A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202008357)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008357

A2Dominion Housing Options Limited

22 December 2023


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her previous property.
    2. The resident’s reports about the felling of a tree and the subsequent damage caused to the property.
    3. The resident’s concerns about the electrics at the property.
    4. The resident’s reports of issues with the drains and guttering at the property.
  2. This report has also considered:
    1. The landlord’s record keeping.
    2. The complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her previous property.
    2. The resident’s reports about the felling of a tree and the subsequent damage caused to the property.
  3. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which “in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  4. The resident has stated that there was damp and mould in her previous property, which was also with the same landlord as her current property. Her tenancy agreement states that the resident moved to her current property in 2012. The resident says she has informed the landlord that she is pursuing a legal disrepair case about the matter. However, irrespective of whether or not there is a legal disrepair claim outstanding, the matters the resident has referred to occurred several  years previously.
  5. There is also no evidence that a formal complaint about the damp and mould was raised with the landlord within six months of the issue arising and accordingly under Paragraph 42 (c) of the scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  6. Paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which “in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
  7. In relation to the issue of the felling of the tree and how the landlord had handled its removal together with the damage caused by it, has been the subject of two previous complaints to this Service which were determined in April 2017 and July 2020. In the complaint which was determined in 2017 under the reference number  201603558, in addition to making an award of £100 the Ombudsman had recommended that the landlord inspected the resident’s property to identify whether there were any outstanding repairs required as a consequence of the tree falling.
  8. The resident referred to the matter of the dead tree, its removal and the damage caused by it in the complaint under the reference 201907479. The Ombudsman  concluded that the issue raised by the resident at that time had already been investigated by the Service and a determination had been made on it. Therefore it was considered out of jurisdiction at that time.
  9. Whilst the resident has once again referred the matter to this service, the nature of her complaint is not different to the complaints which were previously referred to this Service.  Therefore as the matter has been one which the Ombudsman has previously investigated, accordingly under Paragraph 42 (l) of the scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 16 January 2012 . The property is a two bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has a complaints procedure that sets out a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord is required to acknowledge the complaint within two working days but there is no prescribed timescale for a full response. At stage two, the landlord is required to conduct either a service director (no prescribed timescale) or panel review (within 20 working days). The decision of which approach to take is made by the landlord based on the detail of the complaint and the complaints procedure sets out a table to act as a guide in deciding the appropriate route.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy explains that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external and internal structure of the property including fittings and services. The policy explains that all repairs, with the exception of urgent and communal ones are made by appointment with the resident at the time the repair has been reported.
  4. In terms of priority the landlord assigns one of two repair priorities- urgent where the response time is within 24 hours and standard where the response time is the next available appointment which is convenient to the resident.
  5. In terms of electrical issues the landlord considers the total loss of power or unsafe electrical fitting or wiring as an urgent priority. Main switches, fuses or circuit breakers and broken or damaged light fittings or sockets involving no-exposed wiring are treated as standard priority.
  6. For main drains and gutters and down pipes these are treated as standard priority by the landlord under the repairs policy.

