Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202012131)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012131

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 February 2022

 

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom.
    2. Lack of communal smoke alarms.
    3. Rodent issues.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat in a block.
  2. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 set out the law in this area which applies to a ‘relevant landlord.’ Under the regulations, registered social housing providers are not considered to be a ‘relevant landlord,’ but may follow the latest recommended best practice that apply to domestic premises. In 2019, British Standard BS 5839-6 introduced new guidance and recommendations for communal fire detection and fire alarm systems in domestic premises.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. The landlord usually only considers a complaint if it was made within six months of the issue complained about.

Summary of events

  1. The resident advises that she contacted the landlord about the lack of communal smoke alarms in October 2019 and was informed these did not have to be provided. The landlord advises that it considered fire alarm installation in January 2020 and a quote for this was supplied in February 2020. It advises it believes this was not approved because the building required a complicated smoke alarm system replacement programme.
  2. The resident advises that rodent issues were reported in December 2019, and information provided advises that between January 2020 and April 2020, the landlord carried out communal pest checks, replenished bait and checked individual properties. In April 2020, the landlord’s pest contractor inspected and advised that all they could do was some recommended proofing works due to the Covid-19 pandemic; and block treatment may be required once the pandemic situation was under control. The landlord advises that recommended works were carried out the same month and in May 2020, it carried out block monitoring and treatment. In June 2020, the landlord checked individual flats on the status of bait stations and noted some had no rodent issues; for others, baiting, proofing and treatment was carried out; and that there was no answer from the resident’s flat on two occasions.
  3. The resident advises that intercom issues were reported in May 2020, while the landlord advises it received reports on 29 June 2020. The same day, a quote for a new system was uploaded, which was rejected on 4 September 2020. The issue was raised again on 1 December 2020 and the same day another quote was uploaded; then a further report on 2 December 2020 was closed because the quote awaited approval.
  4. The resident complained on 4 December 2020 about the landlord’s response to reports that the communal door lock was broken and the intercom being down for some time. For a recent report, she advised that the landlord had done nothing for a week then ordered a part that would take seven to ten days.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 16 December 2020. It advised it had looked at repairs records and discussed the complaint internally. It acknowledged there had been delays fixing the intercom which had caused inconvenience to several residents. It explained that the reason for the delay was that after contractors attended, it was identified that parts were required, and it confirmed the intercom would be repaired on 18 December 2020. It apologised for the service received and awarded £100 for time and trouble; distress and inconvenience; and its lack of communication. It explained that as a result of the complaint, training on record keeping had been carried out and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining records.
  6. The resident responded on 18 December 2020 and said she appreciated the response and compensation and said she had some further points. She said:
    1. She had reported in October 2019 and April 2020 that there were no communal smoke alarms. She was baffled at being informed these did not have to be provided, as she believed this was required by law.
    2. She had reported the intercom in May 2020, and the seven months without a working intercom had led to her feeling vulnerable in her home.
    3. There was a mouse issue from December 2019 that was not resolved until May 2020, which had led her to incur £300 pest contractor fees.
    4. A repair to the front door lock the previous day was not adequate, as residents were unable to use their keys.
    5. Roof tiles at the back of the property were missing.
  7. The resident acknowledged information was being added, and said she would give the landlord the opportunity to respond before following the complaints procedure.
  8. Information provided advises that further reports about the intercom were made on 4 and 8 January 2021, which were again closed because the quote uploaded on 1 December 2020 awaited approval.
  9. The resident called this Service on 18 January 2021 and raised dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled the issues. She also reported that there were no smoke alarms on communal floors of the block and there were pest control issues. She stated that she had escalated her complaint on 18 December 2020 and submitted a stage one complaint on 8 January 2021 and not received responses to these.
  10. On 22 January 2021, the resident emailed this Service. She said:
    1. The communal door lock had not been repaired since being reported on 27 November 2020. She was unable to open the door unless another resident buzzed them in, or if the door was propped open. The landlord had advised it awaited an update from its contractor when chased for updates.
    2. The intercom had not worked since May 2020, as while the ring could be heard and visitors could be buzzed in, she could not hear who was at the door.
    3. There were two floors that had no communal smoke alarms. The landlord had informed her in October 2019 that it had no legal duty to provide smoke alarms, which she believed to be incorrect.
    4. The landlord had not provided a second stage response.
    5. She had reported mice entering her flat to the landlord in January 2020, after other residents had reported pest issues in December 2019. The landlord did not contract a contractor until May 2020, which it advised was due to coronavirus restrictions, which she was dissatisfied with. She employed contractors to carry out pest control works inside her own flat.
    6. She had requested the landlord to inform her when the lock, intercom and smoke alarm issues would be rectified.
    7. The resident requested compensation that reflected service charges, rent and a pest contractor invoice she had paid between January 2020 to May 2020 when she had to deal with mice in her flat.
    8. She also requested compensation for service charge and rent paid from May 2020 for not having a working intercom, and compensation for service charge and rent paid from November 2020 for the communal lock not being repaired.
    9. She requested her service charge and rent to remain the same for the next year and not be subject to any increase until the landlord had shown its service had improved.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 February 2021. She queried a lack of response about the front door lock, intercom and smoke alarms, and lack of response to her stage two complaint. She highlighted that the broken lock was a security issue and the complaint was outside the timeframes of the procedure.
