A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202016099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016099

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

14 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a defective boiler.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The resident was left without a functioning boiler from 22 January 2021 until 18 February 2021. The resident had no access to heating and hot water throughout this time. During this period, no remedial work was carried out as the boiler had been deemed to be beyond economical repair. However, the landlord’s contractors attended to carry out inspections, and to carry out an asbestos survey. The new boiler was ultimately installed, and the electrical works completed, by 18 February 2021.
The resident’s complaint was about the lack of service and communication received by the landlord in relation to the ongoing issues. He was dissatisfied with the delays in the boiler being replaced, the time he spent pursuing the issue, which impacted his mental health, and that he felt the property was uninhabitable. Moreover, he said he had had to find temporary accommodation due to the cold temperatures. The resident was also dissatisfied by the amount of compensation offered by the landlord, and was seeking a full refund of his rent for the period he was without a boiler.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delays, and advised it had offered temporary heating which was declined by the resident. It stated there were occasions where it had attended but no access was provided. It stated that following access on 4 February 2021, it began works. It apologised that the resident felt he had to leave the property, but stated he should have informed it beforehand so it could assess the situation. It also stated that it would expect the resident to boil a kettle for hot water during this period. It provided further staff training on record-keeping and discussed its expected service levels with its contractor. In total it offered £285 compensation, which was made up of:
1. £60 for loss of heating and hot water;
2. £75 for poor service;
3. £50 for poor communication;
4. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
The resident had been in communication with this Service throughout this process. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of a defective boiler, and its complaint handling. He was dissatisfied with the compensation offered and was seeking an increased amount of compensation, which considers the impact the delays throughout the process had on him.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation in the dwelling for space heating and heating water.
This is confirmed in the landlord’s repairs policy which states that it is responsible for boiler repairs, and that this would be treated urgently within 24 hours.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide a timeframe for a stage one response to be provided It states that for a stage two complaint, it will either be reviewed by a service director or by a review panel. It lists the timeframe to be reviewed by a review panel as thirty working days made up of five working days to arrange the panel, for the panel to then be held within twenty working days, and a response to be provided within five working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective boiler

