Dawson Housing Limited (202423189)

Decision
Case ID	202423189
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Dawson Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Licence
Date	10 October 2025

Background

The resident lived in the landlord’s supported accommodation from June 2023 until August 2024. He had a licence agreement which assigned him a room and use of the building’s communal areas. The building housed vulnerable people. A managing agent ran it on the landlord’s behalf. While he lived there, the resident raised various concerns about his living conditions. The landlord’s agent ultimately evicted him. It cited conduct issues that caused distress for its staff.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports and concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB), crime, and related staff conduct issues.
2. Concerns about a lack of support from the landlord.
3. Concerns that the landlord gave him incorrect information.
4. Concerns about repair related issues.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB, crime, and related staff conduct issues.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about repair related issues.
3. Complaint handling.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord gave him incorrect information.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of support.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that the landlord:
1. Did not adhere to its ASB policy, but there was a limited adverse impact to the resident.
2. Provided adequate welfare support to the resident.
3. Did not redress the resident for a service charge error.
4. Did not adhere to its repair policy at times.
5. Did not handle the resident’s complaint appropriately.

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 provided by a relevant member of its senior leadership team. 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 07 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its response to his reports and concerns around ASB issues. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to his concerns about incorrect information. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to his concerns about repair related issues. £150 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.	No later than 07 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. This includes staff working for the managing agent on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman by the due date.	No later than 07 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had previously reported criminal incidents to the landlord/agent, but nothing had been done. Among other issues, he referenced theft, drug dealing, and break-ins. He alleged that some of the landlord’s staff had helped other residents to commit crimes against him. His other key points were: The landlord’s staff had deleted important CCTV evidence. There were drug dealers living in the supported accommodation. Since December 2023, the landlord “had refused” to fix a faulty shower in his room.
30 July 2024	The parties exchanged emails. The landlord confirmed it had raised a formal complaint for the resident. It also requested more information about his concerns. For example, it asked if he had alerted the police and whether the police had taken any further action. The resident replied to the landlord. He confirmed that he had previously liaised with the police.
1 August 2024	The managing agent decided to evict the resident. It gave him around 24 hours to leave his room. Its termination notice said the resident had sent intimidating messages to its staff several times. It also said he had accused them of serious crimes. The agent deemed the resident to be “high-risk”. It said its staff no longer felt comfortable supporting him.
Between 1 and 5 August 2024	The resident appealed his eviction soon afterwards. He felt he had been evicted because he had complained about the landlord. Over the next few days, he asked the landlord to add further issues to his complaint. In summary, the resident’s additional complaint points were: The landlord had not given him the support that he needed. It had given him incorrect advice around work and benefit payments. It had unfairly removed clothes drying facilities from the supported accommodation. It had supplied other residents with a new mattress. The resident did not receive one.
6 August 2024	The police emailed the landlord. They said, over time, they had received numerous reports from the resident, and they had investigated these. They also said they were unable to find “any evidence [to support] any of the allegations” he had made.
7 August 2024	The resident added another issue to his existing complaint with the landlord. He said he had paid some service charges in advance when his licence began. He also said the landlord/agent had recently given him incorrect information about this. However, he confirmed that it had returned the relevant funds to him several days before he was evicted.
8 August 2024	The landlord emailed the resident about his eviction. It quoted terms from his licence agreement. It said it was satisfied there were sufficient grounds to support his eviction. It referenced multiple allegations he had made about its staff, and messages he had sent to them. It said these were likely to cause distress. It also said it was dealing with his complaint as a separate matter.
15 August 2024	The resident chased the landlord for its complaint response. He said it had told him that it would respond within 10 working days. He also said this timescale had expired.
16 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed 10 complaint points the resident had raised. Ultimately, the landlord said it had not found any evidence of “wrongdoing”. It proposed to close the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s other key points were: The police had found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations. Its CCTV systems occasionally failed, but its staff could not delete footage. The shower fault stemmed from a water pressure issue. It needed a water supplier’s help to resolve the matter. It had offered to move the resident to a room with a working shower. The resident had declined its offer. Its records showed it had provided regular support to the resident. There was an error in relation to the resident’s initial service charge payment. This had recently been resolved. A combined washer/dryer was removed because it had developed a fault. The landlord replaced it with a washing machine as they were more reliable. It had supplied the resident a new mattress in July 2025. It should have encouraged the resident to contact the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for advice about benefits.
16 August 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He did not say why he was unhappy with its stage 1 response.
10 September 2024	The landlord’s Chief Executive emailed the resident. They said they had reviewed his complaint and they agreed with the landlord’s decision at stage 1. They also said the resident could refer his case to the Ombudsman.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident says he was unfairly evicted. He also says the landlord’s actions had a serious adverse impact on his mental health. He wants it to pay compensation.

