A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202407929)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202407929 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
A2Dominion Housing Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
14 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a third floor, 2 bedroom flat. There are 2 entrances to the block, both are secured by fob access. The resident does not have access to the entrance where her gas meter is located. The resident is disabled. She has mobility issues and other medical conditions.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports that the resident was unable to access her gas meter and her request for street signage.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports that the resident was unable to access her gas meter and her request for street signage.
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The response to reports that the resident was unable to access her gas meter and her request for street signage
- The landlord did not provide the resident with an update or resolution in line with the commitments made in its stage 2 response. The resident is still without access to her gas meter and the landlord has not yet installed the street sign.
- The landlord did not fully recognise the significant delays in resolving the resident’s issues and the likely effect on the resident in relation to her disabilities and vulnerabilities.
The complaint handling
- The landlord did not act in line with its own policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as there were delays in the stage 1 response and significant delays in the escalation to stage 2.
- The landlord did recognise and acknowledge its failings. It apologised and offered sufficient compensation to put things right in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
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:
|
No later than 11 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £350 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £250 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports that the resident was unable to access her gas meter and her request for street signage.
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 11 November 2025 |
|
3 |
Order
The landlord must arrange to erect a block sign that is visible from the street as agreed in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses and provide confirmation of the work to us once completed.
|
No later than 25 November 2025 |
|
4 |
Order
The landlord must arrange for the resident to have access at all times to her gas meter by updating her existing fob or providing a new fob. |
No later than 25 November 2025 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation for complaint handling failures offered within its stage 2 response. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
29 January 2024 |
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said she had asked it to erect a street sign on several occasions but she had not received a response. She also said she had been waiting 1 year for her fob to be activated so she could access her gas meter. |
|
13 March 2024 |
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised. It said it should have responded to the resident’s query about the street signage sooner. It said it would arrange access for the resident to read her meter until it had resolved the fob issue. |
|
13 March 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She informed the landlord about errors within the stage 1 response and a lack of a compensation amount. She also expressed general disappointment with the response. |
|
14 March 2024 |
The landlord apologised for the errors and confirmed the offer of £50 compensation for its poor communication. |
|
23 October 2024 |
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It accepted that it had not resolved the issues. It said it had spoken to the fob company and it was waiting for delivery confirmation. It said it had requested a further quote for signage and it committed to resolving the matter by the end of November. It offered the resident an additional £350 compensation made up of £50 for poor communication, £150 for the delay in resolving the issues, and £150 for complaint handling failures. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was still unable to access her gas meter. She said she had a recent gas leak scare and she could not turn her gas off. She also said she thought the overall compensation was too low. |
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 landlord’s response to reports that the resident was unable to access her gas meter and her request for street signage. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident has told us that she had access to her gas meter until around 2 years ago. She does not know why the landlord revoked her fob access. She said the only way she can access her gas meter is when the trade button is activated early in the morning, which the resident finds difficult due to her disabilities. The resident also told us that there was a street sign on a perimeter wall just before the entrance to the block. However, the sign has been removed. The resident told us that the other signage on the block is not visible from the road, which means delivery drivers and ambulances are unable to find her address.
- The resident also told us that the lack of response from the landlord and the efforts she has made to chase the landlord has affected both her mental and physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts 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. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- The resident contacted the landlord by email on 16 December 2023. She said she had previously asked it to put up a street sign to show the location of the block, but she said she had not had a response. The landlord has not provided us with copies of the resident’s earlier emails or details of any prior contact by telephone.
- The resident explained that she had recently called an ambulance but they had been unable to find her property. She said she had to give them directions, which she believed could have been critical or fatal in different circumstances. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email. This is not in line with its communication service standards which say it will answer all general enquiries within 5 working days. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord considered the implications of an ambulance not being able to find the resident’s property due to the lack of signage. The resident’s email should have at least prompted the landlord to speak to her about her disabilities and vulnerabilities to gain a greater understanding of her situation and consider ways it might be able to assist her.