It is not disputed by either party that the landlord was responsible for the boiler, and the associated works and the landlord has acknowledged delays in some of the service provided to the resident. However, there are disputes between parties in relation to other delays where the landlord has stated it attempted to gain access for appointments, but the resident did not provide access.
In cases where a landlord has acknowledged failings, it is the role of this Service to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. This Service will also consider evidence provided by both parties, in order to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately in relation to its handling of the issues, where information has been disputed.
In this case, the landlord ultimately put things right as the boiler was replaced on 18 February 2021. It also demonstrated it had learnt from the process by providing further staff training for record-keeping and reinforced the service standards it expects from its contractors. The landlord has acknowledged the delays in completing the remedial work needed within the resident’s property, following his reports of the defective boiler and apologised for its poor communication, and offered the resident a total of £285 compensation in view of these failings.
However, in this instance, the omission of a fair and proportionate amount of compensation in this case constituted a failing. The landlord offered the amount of £285 compensation in total which was disproportionately low, especially when taking into consideration the circumstances of this case.
Whilst the landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s initial report, and a contractor attended within twenty-four hours, the resident was then left without heating and hot water for a total of thirty days. This Service does acknowledge that, in this case, the boiler was deemed to be beyond economical repair, and therefore, a delay would be likely whilst waiting for the replacement boiler.
However, the landlord would have been expected to assess the situation this would have left the resident in. Both parties acknowledge that a fan heater was offered to the resident during the initial appointment; however, the resident has advised that a contractor said this would not be suitable for his property due to ongoing issues in the property such as draughty windows. Following this, the resident found alternative accommodation.
In addition, the landlord has stated that the resident did not inform it that the property was not habitable, or it would have carried out an assessment of the situation, and considered a decant where appropriate. However, the resident has provided evidence to show that he contacted the landlord via email on 25 January 2021, to advise he could not stay in the property due to the low temperatures. This is evidence of poor communication, and poor record keeping from the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns once he had contacted it, whether a temporary heater had been offered or not.
Similarly, the landlord stated that it would have expected the resident to boil the kettle to have access to hot water in such situations. Whilst this may be suitable in the very short-term, the resident was without hot water for thirty days, and therefore this was neither appropriate nor practical advice. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider alternative options available in order to minimise the impact the ongoing situation had on the resident, and review this at an appropriate frequency throughout the process.
The landlord also said that it had been unable to contact the resident on 27 January 2021 and 1 February 2021, and was unable to gain access on these dates to conduct a survey which delayed the boiler being replaced. The resident has disputed this, and advised this Service that the landlord contacted him on 26 January 2021 and he informed it that an appointment would not be possible on 27 January 2021. The resident stated that on 1 February, the landlord did have contact with his father, and arranged a visit for 2 February 2021, which contractors did not turn up for on the day. He advised that this appointment was then rearranged for 4 February, which matches the landlord’s accounts. This is further evidence of poor record-keeping from the landlord.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Therefore, this Service is not able to determine the responsibility for the delay in service that occurred between 27 January 2021 and 1 February 2021. However, the onus would be on the landlord to ensure a clear record of contacts has been kept in order to ensure the evidence provided to this Service was comprehensive. That said, given that this was a period of three working days, it did not have a significant impact on the overall delays.
Moreover, evidence provided to this Service of internal communication from the landlord throughout this process provides further evidence of poor record-keeping. The landlord regularly had to contact different service areas chasing updates in relation to the remedial work. This included on 9 February 2021, and following communication from the council in relation to the ongoing issues, the landlord having to request updates on the works from several different areas in order to be able to provide the councillor with an update. It is expected that a landlord will maintain an effective repairs log and records of this to ensure that it is complying with its relevant repairs policies and to avoid further delays.
Ultimately, when considering that the resident was without heating and hot water for a period of thirty days, during winter months, and the above record keeping failures by the landlord which exacerbated the impact on the resident, the £285 compensation offered by the landlord does not provide adequate redress for its failings.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £450 compensation (£100 for loss of heating and hot water, £100 for poor record-keeping, £100 for poor communication and £150 for delays in replacing the boiler) would provide adequate redress for the service failures identified. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where a landlord has acknowledged failings, and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its complaint handling throughout this process. It acted appropriately by apologising to the resident, and providing an explanation for the delays. It is therefore the role of this Service to determine whether this provided adequate redress which was proportionate to any failings identified throughout this investigation.
The resident’s initial complaint was raised on 2 February 2021, and the landlord sent a stage one response on 24 February 2021. This was a total of 16 working days; and whilst the landlord’s complaints policy does not specify an appropriate timeframe in which a stage one response should be sent, the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service states that a stage one response should be sent within ten working days. Therefore, as no holding response was provided, the landlord failed to respond within an appropriate timeframe.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 February 2021. An automatic acknowledgement email was sent on the same date to acknowledge the complaint. Following contact from this Service, the landlord then acknowledged the complaint on 12 May 2021. It provided a holding response on 18 June 2021 before sending its final response on 19 July 2021. The landlord took a total of 98 working days to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide an approximate timeframe for it to respond to a stage two response, other than for a review panel. The Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service states that an appropriate timeframe to respond to stage two complaint is within 20 working days, or, if necessary, a further 20 working days if an explanation is provided to the resident and a date given for the expected response.
In this case, at both stages of the complaint, the landlord failed to respond within an appropriate timeframe. Whilst it did provide a holding response on 18 June 2021, prior to its final response, the holding response failed to appropriately set the resident’s expectations as it did not contain a date for its final response. This was also not compliant with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.
In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy does not comply with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service as it does not provide dates in which the landlord will respond to a resident’s concerns. It does provide a timescale in which a review panel will take place; however, this is outside of the appropriate timeframe for a stage two complaint response as provided in the Complaint Handling Code.
Overall, the landlord has failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaints at each stage, and has failed to set the resident’s expectations throughout its complaints process. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged these delays, and apologised to the resident, it failed to provide proportionate redress in relation to the above failings identified by this investigation.
This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that an amount of £150 compensation would provide adequate redress for the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a defective boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

That within four weeks of the date of this determinations, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, which is inclusive of the £285 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not been paid already. This is made up of:
  1. £100 for loss of heating and hot water,
  2. £100 for poor record-keeping,
  3. £100 for poor communication,
  4. £150 for delays in replacing the boiler and,
  5. £150 for poor complaint handling.
2. Review its Complaints Policy in order to have a clear, structured complaint procedure which explains how the complaint will be investigated at each stage and the timeframe in which the resident would expect to receive a response. As part of its review the landlord is to ensure that its complaints process is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.