Summary of Events

  1. On 2 November 2020 the resident telephoned this Service. She explained that her existing fridge had stopped working, and whilst she had purchased a new one it had not been possible to fit it. She had also experienced an issue with her water supply which she had been unable to isolate. This issue had been downgraded from a 24 hour emergency to a five day emergency by the landlord. The resident also explained that she had experienced smoke at the property and the fire brigade had attended although she did not specify exactly when this had occurred. The resident explained that there was no gas, no electric and no working fridge at the property.
  2. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2020 to inform it of the issues which the resident had raised. The letter explained that the resident had asked the landlord to treat the complaint as an emergency and to respond to all communications and to begin the repairs immediately.  
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2020. It explained:
    1. A plumbing operative had attended the property on 3 November 2020 observing that the water supply to the property was functioning. The landlord stated the resident had informed the plumber one of her neighbours had turned the stopcock tap/valve back on the previous day. Whilst it was not known who had turned the stopcock off or why, the plumber had checked all pipework and could not find any reason why it would have been turned off. The landlord also noted the resident had asked the plumber to fit an additional valve for the new fridge freezer which was due to be delivered the following day. An earlier delivery had not taken place due to the lack of a valve.
    2. In terms of the electrical supply this was also observed to be working. A switch to the cooker had been switched off and was not the correct sized switch nor a standard fitting. The resident had advised the landlord that a new cooker was also being delivered and the landlord’s operative had changed the switch and undertaken tests to determine there were no other electrical defects.
    3. The resident had called on 6 November 2020 to notify it of a fire which had occurred on 30 October 2020. The landlord had no earlier record of being notified of the matter.
    4. The resident had raised issues about electrical faults for about a year and explained the lights were always flickering. Two power cuts had also been reported which the resident stated was down to faulty electrics. She had also said the fridge and cooker had stopped working due to the faulty electrics. The landlord confirmed that it had attended the property on 24 June 2020 and had reset the RCD/circuit board. Although no other faults were found a recommendation was made to upgrade the RCD/circuit board and this had taken place on 23 July 2020. 
  4. The resident emailed this Service on 20 November 2020. She explained that she had previous issues with the landlord and that it did not follow its own repairs procedures or statutory guidelines for any services including reporting a repair or escalating services. The resident added that the landlord had been ignoring repairs reported by her family and making false accusations and discrimination against her. She added that it had provided fake repair numbers “to satisfy Environmental Health officers, but these numbers do not exist for the contractor or tenant”.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2021. She stated this was in response to a call made to the landlord. The resident stated there had been current breaches and service failures since 2015. She added that due to the Covid-19 pandemic no one could visit the home as she together with her son were isolating.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2021 to notify it of another electrical power outage which had taken place on 27 January 2021. She also confirmed that she had received an email from the landlord which was a secured email, however she had previously informed it that she was unable to open those type of attachments. She asked the landlord to send a copy of the letter by post, which it did do.
  7. The resident called this Service on 13 May 2021. She explained that she did not know where she stood with the landlord’s internal complaints process. She wanted it to review all aspects which she had raised including disrepair, the tree falling on her property, the electrics and the drains.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 May 2021, after being contacted by this Service on 18 May 2021. It set out that it would investigate the issue of the drains only and provide an outcome letter within 10 working days. It explained two of the other issues raised by the resident had been looked at by the Housing Ombudsman previously and the other issue was being looked at by its legal team.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord back on 20 May 2021 confirming that none of the issues had been fully addressed as the landlord had claimed.
  10. The landlord issued the stage one response on 8 June 2021. It confirmed:
    1. The damp and mould in the old property was subject to a disrepair claim which its legal team were looking at. So it would not look at the issue through the complaints process.
    2. In terms of the electric checks it understood from the resident that there had been a fire in the property in October/November 2020 and she did not feel safe anymore. It had sent her a letter on 10 November 2020 which confirmed the electrics were safe and no further fault had been found when it had attended.
