A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201905377)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905377

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 March 2021


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 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of damp and mould in the property;
    2. associated formal complaint;

Background and summary of events

  1. Having provided the resident with supported accommodation, it is apparent that the landlord was aware that she had vulnerabilities, including paranoid schizophrenia and her age. She corresponded with the landlord and the Ombudsman with the support of a representative who advised that her first language was not English and that she was under the care of Mental Health Services.
  2. The landlord’s internal records of a telephone call from the resident stated that she had noticed black mould on the living room wall in January 2019 and that the bathroom and living room share a wall. According to the resident’s own chronology (submitted when her representative lodged a complaint in June 2019) she first reported a problem on 2 February 2019 and a repair order (190696) was raised.
  3. The landlord’s records indicate that an operative attended on 4 February 2019 and saw a leak inside the wet shower wall across to the living room wall. A job was raised as an all-day job with a plumber and carpenter to attend to remove the radiator and shower pump, replace walls to the wet room and living room, and fix the hole in the living room wall. Dampness and black mould on the wall of the bathroom and living room were noted and it was mentioned that a very bad smell was coming from the walls. It transpired that the cable for the shower pump was accidentally cut and this was ultimately repaired on 22 February 2019.
  4. On 13 March 2019, landlord internal correspondence mentioned that an appointment was missed due to an operative being stuck on another job. It appears that this was wrongly recorded as a ‘no access’ and the job was then closed in error. An operative attended on 18 March 2019 to fix a leak and the presence of mould was recorded. A panel was removed to find a leak on the pump behind it and was then put back and taped up.
  5. The evidence suggests that the leak was not repaired that day, or it soon reoccurred, as an operative attended again on 5 April 2019 and found a leak within the wet room wall. He made a number of recommendations to repair the leak, replace a section of wall and skirting, redecorate, possibly remove a radiator to allow access, and apply stain block and paint. The resident submits that she was told to take up her living room carpet to allow the wall to come down. She then removed all the furniture and paid for the carpet to be lifted and then later reinstated. In the intervening period, she states that someone attended and took part of the bathroom wall down.
  6. The landlord’s records detail an attendance on 17 April 2019 when further repair works were identified, to be carried out ‘when everything is dry’. On 29 April 2019, an operative attended and noted that the shower pump had been repaired and was left in working order. Further operatives attended on 16 and 21 May 2019 to complete plastering, sanding and painting. This accords with the resident’s own chronology which confirmed that the redecorating was carried out by 28 May 2019. However, she stated that issues remained as the shower pump would not work.
  7. A plumber and electrician attended on 3 June 2019, noting that the shower was not draining and flooded the floor every time it was used. The resident submits that she was then informed that a surveyor would attend on 5 June 2019 (under case 210578 raised 29 May 2019). The landlord’s internal records of 7 June 2019 identified issues with the shower pump and recommended a complete overhaul of the system as soon as possible. However, this was not actioned by the landlord at that time.
  8. On 28 June 2019, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord enclosing a chronology of events and an authority to act. He referred to water in a light socket on 27 June 2019, outstanding repairs over a five-month period, and the fact that the resident was still sponging herself clean after nearly six months. He specifically highlighted the resident’s vulnerabilities (as detailed at paragraph 2 above) and said that, when she spoke to a site manager, she had been told “it wasn’t her problem”.
  9. The new pump and pipework were fitted by 11 July 2019 and, following a call from the representative on 15 July 2019, operatives attended again. They confirmed that the pump was working and explained the need for the resident to use the shower curtain. Whilst there was internal correspondence on 25 July 2019 which mentioned the pump still not working, there is no correspondence chasing outstanding works after this date and it is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the necessary works were completed by the end of July 2019.
  10. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 31 July 2019, it acknowledged various failings in the repairs process and offered the resident £250 compensation. The representative responded on 8 August 2019, expressing his dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered.
  11. In the landlord’s letter of 20 September 2019, it increased the compensation offer to £550 as it had not previously considered the loss of use of the bathroom. It advised that the complaint would not be escalated to Stage 2 where the level of compensation formed the basis of the request so, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could pursue the matter with the Ombudsman. Following further dissatisfaction from the representative, this position was reiterated to the resident on 9 October 2019, when the landlord noted that she also appeared to want to take the complaint through legal channels.
  12. In the representative’s submissions to the Ombudsman of 27 October and 12 November 2020, he explained that the resident remained unhappy, that she had concerns about the standard of workmanship, and that the compensation offered did not take into account the level of disruption and stress. In the landlord’s email to the Ombudsman of 19 January 2021, it confirmed that it was prepared to consider reimbursing the resident for the cost of relaying the carpet, which she had mentioned in her correspondence.

