A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201807216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201807216

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

14 December 2020

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The leaseholder has complained:
1. That the landlord has not taken sufficient action in response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. That the landlord did not respond to a reported leak in good time; and did not handle the resulting claim for compensation correctly.
3. About the handling of the resulting formal complaint.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

The leaseholder has complained to the Housing Ombudsman Service that the landlord has not dealt sufficiently with antisocial behaviour (ASB) from an upstairs neighbour. They reported that the ASB as ongoing when first raising the case with the Housing Ombudsman in 2018, and again when registering the case for a formal investigation in April 2020.
The ASB was described as noise nuisance (banging, music, late night parties), alleged drug taking, and harassment (such as following the leaseholder into the lift and trying to enter the leaseholder’s flat).
It is agreed by both parties that the ASB reports began in 2018. However neither party has provided any documents from that year. The leaseholder’s first formal complaint (September 2018) stated the landlord had not dealt with their reports of ASB which had begun in July 2018. The landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2019) in response stated:
1. It had reports from the leaseholder in May, June and July 2018 (copies have not been provided)
2. The police had notified the landlord of the report of harassment it had received from the leaseholder. The landlord requested a joint visit with the police, but the police did not respond
3. That it accepted it had not kept the leaseholder updated (and offered £100 as redress for the inconvenience)
4. That the leaseholder’s reports to the building security may not have been passed onto the landlord as the (private) managing agent arranged the security
5. That more recent reports in 2019 had been recorded and investigated, and it would support any police investigation into any reports of harassment
The stage 1 response did not: explain what action the landlord took following the ASB reports in 2018 beyond responding the police; explain why the stage 1 response took 6 months; give any specific details of the actions it had taken after the 2020 reports.
The information from the emails provided by both parties from the time of the formal complaint:
1. In April 2019 the tenant disputed the landlord’s reference to noise nuisance as only from music, and reported loud stamping/jumping that caused a light fitting to fall down.
2. In April 2019 the leaseholder gave details of other neighbours that had complained about ASB
3. As a result of the April reports, the landlord responded (internally) in May to say a joint visit with the police to the perpetrator had been arranged
4. The council wrote to the leaseholder in April 2019 to give advice following their reports. This included that for the council to investigate further the leaseholder would first need to keep a diary and/or noise log. The council also wrote to the neighbour to give advice about their reported behaviour
5. The council emailed the landlord in April 2019 about the ASB case (according to the landlord’s July 2020 internal email)
6. The police did not provide any evidence or supporting reports to accompany the leaseholder’s reports
7. The landlord had no record of recent reports in July 2020, and no records of reports from other neighbours
There is no evidence that the landlord: met with the leaseholder after their reports; produced an action plan for an ASB case; contacted other neighbours to see if there were any supporting reports.
The landlord has stated in some correspondence that the police did not respond to the landlord’s requests for a joint visit. No specific evidence has been provided showing this contact with the police. Furthermore the landlord’s internal May 2019 email contradicts its complaint responses, and says a visit was booked with the police for a joint visit. However no record has been provided to show whether this visit occurred, and if it did what the outcome was.
Prior to the correspondence above (in April/May 2019) the leaseholder submitted their stage 2 complaint in March 2019. They highlighted that the complaint response took from September until March, over the landlord’s published 28 day timescale, but did not raise any additional issues about the handling of the formal complaint.
The landlord second (and final) response to the formal complaint was sent 6 months later in September 2019. It explained:
1. It had been ‘liaising’ with the police but no supporting evidence had been secured about the more serious allegations of harassment or drug taking
2. That the leaseholder had not contacted the local council or returned diary sheets to the landlord as advised to support the reports of noise nuisance
3. That the landlord had made ‘a number of visits’ to the building and had found no evidence to substantiate the report
This response to the formal complaint was inadequate. The landlord had not taken the required actions in response to the reports of ASB, and lacked the evidence to support the conclusions.
Over the course of the complaint the landlord stated it had been in touch with the police to arrange a visit; then that it had not had a response from the police; and then that it had liaised (unspecified) with the police.
Also over the course of the complaint the landlord advised the tenant to contact the local council, stated it had received an email from the council about the case, then concluded in the final response that the leaseholder’s failure to contact the council had limited the actions it could take.
There is no record of, or earlier reference to, the ‘number of visits’ the final response states that the landlord made. Therefore it is not clear what these visits were investigating, when they were conducted or what was recorded (even if it was a lack of ASB).
The landlord’s response to the Housing Ombudsman Service stated that there was not a coordinated approach to the ASB case, based on the evidence of the leaseholder’s contact with the local council in April 2019 and the landlord’s later statement in the September 2019 final response that the leaseholder had not contacted the council.
The landlord did not adequately plan or record its actions in response to the reports of ASB. ASB cases in particular require a clear plan to provide reassurance to the complainant, and clear records as any formal action by the landlord will rely on clear, long term evidence of ASB.
In addition to the lack of a clear plan or records, there is no evidence the landlord followed the normal initial procedures for investigating ASB. There s no record of a visit to the complainant. The visit to the perpetrator appears to have focused on the allegations of whether the correct tenant was living at the address, and there are no records of any further visits.
There are no records of any attempts to gather supporting evidence. The Housing Ombudsman Service Dispute Resolution Principles ask that landlords ‘be fair,’ and a crucial part of a fair service (particularly in ASB cases involving two of the landlord’s residents) is an evidenced based approach. It is not sufficient to say no reports have been received from other neighbours. The landlord can take action to confirm whether other residents have concerns or not by contacting them. This is particularly important given the complainant specifically referred to other neighbours having concerns about the ASB.