    3. The issue about the tree and the insurance claim had been subject to a prior determination report from the Housing Ombudsman Service. It added that whilst the resident had sent in pictures she had not submitted a liability claim form which it was attaching. The landlord explained this form needed to be sent to the insurance department before any investigation could be initiated.
    4. In relation to the drains it understood a surveyor had attended without prior notice for which it apologised. It explained it had asked the contractors to contact the resident to book an appointment before sending someone out. It noted that the contractors had attempted to call the resident to book an appointment the day before but had not been able to do so. It added no other job had been recorded for the drains on its system over the previous two years. The landlord provided a date for the drain works to be undertaken by 9 July 2021, subject to it gaining access to the property and carrying out any remedial action which was required.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2021. She explained that since November 2020 there had been electrical, smoke alarm and lighting issues. She added the electrical installation condition report (EICR) was completed before the fire. She added the draining issue had not been addresses as had the plumbing issues which involved her needing a new fridge as her old one had stopped as a result of electrical failures.
  12. The resident emailed this Service on 9 June 2021. She explained that she had an independent electrician look at the property and this had raised a few electrical issues which needed to be addressed as a matter of importance. She enclosed the EICR certificate which had a date of 6 April 2021. She explained that she wished to escalate the matter to the second stage of the complaints process.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on several occasions between 16 June 2021 and 25 August 2021 to explain she had yet to hear back from the landlord about her complaint. This Service emailed the landlord on 25 August 2021 asking it to provide a response by 2 September 2021. The landlord responded on 7 September 2021 explaining a response had been sent to the resident in June 2021. The landlord wrongly referred to the response being sent on 7 June 2021 whereas it was actually sent on 8 June 2021.
  14. Following informing the landlord that the resident had requested an escalation of the complaint the landlord issued the stage two response on 25 October 2021. It understood the outstanding concerns following the stage one response were to do with an electric safety check being carried out at the property and that the resident wanted someone to check the drains/guttering at the property. It explained:
    1. The response in respect of the insurance claim and the damp and mould for the old property given at stage one still stood.
    2. A job for gutter clearance had been completed on 4 May 2020.
    3. It enclosed an electrical certificate which showed that the electrics were safe and did not require any further works.
    4. No further jobs had been found on the system for drainage apart from the gutter clearance in the last two years. It did accept an issue for the drains had been raised at stage one but that its contractors could not gain access to the property.
    5. A further job had been raised by it to do with the drains on 22 October 2021. It stated that in order to investigate the matter its operatives needed access to the property and that after two unsuccessful attempts of trying to do so the job would be closed on its systems.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2021 to explain the landlord’s response had been full of inaccuracies and no documentation or proof had been provided. She also sent a copy of the email she had received from the council concerning aids and adaptations for the property following her having had surgery in October 2021. She added the electrical problems had caused issues to outside government agencies such as carers. She said they had requested a check to the lights took place.
  16. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2021. She explained that an appointment to view the drains by CCTV had been scheduled for 4 November 2021 however no one had visited on that day. She also highlighted historical issues with the drains from August 2019 onwards.
  17. The resident contacted this Service on 12 November 2021 to explain she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She wished the Housing Ombudsman Service to investigate the matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Since the final response from the landlord on 25 October 2021 the resident has raised further issues with this Service. These relate to further electrical works and a request from the fire brigade service for a copy of the electrical certificate. As well as the landlord having visited her neighbour’s property in relation to the guttering and having suggested that the guttering had dropped in the middle over the resident’s windows which was leading to the issue of water not running off properly and draining off.  In terms of these matters the issue with the further unspecified electrical works, will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure nor been addressed to the landlord in the first place. However in terms of the ongoing issue of the guttering this can be considered as the stage two response and the further communication from the landlord had confirmed that those issues would be looked at following gaining access to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting with the electrics at the property.

