A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202428746)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. She reported the communal doors were broken and the intercom was not working correctly. She complained because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of faulty communal doors.
   2. Reports of a faulty Intercom.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty communal doors.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty communal doors

4. The landlord did not complete the repair in line with its policy timescales. It failed to keep the resident updated. It failed to complete the repairs on the date it agreed to.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom

5. The landlord did not complete the repair in line with its policy timescales. It failed to keep the resident updated on its repair. It failed to complete the repair on the date it agreed to.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord accepted its complaint handling delays. It offered the resident compensation which was reasonable for the scale of the failings and was in line with our compensation guidance.

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 have not considered

7. This investigation has looked at the period from June 2023 until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 3 September 2024. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the actions it said it would do in its stage 2 response. In April 2026 the resident told us there had been further issues with the communal front door and intercom and they were not working. We have advised the resident she could make a new complaint to the landlord about events that happened after it sent its stage 2 response.

What we have considered

8. The occupancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing communal areas and access to the flats. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete standard routine repairs within 20 working days. The repair policy does not specify a different timescale for communal repairs.
9. The landlord’s records show in 2023 it received multiple reports the communal front door was not working. It is unclear when the resident first reported it. A separate resident reported on 2 June 2023 the communal front door was insecure and would not lock. It visited on 5 June 2023,this was within its policy timescale. The repair records do not say what the landlord did during the visit.
10. During June 2023 and January 2024, the landlord received multiple reports about the communal front door. It inspected within its policy timescales, however its records do not say what work it carried out.
11. On 10 November 2023 the resident reported the communal rear door would not lock. The landlord visited on 23 November 2023, within its policy timescales. It did the repair on 23 January 2024, but it is unclear from its record what repair it completed.
12. On 23 January 2024, the resident reported that the communal front door was still broken. This allowed non-residents to sleep in the building. The landlord visited on 1 February 2024, but it is unclear what work they completed.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it visited on 20 November 2023. It acknowledged the communal front doors were broken. It said it was considering preventive measures to reduce vandalism. It also said it would complete the repairs by 11 March 2024.
14. In her escalation request the resident said the landlord did not do the repair on 11 March 2024. The resident said parcels and deliveries had been stolen because the doors did not lock.
15. The landlord told the resident that it had escalated the long-standing door issues to senior management. It was working with police to prevent non-resident’s sleeping in the entrance to the building.
16. The landlord visited on 3 April 2024. It said the communal rear door was working, but the communal front door lock still did not work. The landlord carried out a temporary repair.
17. Between April and August 2024, the resident made several reports about the doors being broken. The landlord visited within its policy timescales however it did not keep the resident updated. On 1 August 2024, the landlord completed the repair to the communal front door. This was approximately 6 months after the resident complained.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that the resident had been chasing repairs since March 2024. It said it planned to repair the communal rear door on 26 September 2024 and had asked for the work to be prioritised.
19. The landlord completed the repair to the communal rear door on 29 October 2024. This was 23 working days after it said it would resolve the issue.
20. The landlord acknowledged its delays repairing the communal doors and apologised. It inspected the doors on multiple occasions. However, the resident had to chase for updates. She did not feel safe because non-residents were sleeping in the building, which she said created a safety risk. The repair records are unclear what work the landlord carried out during its visits. The landlord also missed 2 repair dates and did not explain the delays to the resident. The landlord is responsible for repairs, even if it uses contractors. It should have proactively monitored the repairs, but there is no evidence it did so which led to delays. For these reasons, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty communal doors. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s communal door repairs. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

21. The resident first reported the intercom was not working on 4 August 2023. She told the landlord she could not hear callers through the intercom. It inspected on 11 August 2023. This was in line with its policy timescales however the records do not show the outcome of its inspection, and the landlord has not sent us an inspection report.
22. Between August 2023 and January 2024, the resident made 6 further reports that the intercom was broken. Each time, the landlord inspected within the timescales set out in its repair policy. However, its records do not say what action it took.
23. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for its delay repairing the intercom and said it would complete the repair by 11 March 2024.
24. The resident confirmed the landlord repaired the intercom on 20 March 2024. This was around 7 months after she first reported the issue and 7 working days after it promised to fix the repair.
25. The landlord repaired the intercom 140 working days after its policy timescales. It acknowledged its delays and apologised but it did not offer compensation. The landlord’s communication was poor. It did not keep the resident updated about the intercom repair. The landlord agreed to repair the intercom by 11 March 2024, but it did not do so. For this reason, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience it caused her. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If it needs additional time, it will tell the resident when it will respond. At stage 1 the landlord must not extend the date by more than 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. These timescales and the complaint definition align with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) which was in use when the resident complained.
27. The resident complained on 7 February 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. However, it sent its stage 1 response 7 working days after she complained, in line with its policy.
28. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 88 working days after the timescales in its complaint policy. It sent its stage 2 response 18 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy, but it was delayed overall because of its delay escalating the complaint.
29. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
30. The landlord accepted it should have escalated the resident’s complaint in March 2024 and offered £100 compensation for this complaint handling failure. It offered a further £50 for its poor communication, bringing the total offer to £150. This amount falls within the range set out in our compensation guidance for cases where failures affected the resident but did not cause permanent harm. We therefore found that the landlord offered reasonable redress, provided it pays the compensation it has offered.

Learning

31. The landlord should consider how it can ensure its repair records are sufficiently detailed so that they support the resolution of repairs and meaningful updates to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should ensure it maintains complete and accurate records to support its repair obligations and to enable it to evidence it has done so.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication was poor. It should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates, particularly where repairs are delayed or subject to statutory processes.