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	Response to reports and concerns about ASB, crime, and related staff conduct
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has an ASB policy which applies to all of its residents. It details the landlord’s approach to reports of ASB. The landlord will respond to reports of violence or harassment within 24 hours. It will respond to all other ASB reports within 5 working days. The policy also says the landlord will:
1. Speak to the reporting resident and, where appropriate, the alleged perpetrator.
2. Agree an action plan with the reporting resident. This will set out each party’s next steps. It will include specific measures, a communication plan, and a date when the landlord will review the case.
3. “Maintain an open case file on the ASB while the matter is subject to an agreed plan”.
4. Work with other agencies (such as the police) when dealing with reports of ASB.
The resident reported various ASB related issues while he lived in the landlord’s supported accommodation. There is no indication that the landlord has ever opened an ASB case for him. Similarly, there is no evidence that it created any ASB action plans. There is a lack of evidence to show that it spoke to any alleged perpetrators. This is concerning.
The managing agent was acting on the landlord’s behalf, so the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions. Overall, the landlord has not shown that it created appropriate ASB records or completed appropriate investigations in line with its policy. If the resident felt his reports had not been taken seriously, it is likely this was distressing for him.
That said, other records confirm the landlord/agent did engage with the resident’s reports. It also liaised with relevant agencies including the police. It is noted there is a lack of evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB/criminal incidents. There is also a lack of evidence to support his related concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s officers. For example, from the landlord’s internal records, there is no indication that they purposely deleted CCTV footage.
The landlord did not identify its failures during its complaints process. As a result, it has not attempted to put things right for the resident. Since he was adversely impacted, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord. In mitigation, there is a lack of compelling evidence to support the resident’s allegations. This suggests the landlord’s policy related failures had a limited impact overall.

Complaint	Response to concerns about a lack of support
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s policy and tenancy documents confirm that it specialises in housing vulnerable people. The landlord has also supplied extensive support records for the resident. These records show:
1. The landlord completed several risk assessments for the resident throughout his stay. Having done so, it identified a number of specific support needs.
2. The landlord scheduled weekly support sessions for the resident. It often inspected his room and the building on a weekly basis.
3. At the resident’s request, the landlord referred him to a foodbank several times in 2023.
4. Around the same time, it moved the resident to a different building. It did this because it believed that a move may improve his mental health.
5. In early July 2024, the landlord held a multi-agency meeting with the police and a mental health service. The meeting discussed the resident’s conduct and substance misuse issues.
During its complaints process, the landlord said it had maintained regular contact with the resident and engaged with any welfare concerns. The evidence supports the landlord’s assertion. Overall, it shows the landlord was mindful of the resident’s welfare. It also liaised with external agencies about this where appropriate. There is no indication it acted unreasonably or failed to comply with any related policies or procedures.
Given the above, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord. It is noted that, under the terms of the resident’s licence agreement, the landlord was entitled to evict him at any time. The agreement said the landlord could exercise discretion to end the agreement with immediate effect.

Complaint	Response to concerns about incorrect information
Finding	Service failure