  1. In terms of the electrics whilst the resident has reported a number of issues at the property the landlord has referred to the EICR certificates which it issued both in February 2019 and July 2020. It has highlighted that these two certificates did not indicate any major issues with the electrics. In terms of the next inspection the 2019 report stated “5 Years or change of tenant/owner”. The 2020 report also confirmed that the next inspection should be “no more than 5 years”. In relation to the reason for recommendation this report stated “installation complies with BS7671 All fixed wiring and accessories inspected in safe condition for continued service”.
  2. There is no legal requirement for landlords of social housing properties to undertake an inspection of electrical installations except in the case of voids or in the case of mutual exchange. Neither of these had occurred in this case. Having said that the resident had referred to issues with the electrics at the property including power loss as well as flickering lights. It would not be necessary for the landlord at every incident raised by the resident to have undertaken a new EICR report. However, there is an expectation on the landlord for its operatives to check the electrics at the property, particularly in the areas where the resident had raised concerns.
  3. The landlord has confirmed that it had been made aware on several occasions by the resident of issues with the electrics. The information provided by the landlord show these occurred on 24 June 2020 as well as on 2/3 November 2020 and post the issuing of the final response in January 2022. The repairs log noted the issue on 24 June 2020 was as a result of there being no electricity at the property. The issues in November 2020 were following the resident’s reporting of a fire at the property.
  4. In terms of the landlord’s actions following notification in June 2020 it stated it had attended the property on the same day as being notified and restored power to the property. This had involved it resetting the RCD/circuit board. The landlord noted at this time that there was a recommendation that the RCD was upgraded which it arranged to replace the following month at which point a new EICR certificate was completed. Whilst the landlord set out its actions in the letter to the resident of 10 November 2020 it has not been able to provide details of the contractor’s notes when it attended the property or further information from the repairs logs. This will be dealt with further under the records keeping section.
  5. The EICR certificates both showed that the overall assessment of the installation had been “satisfactory” . The certificates explained that an unsatisfactory assessment would have been indicated if there were any C1 or C2 codes noted. Whilst the EICR in 2019 did have a C1 issue relating to broken sockets these had been replaced at the time prior to the certificate being issued. The other concerns were classed as C3 issues which whilst meaning an improvement was recommended were not enough mean the electrical installation was unsatisfactory.
  6. The landlord’s actions in upgrading the RCD/circuit box in July 2020 were reasonable. Whilst there was no indication that the loss of power experienced by the resident in June 2020 was down to the failure of the existing RCD/circuit box, it took the opportunity to ensure the RCD/circuit board was compliant with the current BS standards at the time. The landlord had also treated the repair as urgent in keeping with its repairs policy. It had attended on the same day as being notified of the matter by the resident.  This was an appropriate response by it.
  7. In terms of the landlord’s actions in November 2020, it says that its operative had attended the property within a day of being informed of the issues by this Service. It stated it checked the electrics and found no defects at the time although it did change a cooker switch which was incorrectly rated. The landlord’s response was prompt and in keeping with an urgent priority which was appropriate given the circumstances which had been reported by the resident.  The landlord has once again not provided full details of the contractor’s notes at the time it attended the property which has impacted on the ability to determine whether its actions at the time were appropriate. Under the circumstances, this is a service failing.
  8. The landlord relied on the visit conducted by its operatives to confirm that the electrics were safe, and no further faults were found. As the landlord has not provided a report following the assessment in November 2020, this Service cannot accurately consider whether the landlord’s actions on this day were reasonable and whether its reliance on the July 2020 EICR certificate was appropriate following the assessment; this is particularly considering the fact that the resident conducted an independent EICR report in April 2021 which identified that the electrics were unsatisfactory and highlighted a number of urgent actions which were classified as Code C2.
  9. The resident has said that there had been arcing in the kitchen and that the fire brigade had attended and requested that the landlord check the electrics and provide a new EICR report. The resident has not provided any correspondence or communication from the fire brigade from the time. The landlord has stated it had also not been contacted directly by the fire brigade over the matter, either at that time or subsequently.
  10. It is common for the fire department in responding to an emergency incident to complete a fire incident report which notes what the fire personnel had found during the course of their activities as well as the likely cause of the fire incident or damage. There is no evidence that such a report was provided to the landlord. It was therefore not obliged to undertake a comprehensive check of all of the resident’s electrics at the time or to issue a new EICR certificate at the time.
  11. The resident has provided a copy of a EICR certificate which she undertook herself in April 2021. This EICR had noted in terms of the general condition of the installation that “the installation is old and there are signs of wear and tear” and provided an unsatisfactory overall rating. The report had indicated a number of issues which had a code of C2 which were noted as “potential dangerous”. This included issues in the consumer unit as well as in the kitchen and bathroom.
  12. Ordinarily the presence of an unsatisfactory EICR report should have alerted the landlord to have investigated the matter further. But there is no evidence that the resident had provided a copy of the report to the landlord in the first place. The resident had sent a copy of the EICR report to this Service as well as an email relating to the matter on 9 June 2021. She had asked this Service to look into the matter and advise accordingly. However whilst the resident has sent a number of emails to the landlord which were copied in to this Service the email sent on 9 June 2021 was only sent to this Service. As the landlord was not provided with the unsatisfactory EICR report, it has not had the opportunity to address the issues highlighted within the report. Once presented with the report it should take appropriate action to investigate the matter. 