Agreements, policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement and section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it for space and water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity. This includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and electric wiring including sockets and switches, gas pipes and water pipes.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that:
    1. there are 2 types of repair: urgent to be completed within 24 hours and standard, “next available appointment convenient to the resident”;
    2. the landlord will publish details of the: complaints policy & procedure and how to make a complaint; and compensation payment schedule so that residents understand how compensation payments are allocated.
  3. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that:
    1. a complaint can be made by a representative of a tenant authorised by them to make a complaint on their behalf;
    2. the circumstances where a complaint will not be accepted include if legal action is already being taken by the complainant against the landlord in relation to the subject of the complaint, or is instigated during the complaints procedure;
    3. if a complaint has been dealt with at stage 1 and compensation has been awarded as part of the outcome, this cannot form part of an escalation to stage 2 of the process. This type of complaint cannot therefore escalate to the next stage of the internal process. However, the complainant does have the right to escalate matters to either a Designated Person or the Housing Ombudsman Service if they remain dissatisfied.
  4. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure sets out a 2-stage process and specifies timescales. This states that:
    1. Complaints should be acknowledged within two-working days and a complaints and resolution caseworker should contact the resident within a further three-working days;
    2. if the outcome of a complaint is “Upheld” or “Partially Upheld”, the complaints caseworker should refer to the compensation policy to review if compensation should be awarded.
  5. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that:
    1. compensation will be payable when there has been loss of amenity and generally when applying a remedy, the landlord should ensure that the remedy is appropriate to the mistake and should as far as possible put the complainant in the position they would have been in but for the mistake;
    2. when assessing financial compensation, the compensation matrix should be used as guidance to ensure consistency.
    3. the factors to be considered when offering compensation include passage of time, amount of time expended by the resident, difficulty experienced by the resident in dealing with the landlord, degree of inadequacy of response of the landlord and whether wilful and the level of expenses incurred by the resident. 

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould

  1. In light of the landlord’s responsibilities detailed at paragraph 14 above, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s concerns about damp in her property and the faulty shower and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. The evidence suggests that the landlord accepted this responsibility but concerns then arose around the length of time it took to meet its obligations and the quality of the work carried out.
  2. The problems were first raised by the resident in February 2019 and the works to remedy the dampness and ensure the shower was working correctly were not completed until July 2019, some six months later. Whilst no set timeframe is specified for standard repairs (see paragraph 15 above) this represents a significant delay in repairs, particularly taking into account the resident’s particular needs and vulnerabilities.
  3. During that six-month period, an operative cut the electricity cable, at least one appointment was missed and, despite repeated attendances, the root problem and cause of ongoing dampness was not correctly diagnosed until June 2019, when it was determined that a whole new pump, timer module and power supply were required. It appears to have taken nearly three weeks to repair the cut cable in the first instance and then the repair was poorly executed. The resident reported being told that the pump would be replaced but this was not ordered, even in June 2019 after the operative who had attended had specifically requested this.
  4. The landlord did acknowledge, in its initial response, that there had been various elements of service failure (as detailed at paragraph 21 above), that it had not communicated well, and that the quality of information was poor. As a result, it is not in dispute that the resident received a generally poor level of service in terms of its handling of the repairs, and that this would have impacted upon her quiet enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the outstanding issue is the level of compensation awarded in recognition of those failings.
  5. The compensation offered for the delay in addressing the issue of damp and mould did not accord with the landlord’s compensation policy at either stage of the complaints process. It did not adequately reflect the factors to be considered (see paragraph 18(c) above) or the matrix appended to the compensation policy. At the review stage, the landlord acknowledged that the loss of use of the bathroom had not been fully considered previously, and so offered a further £300 (bringing the total to £550) on an ex-gratia basis. 
  6. The landlord therefore appears to confuse an ex gratia payment (stated in the policy to be considered in extreme circumstances) with the loss of amenity. According to the policy both should have been considered in the circumstances. The matrix appended to the policy states that an ex gratia payment can be between £15 to £240 depending on length of time and seriousness. For loss of amenity, 35% of rent payable should be considered for the loss of a kitchen or bathroom and £35% for a living room. If both rooms were considered unusable then 70% would be applicable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the rooms were rendered totally unusable. Instead, the bathroom did not have a useable shower, the living room had one extremely damp wall, and, for a while, there was displaced carpet and furniture.
  7. The resident’s representative suggested the resident had lost the use of 50% of her home and requested a total sum of £1,200 compensation. Whilst it is not disputed that the resident found the situation extremely distressing and inconvenient, and that there was some loss of amenity, there is insufficient evidence to support the position that 50% of the property was unusable for a prolonged period. As a result, it would not be appropriate for this Service to make an award on that basis.
  8. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes into account a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Further, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord.
  9. The landlord’s review letter also did not offer any compensation for missed appointment(s) which, according to its policy, should be £20 or £30 depending on the level of repair. Finally, the letter mentioned that carpet was pulled up at the resident’s expense but offered no compensation or reimbursement of expenses incurred in this respect. In later correspondence, the landlord advised that it would be prepared to pay these expenses.
  10. Therefore, given the resident’s age, vulnerabilities and her reports that she had to stand in a bowl and sponge herself clean for nearly 6 months, this could be considered an extreme case according to the landlord’s policy. An ex gratia award of £200, an award for loss of amenity at £400, £30 for the missed appointment and reimbursement of expenses would have been a reasonable offer of compensation by the landlord to accord with its policies.
  11. Though the landlord failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and make adjustments for these, there is no evidence that the repairs handling failure had any long term adverse effect on the resident which would justify an award in the highest bracket. The Ombudsman therefore awards £630 in respect of the repairs handling failure plus reimbursement of any expenses incurred for the removal of the resident’s furniture and carpet and the refitting of the carpet, subject to the provision of evidence of expenditure.