- The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 17 January 2024. She asked it for an update on her fob, as she could still not access her gas meter. She also asked when it would put up the street sign. There is no evidence to show the landlord gave the resident an update or followed up on her requests. She raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 January 2024.
- The resident contacted the landlord again by telephone on 9 February 2024. She raised both issues again. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 February 2024. This was within the 5 working day communication service standard. It asked the resident for her fob code so that it could reprogramme her fob. The resident told the landlord that there was no code on her fob. There is no evidence to show that the landlord made any further contact with the resident about either issue. This was likely frustrating for the resident as she had made several attempts to resolve the issues, yet there had been no progress made.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 13 March 2024 acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s enquiries in line with its service standards. It explained that it should have passed her queries on to another member of staff, but it did not follow the correct process. It offered the resident the opportunity to read her meter during an upcoming site inspection as it had not resolved the fob issue. It also confirmed it had requested a quote for signage and it said it would update the resident by the end of March 2024. It said its compensation policy allowed it to offer compensation, but it did not offer a specific amount.
- The resident responded on the same day. She pointed out some errors in the landlord’s response and the lack of compensation. She expressed general dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 March 2024. It apologised and corrected the errors. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for poor communication. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord updated the resident by the end of March as it said it would in the stage 1 response.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 October 2024 accepted that the issues were still outstanding and it apologised for the poor service. It said it had asked a leasehold manager to progress both matters to a conclusion. It committed to providing the resident with an update on the fob by 30 October 2024. It said, following its confirmation that it would provide additional signage, it had made an internal decision not to progress the quote. It said it had asked for a further quote to be authorised swiftly. The landlord said it would contact the resident to confirm the installation date and it committed to resolving the signage issue by the end of November 2024. It offered the resident a further £200 compensation, £250 in total. This was made up of £50 for poor communication and £150 for the delays in resolving the issues.
- Although the landlord acknowledged and accepted that both issues were still outstanding and it offered compensation, it did not fully recognise the significant length of the delays. It did not consider the effect of the delays on the resident, given her disabilities and health concerns, and there was no meaningful conclusion to her complaint. In addition, the landlord did not provide the resident with an update or resolution in line with the commitments made in its stage 2 response.
- Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- Having considered the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were failings, as set out above, it has not shown it recognised all the failings. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. On that basis, and as the issues are still unresolved, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider the offer of £250 insufficient given the resident’s circumstances and the impact of the landlord’s failings.
- We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says it can pay up to £350 for moderate disruption and customer effort.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 January 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 8 February 2024. This was outside of the 5 working days set within its complaints policy.
- The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. This was 24 days from the date of acknowledgement and outside of the 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
- The resident sent the landlord an email on 13 March 2024. She expressed a general dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord did not log this as a stage 2 complaint as it did not consider the resident’s contact a request to escalate her complaint. This was not in line with the Code which says at paragraph 6.10 “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. At the very least, the landlord should have contacted the resident to clarify whether she intended to escalate her complaint if it was unsure.
- Following our intervention, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 23 October 2024. This was over 7 months from the date the landlord should have escalated the complaint. This was significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
- The landlord acknowledged the delays at stage 1 and the delay in escalating the complaint within its stage 2 response. It apologised, and it offered the resident £150 compensation. We consider this reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says it can pay up to £150 for a failure to follow the complaints policy causing inconvenience and effort to progress. Therefore, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Learning
- The landlord should ensure that it contacts residents in line with its communication service standards. It should also ensure that where it makes a commitment, either within its day to day functions or within complaint responses, that it carries out the necessary actions to fulfil those commitments within a reasonable amount of time.
- The landlord should also consider a resident’s individual circumstances when responding to service requests. The landlord should be aware of a resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities so that it can make informed decisions.
- The landlord should ensure that it seeks to clarify a resident’s intentions when it receives correspondence during the complaints process. This will ensure that requests to escalate complaints to the next stage are not missed.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord provided limited evidence in the case. Although this did not hinder our investigation, it raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout this case. The evidence shows that it did not respond to her queries on several occasions. It also did not provide updates when it said it would,