The landlord’s handling of issues with the drains and guttering at the property.

  1. The resident has expressed concerns that the landlord has not addressed the issues of the drains and guttering at the property. She explained that the effect of this was that dirt and debris had fallen from the guttering onto her back garden and she had sent in photos to show her washing had been affected as a result.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that it had attempted to organise a contractor to visit the resident’s property, prior to issuing the stage one response in June 2021. The resident had been unaware of the unscheduled appointment and as she was on her way out she had not let the contractor in. This was reasonable given the resident had not been made aware in advance of the matter by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged in the stage one response this was an error and it apologised. It explained it had spoken to its contractors to ensure they contacted the resident for an appointment first before anyone else had attended. The landlord’s actions in apologising as well as providing direct details of the contractor who was due to attend to the resident was an appropriate response. Whilst the resident was provided a timescale for the work to be completed the landlord did explain that this was dependent on it gaining access to the resident’s property to assess and carry out any remedial work.
  3. Whilst the landlord acted appropriately initially, it has not provided any evidence that it or its contractors had been able to speak to the resident to arrange a site visit. The resident has explained that she was shielding at the time and would only allow emergency access at the time. The landlord explained in the stage two response that if it had been unable to access the property on two occasions that it would automatically close down the job. Whilst this may have been the approach the landlord took there is no indication that it had made the resident aware of that matter. This was a failing on the part of the landlord as it did not provide any warning or explanation to the resident why nothing had been done until a new job was raised on the drains/guttering as set out in the final response in October 2021.
  4. The resident has explained that an appointment for an inspection of the drains by CCTV was arranged and scheduled for 4 November 2021 but no one had turned up. Whilst this was after the landlord issued the final response it has not provided any evidence in the repairs logs to show an appointment had been arranged at that time. The landlord’s repairs logs show that it had emailed the resident on 11 November 2021, after having spoken to the resident to try to sort out a suitable day for the contractor to visit. The email of 11 November 2021 had set out that the landlord at that point understood the nature of the resident’s complaint in that the guttering had needed adjusting so that down pipes could be fitted.
  5. The landlord’s repair notes from 12 November 2021 showed that the contractor was due to visit the neighbouring property and would take photos from there. As the landlord’s contractor had been unable to that point to gain access to the resident’s property this was a reasonable approach for it to take given the properties were adjoining. Following this visit the landlord had informed the resident of the planned action which it planned to take in applying clips to the guttering. Although the resident considered this was a patch repair and would not alleviate the problem long term and wanted the guttering replaced, this was not within the scope of the landlord’s repair policy. There was no indication that the clips would not have resolved the matter at the time. Whilst the resident had wanted the guttering replaced, as she said had happened to her neighbour, this was not in keeping with the obligations of the landlord at that time.
  6. This Service has noted the resident’s comments in relation to the ongoing issues with the drains and guttering – dirty and foul smelling, the shower temperature, as well as the ongoing issues in relation to the plumbing and the ceiling leakage which the resident had previously raised concerns regarding. To assist in the resolution of this matter, an order has been included below requesting that the landlord complete an inspection of the drains, shower, and plumbing with a specialist contractor. The drains, shower, and plumbing should be assessed to view the current condition and to check if any repairs or cleaning needs to be completed. It is important to note that this inspection does not mean the drains will need to be replaced, any determination in relation to replacement should be made by a specialist contractor. An update of any findings should be provided to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks. Following the inspection, any repairs or cleaning identified should be completed within 6 weeks.

The record keeping.

  1. Very little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to when its operatives had attended the property in respect of primarily the electrical issues. The resident has also made reference in her correspondence to both the landlord and to this Service that the electric issues affecting her on more than the occasions which were noted by the landlord. However the landlord has not provided any notes of any conversations it  may have held with the resident about the electrics including the making of any follow up appointments following the resident raising issues.
  2. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests as well as the complaints handling. These are recording failures on the part of the landlord.
  3. With everything being considered, a compensation award of £400 is proportionate and reasonable when considering the failing identified above. This is in line with this Services remedies guidance which states that awards of more than £250 are appropriate for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The complaints handling.

  1. Although the resident had sent both this Service and the landlord a number of emails prior to November 2020 about a variety of issues, she raised the concerns which form the basis of this complaint on 2 November 2020. This Service had asked the landlord to investigate the matter and issue a response. However despite the landlord writing to the resident on 10 November 2020 that correspondence did not offer referral rights to the Ombudsman nor an escalation to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord’s letter had been from its legal department. As the resident had contacted it to express her dissatisfaction on a number of issues it should have been considered by the landlord as her making a formal complaint. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its own complaints policy.
  2. The resident continued following receipt of this letter to write to both this Service and to the landlord. However the landlord did not send an acknowledgment of the complaint until 20 May 2021. This was over six months later after the landlord had been made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction over the issues which form the basis of this complaint. Although the landlord’s complaint process does not specify the length of time it should respond with at stage one the timeframe was excessive and a failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. The resident replied to the stage one response within a day (on 9 June 2021) asking this Service to escalate the matter. However she did not at that time let the landlord know she wished to escalate the matter. The landlord’s stage one response explained that the resident was required to email the landlord as soon as possible if she remained dissatisfied. Instead of doing this the resident informed this Service that the landlord had not provided a response to her which meant that the Housing Ombudsman Service was still chasing the landlord for a stage one response until 25 August 2021 instead of asking it to escalate the matter. However upon being made aware in early September 2021 that the resident remained dissatisfied the landlord did not issue the stage two response until 25 October 2021, some six weeks later. Whilst the complaints policy does not express a timescale for providing a response this was outside the timescales as set out by the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code which required a response to be provided within 20 days.    
  4. The stage two response from the landlord did not offer an apology for the delay in the response or provide any form of explanation as to why it had not escalated the complaint when requested to by the resident. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. Due to the failings identified above in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, an order has been included requesting that the landlord provide staff training to ensure all complaints are responded to within reasonable timeframes, and also to ensure complaints are accurately progressed and escalated.