Complaints handling

  1. The complaints handling process did not comply with the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure in its entirety. There is no evidence that the initial complaint was acknowledged or progressed within the target timeframes (see paragraph 17(a) above). The representative first complained on 28 June 2019 and the landlord did not respond until 31 July 2019. Following the representative’s expression of dissatisfaction of 8 August 2019, the landlord did not issue its final response until 20 September 2019, some six weeks later.
  2. This demonstrates that there were delays throughout the complaints process, with the landlord failing to keep the resident updated on progress. This would have been understandably frustrating for the resident and her representative and would have exacerbated the situation, particularly in view of the previous delays in relation to the substantive issues.
  3. The landlord then advised, in both its September and October 2019 responses, that the complaint would not be formally escalated to Stage 2 of its process as this was only being requested on the basis of compensation. As this was in line with the landlord’s Complaints Policy (see paragraph 16(c) above), it was reasonable for it to take this position in the circumstances. Whilst the resident clearly remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it had clearly explained its position within its correspondence and had correctly directed her to the Ombudsman if she wished to pursue the matter further.
  4. However, the landlord’s response of 9 October 2019 also stated that the resident appeared to want to take the complaint through legal channels and, as such, the legal process superseded the complaints procedure. Whilst provision is made for this within the Complaints Policy (see paragraph 16(b) above), there is no evidence that it was applicable in the circumstances of this case. There is nothing to suggest that legal action had been instigated and the representative had made clear that legal action was not proposed in the near future. Therefore, this was not a correct basis for refusing to escalate the complaint.
  5. Taking into account the delay in providing responses, confusing messages given in those responses and the resident’s age and vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman awards £120 in respect of complaints’ handling failures.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property;
    2. service failure by the landlord with regard to the associated formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to comply with its repairing obligations and responsive repairs policy in not completing necessary repairs within a reasonable time and failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities in progressing the works.
  2. The landlord failed to comply with timescales in its complaints policy, to assess compensation payable for service failures in accordance with its published complaints policy and failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities in progressing complaints in a timely manner.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £750 compensation as follows:
      1. £200 as an ex gratia payment for the distress and inconvenience caused;
      2. £400 for the loss of amenity;
      3. £30 for a missed appointment:
      4. £120 for its complaint handling failures.
    2. reimburse the resident for the expenses involved in moving furniture and taking up and relaying her carpet within four weeks of being provided with receipts to verify the cost of this work.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. provide staff with appropriate training on complaints handling including the assessment of compensation in line with its compensation policy, taking account of residents’ vulnerabilities and making reasonable adjustments to accommodate these;
    2. review its Complaints Policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.