team would contact her. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It also liaised with the resident’s domestic abuse support provider and classified the risk level as high.
63. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request to be rehoused at this point. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given the serious safety concerns that were raised by the resident. The landlord’s management transfer procedure says it will liaise with residents, gather supporting evidence and complete a management transfer application. The landlord’s failure to respond is likely to have caused the resident distress.
64. The housing records confirm the resident was provided with advice regarding her rehousing options on 20 October 2025. This included noting she needed to register for rehousing with the local authority and put her name on the mutual exchange register. This was consistent with the landlord’s management transfer procedure. This says residents are required to complete relevant housing application forms so they are registered on suitable housing lists. The landlord confirmed it had started the process for agreeing a management move and noted the resident said she did not require any further support.
65. It is unclear from the housing records whether the resident approached the local authority or sought a mutual exchange. The landlord asked the police for supporting evidence on 21 October 2025. This was consistent with its management transfer procedure.
66. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s request tomove in its stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2025 and set out the reason for this. This provided clarity. It also said it should have handled its communication more effectively. In addition, the landlord confirmed it had contacted the resident’s independent domestic violence advocate (IDVA) and other partners to ensure she had appropriate support in place.
67. The landlord noted the resident had been provided with guidance on how to submit a rehousing or management transfer application on 20 October 2025. It also noted it had not received a request to move from the resident and said it could provide assistance to do this if required. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. In addition, the landlord confirmed that temporary rehousing was only offered in exceptional circumstances and where there was an immediate health and safety risk. This provided clarity and was consistent with its management transfer procedure.
68. The landlord did not complete a management transfer application until 10 November 2025. This was a failure.
69. The landlord noted on 4 December 2025 in its final complaint response that it was awaiting a response from the police to its request for supporting evidence. It said it needed this information before it could progress her management transfer request. This provided clarity and was consistent with its management transfer procedure. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation from £300 to £2250. Based on our assessment, we have determined that £100 of the total compensation award relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
70. In summary, there was an initial delay in responding to the resident’s request to move. The landlord did, however, later provide her with rehousing advice, asked the police for supporting evidence, liaised with her domestic abuse support provider and increased its offer of compensation. The financial offer was reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation
71. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

72. The resident told the landlord on 16 October 2025 that it had repeatedly misinformed her and she wanted all future communication to be in writing. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged or actioned the resident’s request at this point. This led to the resident repeating her request on 21 October 2025 and 24 October 2025.
73. The resident told the landlord on 1 November 2025 that she had received a telephone call from a withheld number on the previous day. She noted on 1 December 2025 that the landlord’s contractor continued to visit her home unannounced and the situation had caused her distress.
74. The landlord acknowledged on 4 December 2025 in its final complaint response that it failed to keep the resident updated using her preferred communication method. It said it would update the resident’s records to ensure its staff and contractors followed her preference and did not carry out any unannounced visits to her home. It also increased its overall offer of compensation from £300 to £2250. The resident’s records were updated on the same day. Based on our assessment, we have determined that £50 of the total compensation award relates to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
75. The financial offer was reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation
76. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

77. The resident made a complaint on 16 October 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 October 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy – which reflects the requirements of the Code. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
78. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2025. This was consistent with the 10-day target timescale set out in its complaints policy.
79. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 7 November 2025 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 4 December 2025.
80. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 4 December 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and its acknowledgement.
81. In summary, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
82. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

83. The housing records provided by the landlord were confusing in areas and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

84. The landlord failed to respond to a number of the resident’s request for updates.