Outstanding issues.

  1. Moving on, the resident has raised concerns regarding the insurance and property damage payments. The resident explained that the landlord did not comply with the previous order within the former historical case (201603558 – the same one outlined above), as it did not refer the resident to its insurers so the insurers could assess whether any compensation was owed to the resident for the damages to the property and belongings. Under the circumstances, this Service requests that the landlord provide an update to this Service within 4 weeks of this report confirming the steps it took to raise the claim with the insurers.
  2. The resident made references to pests being present in the property, and discrimination from agents of the landlord. Having reviewed the evidence, this Service cannot see that these matters have been raised with the landlord as formal complaints. The resident will need to raise these issues with the landlord so it can consider it within its formal complaints procedure. If a resolution cannot be reached between both parties, the complaint can be brought to this Service for consideration. To assist in this matter, a recommendation has been included below requesting that the landlord contacts the resident to progress the further issues identified above through its internal complaints procedure and to ensure the matters are reasonably addressed in line with its policy.
  3. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the fact that she does not have a housing officer or manager. This Service cannot see evidence that this issue has been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint. As above, the resident will need to raise this issue with the landlord so it can consider it within its formal complaints procedure. To assist in this matter, a recommendation has been included below requesting that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her concerns about not have a housing officer or manager.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould in her previous property was out of jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the felling of the tree and the subsequent damage caused by it is out of jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns about the electrics at the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of issues with the drains and guttering at the property.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the complaints handling.

 

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord relied on the visit conducted by its operatives to confirm that the electrics were safe, and no further faults were found. As the landlord has not provided a report following the assessment in November 2020, this Service cannot accurately consider whether the landlord’s actions on this day were reasonable and whether its reliance on the July 2020 EICR certificate was appropriate following the assessment; this is particularly considering the fact that the resident conducted an independent EICR report in April 2021 which identified that the electrics were unsatisfactory and highlighted a number of urgent actions which were classified as Code C2.
  2. The landlord had in initially closed down the drains job which it had raised in the stage one response due to not being able to access the property. This process was not set out in the repairs policy. Upon re-opening the job at stage two it had been unable to agree a site visit. It had been able to take photos from visiting the resident’s neighbour. Following this it had proposed work to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  3. There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits to do with the electrics of the property.
  4. There was a delay at stage one and stage two of the complaints process. The landlord did not make an apology at either stage nor provide any explanation in terms of the reasons for the delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £850 which is comprised of:
      1. £100 for its failure in closing down the drain job which it had set out in the stage one response without notifying the resident.
      2. £400 for its failure in its record keeping.
      3. £350 for the failure in its complaints handling.
    3. Review the concerns raised by the resident within the EICR report once it has been provided with it (attached to this decision). Consider reasonable steps to ensure the electrics within the property are safe and any urgent actions are resolved. Provide an update to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks in relation to any findings following review and actions it has taken to remedy this.
    4. Complete an inspection of the drains, shower, and plumbing with a specialist contractor. Both the drains, shower, and the plumbing should be assessed to view the current condition and to check if any repairs need to be completed. This inspection does not mean the drains will need to be replaced, any determination in relation to replacement should be made by a specialist contractor. Update of any findings should be provided to the resident and this Service within 4 weeks.
    5. Following the inspection, any repairs or cleaning identified should be completed within 6 weeks.
    6. Review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website) and make any improvements if it is highlighted that its processes are not in line with the spotlight report. This should be completed within 6 weeks.
    7. Provide staff training in line with the recommendations in the spotlight report to ensure accurate records of repairs are kept on the landlords system. This should be completed within 6 weeks.
    8. Provide staff training in relation to complaint handling to ensure all complaints are responded to within reasonable timeframes as outlined within the policy following the above review, and also to ensure complaints are accurately progressed and escalated. This should be completed within 6 weeks.
    9. Provide an update to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision confirming the steps it took to raise the resident’s claim of damage to property and belongings with its insurers.
    10. Complete the above orders within 4/6 weeks of the decision, with evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord contacts the resident to progress the further issues identified above through its internal complaints procedure and to ensure the matters are reasonably addressed in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord contacts the resident regarding her concerns that she does not have a housing officer or manager.