Leak

In the same September 2018 complaint about the handling of ASB reports, the leaseholder also complained that the landlord had not repaired a leak reported in July 2018, and had not offered compensation for damaging belongings.
The emails on file shows:
1. The leaseholder chased the matter (reporting the leak and mould and providing photos) 3 time in July with the landlord’s advisers not having records of the earlier contact
2. The landlord replied in November 2018 to confirm a pipe had been repaired in the flat above. It explained as a leaseholder they were responsible for the repairs to their home, and as such they would need to make the claim against the landlord’s building’s insurance. The landlord offered to cover the £250 excess payment however.
The March 2019 stage 1 response confirmed that the leak was stopped in November; that the leaseholder was responsible for repairs to their home; that as the damage resulted from a leak elsewhere however they could claim on the landlord’s insurance and it would cover the excess.
The stage 2 repeated this response (and confirmed that an excess refund of £350 had been paid in January 2019).
This was a reasonable response to the complaint. There was a failure in the landlord’s repair service, and this was acknowledged in both responses. The landlord was correct to explain that any repairs/decoration (including those resulting from leaks from other properties) are the responsibility of the leaseholders. This is as set out in Clause 3(3) of the lease agreement for the leaseholder and 5(3) for the landlord.
The landlord gave the correct advice that given the circumstances the leaseholder could claim against its building insurance (as oppose to their own contents insurance). Even when it is appropriate for a resident to claim against the landlord’s building insurance, the landlord has no automatic obligation to cover the excess cost. This is based on the obligations of each party in the lease agreement as referenced above. Therefore the refund of the excess was an offer of redress by the landlord for this aspect of the complaint.
However while repairs to the leaseholder’s property were the responsibility, the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak as it came from a tenant’s property above. As such, given the delayed response to the leak (July-November) the landlord would be expected to offer redress for the distress and inconvenience caused for this delay. The landlord’s offer of £350 is a reasonable offer of redress.

Complaint handling

As explained above, the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response both took 6 months. The landlord has acknowledged there was inadequate communication during these delays and offered £125 across the 2 responses.
This offer of compensation is inadequate given the length of the delays. The Housing Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles ask that landlords learn from their mistakes. This clearly did not happen in this instance given the repeated delay.
From 2021 the Housing Ombudsman Service will require landlords to adhere to the Complaint handling Code, and will begin to use Complaint Handling Failure Orders.

Determination (decision)

Therefore in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resulting formal complaint
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:

The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for the delays in its response to the leak from the property above

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. Pay the leaseholder £500 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of the limited response to the reports of ASB
2. Contact the leaseholder to confirm the leaseholders’ current view of the ASB; and to provide a date by when an action plan will be shared with the leaseholder of how any current reports of ASB will be investigated
3. Pay the leaseholder £125 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the delays in the formal complaint procedure