  12. Information provided advises that a further report about the intercom was made on 15 February 2021, which was again closed because the quote uploaded on 1 December 2020 awaited approval. The quote was then approved on 17 February 2021, a works order was raised on 25 February 2021, and a new door entry system was installed around 19 April 2021. The landlord notes that delays occurred between February and April 2021 as there was a delay receiving ordered parts, and resident mailings needed to be coordinated.
  13. On 23 April 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that the intercom panel had been replaced and the communal door lock had been replaced, but there were issues which had been reported to the landlord.
  14. On 10 May 2021, this Service issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Order and requested the landlord to issue a final response by 17 May 2021. This followed correspondence from this Service on 16 February 2021 asking for a written response to be provided if the complaint had not exhausted the procedure; further correspondence on 7 and 23 April 2021 requesting response within five working days; and correspondence from the landlord that a response would be provided by 7 May 2021. The landlord failed to meet this deadline and on 18 May 2021, the Ombudsman informed the landlord that the complaint was considered to have exhausted the landlord’s procedure and had been accepted into our formal remit.
  15. The landlord issued a final response to the resident on 14 July 2021, prior to which the resident informed this Service in late June 2021 that she had not heard anything in respect to the complaint. This said:
    1. It had promptly attended for the door and intercom, but parts were required which were not readily available. The works were subject to a Section 20 procedure, however there were internal communication failures and they were raised, rejected and cancelled. When the landlord became aware of this, it agreed to pay for the works and they were raised again, but there were further delays in sourcing necessary parts to complete the works due to Covid-19. It noted that the works were finally completed on 19 April 2021.
    2. It sincerely apologised for the resident’s poor customer experience and substandard service, and awarded £395 compensation, which it confirmed would be offset against the service charge and it broke down as:
      1. £95 for timescales.
      2. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
      3. £100 for communication.
      4. £100 for time and trouble and length of time to resolve the matter.
    3. It advised that it was making efforts to improve internal communication and way such works were managed, such as ensuring staff have information access to make necessary decisions.
    4. It recognised its lack of timely communication would have added unacceptable frustration, and that the overall management of the complaint and length of time to provide a response was too long.
    5. It advised that it had implemented changes to minimise further customer detriment and further staff training would be carried out following the complaint and the Complaint Handling Failure Order, to ensure the situation did not happen again and a more pro-active approach was provided when issues were raised.
    6. It noted that the resident raised issues which were not part of the complaint such as service charges, mice infestation and requirement for communal smoke alarms. It advised that treatment of pest issues took longer than expected due to access issues, but once access was gained into properties the timescale was not unreasonable. It advised that the property was compliant with all fire risk laws and regulations and the next fire risk assessment was due in February 2022.
  16. The landlord has since informed this Service that it has a planned programme to install fire systems recommended under British Standard BS 5839-6. It explained that it intended to expedite the resident’s block with an estimated completion of December 2021. It explained that installation would require access to each flat and consultation with leaseholders in respect of the costs for installation and regular testing.
  17. The landlord also since noted that a recommendation by the pest contractor, to carry out block treatment once lockdown eased, was approved and started in June 2021. It noted it was continuing to monitor the situation and carry out treatment.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged service failures in this case and offered compensation of what appears to be in excess of £495. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment therefore considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
    1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    2. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    3. Put things right
    4. Learn from outcomes
  2. There were clearly unreasonable delays in the progress of the door and intercom works. The landlord failed to effectively progress them from at least 29 June 2020, when the landlord says it first received reports, to 17 February 2021, when it finally approved a quote to carry out the works – a period of seven months. It is understandable that this will have been frustrating and distressing for the resident.
  3. The landlord’s final response has acknowledged issues with delays, communication, complaint handling and the impact on the resident. It confirmed it has learned lessons, implemented changes and staff training, and committed to more proactive approaches. The compensation the landlord has offered comprises £100 in the stage one response and £395 in the final response, making a total of £495.
  4. The landlord also paid for the intercom works and waived charges and a Section 20 consultation. It has not confirmed the resident’s proportion of the waived costs, however Section 20 consultation is required in cases where a leaseholder’s proportion of the costs will exceed £250, which suggests that the landlord has provided a total remedy equivalent to at least £745.
  5. In its Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. A financial remedy of £495 falls in the second highest range, where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant, including failure over a considerable period of time to address repair; while a financial remedy of £745, inclusive of a waived major works amount of £250, falls in the highest range where there has been maladministration or severe maladministration and severe long-term impact.
  6. Accordingly, the financial remedy offered by the landlord is in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress for the service issues and delays identified.
  7. The above demonstrates the landlord appropriately carried out investigations of the complaint, acknowledged service failings and took action within the timeframes of the complaint to complete outstanding works. The landlord was resolution focused and sought to make redress to the resident in recognition of delays and time and trouble.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s responses evidences it appropriately put things right, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Lack of communal smoke alarms