During his complaint, the resident said the landlord told him that he could not work because this would affect his benefit payments. He also said the landlord’s advice prevented him from seeking employment for about 6 months after he moved to the supported accommodation. In response, the landlord ultimately said it had not identified any related failures on its part.
We have seen a housing benefit decision letter from June 2023. It shows the resident was liaising with external agencies about benefit payments at this point. From the landlord’s support records, there is no indication that he asked it for information about work or benefits before 24 October 2023. There were further interactions between the parties after this date.
Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord gave the resident incorrect advice around work or benefits. Other than the resident’s related comments, there is no evidence to show the landlord told him that he could not work. We therefore find the landlord’s approach to this complaint issue was reasonable.
In his complaint, the resident also said the landlord/agent gave him incorrect information about service charges that he had paid in advance. He said he ultimately had to trace his payment (presumably through his bank). It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient for him. In response, the landlord accepted it had made an error. It also said it had rectified this.
The landlord did not apologise for its error. There is no indication that it attempted to assess the related adverse impact on the resident. This was unfair and its approach may have added to his distress. Records show he enquired about the charges on 9 July 2024. On 22 July 2024 the landlord/agent told the resident it had resolved the matter. This was about 2 weeks later.
With accurate record keeping, the landlord may have avoided the payment error. While the error was ongoing, it may have caused some distress for the resident. The landlord has acknowledged its error. Given its short duration and limited impact, we find there was service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	Response to concerns about repair related issues
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy shows it prioritises repairs based on the level of risk. It says the landlord should complete urgent repairs within 7 days. This includes shower systems that are not working. In this case, the resident made similar reports about his shower from December 2023 onwards. The evidence points to an intermittent fault.
The landlord’s records suggest the resident experienced a prolonged shower outage between 31 January and 23 February 2024. This was a period of about 3 weeks. During this period, the landlord has not shown that it responded to the resident’s initial report in line with its urgent repair timescale. This is concerning. Its related record keeping was inadequate.
The resident chased the agent for a repair on 12 February 2024. There is evidence that he was using another resident’s shower around this time. About 10 days later, the agent offered to move the resident to a different room. This was a reasonable approach. Records show the resident declined a move. On 23 February 2024 he reported the shower was working again.
On 25 June 2024 the resident reported another shower outage. He chased the agent 6 days later. On 4 July 2024 the agent offered to move him again. It said the shower needed a complex repair which could take time. The resident declined to move. From the landlord’s records, it is not clear if the shower started working again before he was evicted. This is concerning.
Again, the landlord has not shown that it responded to the June 2024 outage in line with its policy timescale. Ultimately, its lack of urgency may have contributed to the overall duration of the outages. The evidence shows the resident chased a repair on at least 2 occasions. It is likely this was avoidable and inconvenient for him. The landlord did not recognise these issues during its complaints process or attempt to put things right. This was inadequate.
In his complaint, the resident said the landlord had unfairly removed a drying machine from the supported accommodation. In response, the landlord said the machine was faulty. It also said, for reliability reasons, it had decided not to replace it with an equivalent machine. From its tenancy documents, there is no indication the landlord was obliged to supply a new dryer.
The resident also complained that the landlord had not replaced his mattress. Similarly, he said it had replaced his undamaged bed frame with a broken frame. In response, the landlord disputed his claims. Records show the resident asked for a new mattress on 1 July 2024 and the agent promptly approved his request. They also show the resident had received a new mattress by 22 July 2024.
Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to support the resident’s claims about bedroom furniture or a drying machine. However, there is evidence that the landlord/agent did not respond to his reports about the shower in line with its repairs policy. It is likely the resident was adversely impacted by its lack of urgency. Since it did not attempt to put things right, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy. It says the landlord’s approach aligns with the Code.
The landlord’s policy shows it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it will issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. It will issue a response within 20 working days of an acknowledgement at stage 2. These timescales are consistent with the Code.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2024. On that basis, it should have issued him a response or an update by 15 August 2024. The landlord did not do this. Its approach was contrary to the Code. The resident chased the landlord on the day its response was due. It is likely this was avoidable and inconvenient for him.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 August 2024. It acknowledged a delay and apologised to the resident. This shows the landlord considered its own complaint handling during its investigation. This approach was positive and allowed it to identify and address any procedural failures. However, as the resident had chased its response, the landlord could reasonably have awarded him some compensation.
In its response, the landlord said it believed that the resident’s complaint should be closed at stage 1. It did not say how the resident could escalate his complaint if he was still unhappy. This is concerning. The Code says a compliant response must contain key information. This includes a resident’s escalation rights. The landlord’s stage 1 response was contrary to the Code. Its approach may have caused some distress for the resident.
Based on the period between 16 August and 10 September 2024, the landlord responded in an appropriate timescale at stage 2. However, its response was brief and informal. It did not refer to any specific complaint points or provide a clear reason for its finding. This was contrary to the Code. The resident replied to the landlord soon afterwards. He said it had not taken his complaint seriously. This shows its complaint handling added to his distress.
The landlord was responsible for various complaint handling failures which adversely impacted the resident. It has not acknowledged the full extent of these failures or attempted to put things right for him. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. It is noted that the evidence points to problems with its general approach to redress.
The Code says landlords must have processes in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process. In this case, the landlord’s complaints policy suggests that it puts the onus on the Ombudsman to award compensation. This is concerning. This aspect of the landlord’s policy may not comply with the Code.
The landlord should be capable of resolving complaints fairly without our involvement. Our investigations also consider whether a landlord made a reasonable attempt to put things right. In many cases, landlords can avoid adverse findings from the Ombudsman by awarding a proportionate amount of compensation to address service failures.
From April 2024 onwards, the Ombudsman has a legal duty to monitor compliance with the Code. Given the above, we have notified our compliance team about the potential problem we have identified with the landlord’s complaints policy. Our compensation order reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.

Learning

There were problems with the landlord’s ASB and complaint handling. The landlord could have avoided these by adhering to its policies and the Code. It could consider providing additional staff training to improve its performance.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were record keeping issues in different aspects of the landlord’s operations. Good record keeping will allow the landlord to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.

Communication

The landlord was unable to assure the resident that it had taken his complaint seriously. The Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.