A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202012837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012837

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

21 July 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to resolve water leaks into the property.
2. Compensation offer to the resident for delays in fixing the leaks.
3. Formal complaint into these matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord categorises its repairs as urgent (attend within 24 hours) and standard (next available appointment). The repairs policy does not provide a definition of what the landlord considers an urgent repair. Standard industry practice would describe an urgent or emergency repair as a repair that puts the health, safety or security of a tenant or the property at risk.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a formal complaint is made, this will be acknowledged by the landlord and a stage one response sent within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and send a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
Its complaints policy describes the circumstances where the landlord will not open a complaint or escalate a complaint to the review stage. This, in part, states that the landlord will not escalate a complaint where the only outstanding issue in dispute is the level of compensation awarded at stage one.
The landlord’s repair logs state that from September 2017 several tenants of the building, including the resident, reported water leaks into their properties. Intermittent leaks from communal areas continued to be reported for the next two years, but the source or sources of the leaks was not located.
On 23 September 2019 a CCTV survey was undertaken in order to trace and repair the leak from the soil pipe in the resident’s and two other properties in the building. However, this survey was abandoned as the camera was unable to navigate the bends in the pipework.
In June 2020 a specialist contractor undertook a drainage survey and then sent the landlord a quote for the work it had recommended to replace sections of the gullies, clean and renovate the pipework, and re-set the gully in order to allow improved drainage through the pipework.

Summary of events

On 20 July 2020 the resident called the landlord and asked to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call describe the elements of the complaint as:
1. He had experienced two leaks, one from the pipework outside the property and another from the internal stack pipe. This had been an ongoing issue since March 2019.
2. The resident was unhappy with the speed of the response from the landlord and that lack of progress that had been made to identify and resolve the issues.
3. The living conditions in the property were harmful to his health due to the leaks.
On 29 September 2020, a survey of the soil stack pipe was undertaken, and following this the property above the resident was identified as the source of the leak. The landlord determined that the leaseholder of the property concerned was responsible for fixing the leak.
In December 2020 the resident and landlord discussed compensation for the length of time it had taken to identify the cause issues and the inconvenience that this had caused. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of its compensation policy on 7 December 2020.
On 9 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested a compensation payment of between £3,000 and £5,000. The resident explained that this was in line with section 12.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy which suggests a payment of up to £3,000 in cases where there has been severe inconvenience.
The resident then described the issues he had experienced over the previous two years, the time and expense that this had caused and the condition of the property during this period. He also described a conversation he had with a landlord staff member who informed him that the situation was “deeply embarrassing” to the landlord and that “proper redress” should be awarded to the resident.
On 8 January 2021, approval was given for the quoted work to repair the gullies on the communal walkways in the building. The contractor started work on 11 January 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January 2021 and offered £960 compensation for the inconvenience caused by delays in identifying the cause of the leaks. The landlord also informed the resident that it would not escalate a complaint purely on the basis of disagreement over the level of compensation awarded. The resident replied on 28 January 2021 and asked for a final response from the landlord to allow him to bring his complaint to this Service for independent review.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 February 2021. It described the communication it had with the resident following his request to raise a complaint and that during this correspondence that the resident had been made aware that it would not provide a complaint response until repairs had been completed.
The landlord explained that the work was expected to be completed in February 2021, but that the affected properties would first have to dry out before remedial work could be completed.
The landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience that this matter had caused the resident and confirmed that it had offered him £960 compensation. It broke down this award as £240 each for poor communication, stress and inconvenience, length of time to complete work, and the quality of work. The landlord further explained that this was made at the maximum amount for each category as per its compensation policy.
Following the end of the complaint process, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 July 2021. It confirmed that the leak had been repaired and the decoration within the property had been reinstated. The landlord apologised for the ‘unusual’ length of time it took to resolve the matter and informed the resident that it had learned from the situation and will ensure that in the future no resident will undergo the same level of disruption as the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve leaks into the property