  1. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms, within the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord was reasonable in its final response to comment that the issues were not part of the original complaint. They were not mentioned in the original complaint in December 2020 and further, related to events that occurred more than six months before the complaint was raised.
  2. This Service is unable to definitively determine if the landlord is compliant or in breach of fire safety law, as local fire and rescue authorities and local authorities are responsible for enforcing fire safety; however, the landlord rightly considered the resident’s concerns about the matter, set out its position and confirmed when the building would next be assessed to be fire compliant, which is appropriate. The landlord has subsequently confirmed its intention to take action and install smoke alarms under a planned programme, which demonstrates it is seeking to align the fire safety of the building with current best practice.

Rodent issues

  1. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about rodent issues, within the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord was reasonable in its final response to comment that the issues were not part of the original complaint. They were not mentioned in the original complaint in December 2020 and further, mainly related to events that occurred more than six months before the complaint was raised.
  2. The landlord has appeared to act appropriately, by carrying out regular inspections and baiting, obtaining professional advice, and acting on recommendations; then by monitoring the efficacy of these, and measures within individual flats, with residents. Its response also appears to reasonably reflect the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  3. The resident is responsible for issues within the property and while understandably distressing, it is reasonable that such issues may require both the resident and landlord to take actions under their separate obligations to effectively address them. This investigation can see no evidence that the landlord is obligated to reimburse the resident for pest control works in her flat.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage one response appeared to miss the opportunity to identify that an unapproved quote caused the works delays, and therefore appears to have been ineffective at resolving matters. The landlord then delayed in providing a further response to the complaint between February 2021 and July 2021. This was a five month delay and shows the landlord was not taking the opportunity presented by the complaints procedure to effectively address and learn from issues in service in a timely way. This investigation notes that in the same month as the resident’s stage two escalation in February 2021, the landlord took steps to progress matters more effectively by approving and raising the works, which were then completed in mid-April 2021. The detriment caused by the delays in the final response therefore appears to be less than if the issues with the door and intercom had continued to remain unresolved.
  2. However, the landlord was issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order in May 2021, and the Ombudsman is very concerned that it failed to comply with the response timescale set out in the Order. The continued delay in a final response from the landlord, particularly after the Ombudsman’s intervention and outside the timeframes of the Complaint Handling Failure Order, was inappropriate. While the landlord went on to issue a final response in July 2021, the overall lack of updates and complaint handling will have led to ongoing uncertainty for the resident.
  3. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, while it was positive that the landlord acknowledged and provided some remedy for its complaint handling, this did not quite go far enough. This means that this Service considers it appropriate to make a finding of service failure, which would have been a finding of maladministration had it not gone some way to try to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about lack of communal smoke alarms.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about rodent issues.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord was resolution focused in seeking to make redress to the resident in recognition of delays, time and trouble and impact in respect of the communal entrance door and intercom, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress for the service issues and delays identified.
  2. The landlord’s response in respect of the communal smoke alarms considered and set out reasonable position on the matter. The landlord’s subsequent stated intention to install alarms under a planned programme demonstrates it is seeking to align the fire safety of the building with current best practice.
  3. The landlord’s response in respect to the rodent issues appeared to reasonably reflect the landlord and resident’s separate obligations and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  4. The landlord missed opportunities to effectively resolve matters within its procedure and did not respond within the timeframes set out by the Complaint Handling Failure Order, which will have led to ongoing uncertainty for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident a further £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £495 total compensation awarded in its responses, if this has not been paid already.
  2. The landlord to inform the resident of the outcome of the Fire Risk Assessment scheduled for February 2022.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of the above to this Service within four weeks of the decision.