A2dominion Housing Group Limited — case 202409219

Decision Case ID 202409219 Decision type Investigation Landlord A2Dominion Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 8 May 2026 Background The resident reported a draught and damage to the front door. The landlord inspected the door and completed some repair work but decided it did not need replacing. The resident sought a replacement door and improved complaint response from the landlord. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlords: Handling of reports of repairs to a door.

Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found there was: No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repair. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Door repair The landlord attended and assessed the condition of the door following the reports made by the resident. It determined that the door did not need replacing and installed a draft excluder to help resolve the resident’s concerns.

This was an appropriate response. Complaint handling The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. It was responsible for delays in the complaints process which caused inconvenience and delay for the resident. It acknowledged some failings in its stage 1 response but other failings were not recognised. 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 05 June 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the ceiling repairs, as offered during the complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date, if not paid already. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 05 June 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 29 January 2024 The resident reported damage to the bottom of the front door, causing a draught.

He also raised concerns about the security of his property, as he felt the door wasn’t secure when compared with neighbouring flats. 23 April 2024 The landlord’s stage 1 response said: It’s contractor PPS had attended on 23 January 2024 and assessed the door, confirming it was in good working condition. A repairs manager had attended as part of the stage 1 review and confirmed there was some wear and tear to the bottom of the door but this was a decorative repair issue and not a cause for a full door replacement.

No security concerns raised. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the door but offered £75 compensation and apologised for the delayed response. 23 April 2024 The resident said he wanted to escalate to stage 2. He was unhappy with the stage 1 response and maintained that his front door needed to be replaced as it wasn’t as secure as his neighbour’s doors and he believed the wood was rotten. 29 May 2024 The landlord’s stage 2 response said: That the landlord acknowledged the resident’s claim that the door looking older and less secure had meant he’d lost out on a mutual exchange opportunity.

Reiterated that PPS had visited the property in January and April 2024 and assessed the condition of the door. Both visits had confirmed the door was in good condition and did not need replacing. The landlord acknowledges there is minor cosmetic damage to the front of the door but no need to repair or replace. The landlord does not uphold the resident’s complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident contacted our service requesting support as he wasn’t satisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses.

The resident wanted a replacement front door and for the landlord to learn from the complaint to improve its handling of similar issues in future. 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 The handling of the door repair Finding No maladministration The resident reported a draught coming under the front door to the property. Notes provided by a subcontractor attending on 18 December 2023 confirm the resident has asked for the door to be replaced but they did not deem it necessary. The resident reported the door as being less secure compared with neighbouring flats, as they had newer doors installed. He raised the concern that the lack of security was affecting his mental health.

A further visit, this time by Pyramid Plus South (PPS) on 2 January 2024, assessed the door as being in good condition but referred it to a surveyor to assess how suitable it was as a fire door. PPS did not suggest replacing the door was necessary. The surveyor visit on 4 April 2024 confirmed the door is suitable as a fire door with a 4mm gap at the bottom. They confirmed a draught excluder and replacement intumescent strips were provided. In this case, the landlord demonstrated good responses in line with its responsive repairs policy, which says any standard repairs should be resolved within 20 working days.

It also acknowledged its obligation to ensure the door into the property was secure and in good repair, which forms part of the tenancy agreement with the resident. The resident said that a contractor told him the door needed replacing. However all the evidence shared with us says otherwise and that the door does not need replacing at this time. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process that is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code.

The resident raised the complaint and received a stage 1 acknowledgement from the landlord on 8 February 2024. This said that a response would be given within 10 working days but warned about possible delays due to high demand. The landlord’s provided it’s stage 1 response on 23 April 2024. This was 52 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £75 compensation. The resident escalated to stage 2 and received an acknowledgement from the landlord on 24 April 2024, confirming its response would be provided by 21 May 2024.

Despite this, the stage 2 response wasn’t shared until 29 May 2024, which was 23 working days after acknowledgement. No comments were made by the landlord to explain or acknowledge this delay. The delayed stage 1 and 2 responses prevented the resident from bringing the complaint to this service sooner for review. The landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code, causing detriment to the resident. The landlord’s response to the failures identified at stage 1 was reasonable however at stage 2 its response was delayed by 5 working days.

This was not recognised. An order will be made for the landlord to apologise for its handling of the complaint. The £75 compensation offered at stage 1 is proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance, so no further compensation is needed to resolve the complaint. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The job reports provided by the landlord demonstrated the work completed during each visit to assess the door. This helped us complete a review of the complaint.

Communication The landlord was responsible for delays in its complaint handling and provided no evidence to show it kept the resident updated. There is an opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of this complaint and to ensure resident’s are kept more up to date within its complaint process.