The issue of water leaks into properties from a communal walkway in the building had been an ongoing issue since at least September 2017 and the issue of a leak from the internal soil stack had been an issue since at least March 2018.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to January 2020. The historic issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in July 2020.
This was clearly a complex issue involving two different leaks which affected multiple properties in the building, including the resident’s. The landlord’s repair logs show several different residents reported water entering into their properties due to leaks from communal areas. These logs record several inspections and surveys being arranged to trace and locate the source of the leak. This was further hindered as the leak only became apparent during periods of rainfall.
The source of the communal leak was identified as the walkway above the resident’s property. The source of the soil stack leak was identified as coming from the property above the resident.
The resident’s upstairs neighbour agreed that it was their responsibility to repair the soil stack leak, and they arranged the work. The landlord sought a quote for the work to improve the drainage on the communal walkway. As this involved significant costs, the work had to be first approved internally before it started, in line with the landlord’s internal procedures for major repairs.
It is not disputed that the landlord should have been more pro-active in its communication with the resident and other residents affected by the leaks. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates, which added to his inconvenience. This has been considered when assessing compensation.
As part of his complaint, the resident has provided photographs of the communal hallway as well as the bathroom and inside of the wardrobe in his own property. Whilst the photographs have been viewed as part of our investigation, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, although we consider all evidence provided to us by both sides, we do not generally rely significant on photographs in reaching our decisions. In this case, it is not disputed that the leaks caused damage to the décor of the communal corridor as well as the resident’s wardrobe and bathroom. This damage has been considered when looking at compensation for the delays in fixing the leaks.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord apologised for the length of time it took for the leaks to be identified and repaired, and for the poor communication from it during this period.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak. Moreover, when major works are required, delays can be possible as the landlord will have legal obligations it has to first consider (such as Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and ensure that it is compliant with prior to any work commencing.
The landlord looked to put things right by improving its communication with the resident by appointment a single point of contact until the work was completed and also conducting an internal review of its work practices in order to avoid a resident going through a similar situation in the future.

The landlord’s compensation offer to the resident

The landlord accepted that despite the complex nature of the work involved, the length of time it took to complete the repairs was unacceptable, as was its communication with the resident prior to a formal complaint being opened. As well as the apology, the landlord awarded compensation to the resident which it stated was at the maximum level for each category in its internal compensation policy.
The landlord awarded a total of £960. This was rejected by the resident, who noted that an award of £3,000 to £5,000 would be more in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The resident highlighted section 12.2 of appendix 1 of the compensation policy. This states as follows:
“Where our service failure gives rise to a financial loss, or severe inconvenience to the customer, each case will be determined by the relevant Head of Service up to the amount of £3000, following consideration of the extent of financial loss and/or extent of inconvenience. The maximum payment permitted under these combined categories is £3000 and will be authorised by the Head of Complaints & Resolution.”
In his email sent on 9 December 2020 requesting compensation, the resident described estimated costs of £100 due to telephone calls made and damage to a wardrobe. In his correspondence with this Service the resident also noted that there was damage to the clothing in the wardrobe. However, no evidence was provided to the landlord from the resident to show the cost of the damaged items.
Appendix 2 of the landlord’s compensation policy describes its recommended payments when there’s been service failure. For stress and inconvenience considered as ‘high’ a payment of £150 is recommended and for time and trouble caused to a complainant, a payment of £240 is recommended where the length of time had exceeded six months. The landlord calculated its compensation offer at £240 for each element of service failure for a total of £960.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends awards of £700 and above in situations where the issue has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. The landlord’s award of compensation is in line with this guidance and reflects the fact that the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time as a result of delays in fixing the leaks.
It is important to be aware that the amounts of compensation awarded by the Ombudsman service are modest and we would not award compensation in the way which a court might. Any compensation we award is intended to reflect the inconvenience and/or distress experienced by residents as a result of the actions or inaction of the landlord. Our awards are not intended to be punitive and we do not award damages against landlords.
It is noted that the resident initially asked for £5000 compensation but later reduced this request to £3000 in an effort to resolve the matter more quickly. Whilst we have considered the resident’s request for compensation, the Ombudsman would not be bound by the amounts he has suggested and we can award more or less than residents request based on what we consider would be appropriate.
The resident has said that a member of the landlord’s staff told him that it would be fair for the landlord to offer him £5000 compensation. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony concerning what he was told. However, we have not seen a statement from the member of staff concerned confirming this was said. A statement has been provided apologising for the delays in resolving the leaks and the disruption the resident experienced, but this does not mention compensation.
Also, it appears that the member of staff was giving their personal opinion of what would be fair rather than making a formal offer on behalf of the landlord. Whilst we would generally expect landlords to honour any offers made prior to our involvement, The Ombudsman would not be led by the landlord’s staff’s personal opinions regarding compensation. As we are independent and impartial, we have made our own assessment of the level of compensation which would be fair in this case, taking into account the individual circumstances, the landlord’s policies, our own guidance and the amounts awarded in similar cases in the past.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised the issue of rubbish left in communal areas by contractors which has only just been cleared up. This has been considered when assessing the overall compensation awarded by the landlord.
The resident has said that his health was affected by the poor condition of his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused him and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the leaks posed a risk to health.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and he should seek independent legal advice if he want to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.
The resident has also said he could not have friends and family to visit because of the state of his property which was very upsetting for him. As above, this has been taken into account when looking at compensation.
The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s comments that his personal items, wardrobe and bathroom were damaged by water and sewage entering his property. However, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm that this damage was due to avoidable delays in fixing the leaks from January 2020 onwards rather than being caused by the leaks themselves or delays prior to this date which are outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
In order to seek redress for damage to his personal items, the resident may be able to make a claim against the landlord’s insurance provider if he believes that his possessions were damaged due to negligence by the landlord and its contractors. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
As explained above, whilst the historic events add context to the more recent issues, the compensation has been assessed for the inconvenience the resident experienced during the period after January 2020 which is approximately six months before he raised a formal complaint to the landlord.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord calculated the compensation offered to the resident for the inconvenience caused by delays in fixing the leaks.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 20 July 2020 and received a stage one response on 8 February 2021. The landlord stated in the response that it had previously informed the resident that it would not provide the response until all repair work had been completed. Although evidence of this notification was not provided to this Service, the resident did not dispute this element of the complaint response.
The landlord notified the resident prior to sending the stage one response that it would not escalate the complaint and that would be its final response to the complaint. This was in line with its complaint policy, which states that the landlord will not escalate a complaint if the only outstanding disagreement is the level of compensation. However, this is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website).
It is the established view of this Service that landlords should not deny escalation requests automatically if there is a dispute about compensation. The review process allows the landlord to reconsider its decision and, in this case, it could have provided further information to the resident as to how it reached its decision. There may be reasons why it is not appropriate to escalate a complaint further through the landlord’s process, but these should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the individual circumstances.
53. In this case, if the complaint had been escalated, the landlord would have been able to explain to the resident in detail how it calculated the offer and provided further information relating to the process for making a claim against its insurers if the resident felt it bared responsibility for damage to his personal items.
In not agreeing to an escalation, the landlord missed an opportunity to fully resolve the complaint without the involvement of this Service being required and reducing the time and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursing this matter.
Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord for refusing to escalate the complaint and review its compensation award and further redress is warranted in view of the inconvenience this caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases where service failure has had impact on the complainant of short duration that did not significantly affect the outcome of the complaint. A payment of £75 would therefore be appropriate to full resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of handling of repairs to resolve leaks into the property, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its compensation offer to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handing.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by in the length of time it took to resolve the repairs and for the two missed appointments.
The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified.
That landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint to stage two missed an opportunity for it explain how it calculated its compensation offer and the chance to resolve the complaint before the involvement of this Service.

Orders

For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £75. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. The compensation award is in addition to the compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. It is the Ombudsman’s view that complaint escalation should not automatically be denied on the basis that the dispute is solely about the amount of compensation a landlord has offered.