A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202101814)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101814

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. repairs required to the electrics in the property including the associated removal of asbestos material.
2. clearance of rubbish from the garden
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy via a mutual exchange. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is described as a three-bedroom house.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in repair and working order, the services for the supply of gas and electricity. The tenancy agreement obliges the resident to keep the garden tidy, to repair and maintain garden fences which have been installed by the resident or previous residents.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy sets out its repair categories. Urgent repairs will be responded to within 24 hours and provide its residents the next available appointment to attend standard repairs.

The policy states that it is responsible for broken or damaged light fittings or sockets and unsafe electrical fittings or wiring. The landlord is also responsible for the repairs to fences, gates or walls that have boundaries with public footpaths, highways and open spaces.

The landlord’s website advises that asbestos is present in many of its properties. It advised that if the asbestos is in good condition, has not been disturbed then it should not pose a problem within the property. It advises that when removing asbestos from a property it will use a specialist contractor.
The landlord’s operates a two-stage complaint procedure. It does not provide timelines for resolution at the different stages of the complaint procedure.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines how it will respond to compensation requests. It states that compensation can be payable for loss of amenity and for situations where the resident has experienced unacceptable delays. In addition, the compensation policy advises that claims for damage or personal injury should be assessed and referred to its insurance company.

Summary of events

The resident has said that she has had ongoing problems with the electrics in the property, which has been reporting to the landlord. The resident reported to the landlord on 17 December 2020, that she was experiencing problems with the electrics, she described that the lights in the property were tripping.
The resident made a further report on 15 January 2021 that the electrics in her property were tripping. An electrician attended the same day (15 January 2021), who inspected the consumer unit and noted that the electrics were not tripping and that the consumer unit did not need resetting.
On 20 January 2021, an electrician attended the resident’s property in response to her report on 17 December 2020. The electrician observed that within the property “DIY” electrical work had been carried out and that there were non-standard electrical fittings installed. In addition, they observed that it was likely that the ceiling tiles contained asbestos.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 24 February 2021 regarding the electrical work and that she believed that the property was unsafe. She said that an electrical supervisor had attended her address that morning to advise that as they were very busy, the electrical works to her address would take place within a couple of weeks. The resident advised that she was unhappy with the response from the electrical supervisor as she had waited a long time and taken time off work for the electrical repairs to be carried out. The resident requested that the electrical works take place as soon as possible as the delay was putting her children’s lives at risk.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day (24 February 2021) to discuss the complaint. The resident explained that the supervisor had attended that week and had asked whether an electrical check had been carried out to the property. The resident advised that she was unable to answer as she had acquired the property via a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s internal complaint records note that:
1. a visual inspection had taken place of the electrics on 22 February 2021 by a supervisor.
2. a full electrical test was required of the property and that this was likely to involve the removal of all non-standard fittings.
3. an asbestos test for the ceiling wall coverings throughout the property was required.
4. the presence of any polystyrene ceiling tiles in any rooms of the property would need to be removed as they were potentially a fire hazard.
5. the next steps were to carry out the asbestos check by 30 April 2021 and arrange for its removal under controlled conditions. Once the asbestos as removed, an electrical check would be carried out, removing defective items and replacing those with standard fittings.
6. the electrical safety certificate would be issued.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 February 2021. The key findings were that:
1. It accepted that there was a delay with the electrician responding to the electrical repair request raised on 17 December 2020. It advised that this was likely due to the Christmas holiday.
2. It had attended on 15 January 2021 and inspected the electrics in the property. The electrician did not identify a fault to the electrics within the property.
3. It has observed that there were substandard electrical work and non-standard electrical fittings in the property. The resident had advised that the installations were carried out by the previous occupant of the property.
4. It accepted that a mutual exchange electrical test had not been requested or carried out before the resident had moved into the property.
5. There were polystyrene ceiling tiles in some rooms in the property that needed removal as they were possibly a fire hazard,
6. It had drawn up an action plan which comprised of the following actions: check and remove any asbestos present in the property under controlled conditions. Once it was satisfied there was no asbestos within the property, a mutual exchange electrical test would be carried out and the non-standard and substandard electrical fittings would be removed. It would issue an electrical safety certificate. The actions would be completed by 30 April 2021.
7. It had requested an expedited appointment for the asbestos removal and electrical works to be carried out and agreed a point of contact to oversee the work to ensure completion was to a good standard.
8. It offered a compensation award of £185 This was assessed as: £135 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident and £50 for the quality of service she had received.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2021 to report that following the high winds the previous night a tree in the garden had fallen by its roots and affected her property and the property next door. She requested that the landlord attend to remove the tree.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response and escalated the complaint on 15 March 2021. She advised that she had experienced difficulty contacting the named point of contact and that she had been advised that her complaint has been closed. The resident gave examples of the poor communication she had experienced such as the landlord’s contractor appeared unaware that the asbestos check had already taken place, the landlord had not provided any further information about the further work identified in the asbestos report.

She wanted the landlord to keep to the deadline it had set for the work to be completed. In addition, she outlined her disappointment with the award of compensation stating that it did not take into account the length of time that she had been experiencing problems with her electrics. In addition, the compensation award did not account for the delays that she had experienced as a result of poor communication between its teams.

The landlord’s records note on 16 March 2021 that:
1. The resident’s property required a comprehensive electrical check as the resident had reported experiencing problems with the electrics within the property and having to change the fuses on her appliances.
2. It had spoken to the resident and explained its position regarding the removal of the suspected asbestos from her home and advised that it considered that there was little risk to her or her family as the asbestos had not been disturbed. It would inform the resident of the of the dates for the asbestos inspection and the check to the electrics.
The resident chased the landlord on 20 April 2021 regarding the removal of the tree that had fallen down in the garden and damaged the fencing. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 21 April 2021 that when it had attended to repair the fence, it had not collected the debris from her side of the garden.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2021 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s records note that on 7 May 2021 that a joint visit would take place for the electrics to be isolated and the asbestos removed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2021 to advise that when the landlord attended to remove the tree, they left the stump of the tree, consequently, the roots of the tree were causing the paving slabs to lift up.
It is noted in the landlord’s records on 12 May 2021 that only the wire fence was removed from the resident’s garden and that the rubbish from the fence repair was still present.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 13 May 2021. It apologised for its delay in resolving the electrics in the property. The key findings were:
1. It had arranged for the point of contact to speak with her and this had happened on 6 May 2021.
2. It had agreed to remove the rubbish in the garden which it believed belonged to the resident. The operative who had attended the resident’s property to bag the rubbish had in error marked the works order as complete on the system. It apologised for the error and had reopened the works order on the system.
3. The asbestos situated in the front room ceiling required removal. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging for the removal of the asbestos.
4. It provided the account of the visit that took place on 13 May 2021 when the operative and electrician attended to undertake repairs to the ceiling. It apologised if the resident felt that the operative did not take the request, she made regarding the scope of works seriously and explained that was not the operatives intention.
5. The removal of the asbestos from the living room ceiling was unsuccessful as the living room had not been cleared as requested and the contractor was unable to remove the plaster board as it had an asbestos coating. The work has been rescheduled to take place on 26 May 2021.
6. It agreed to carry out a post inspection of the property once all the work has been completed to ensure it has been completed correctly and the resident should contact the point of contact to arrange this.
7. The landlord offered a compensation award of £150. The award was assessed as £75 for inconvenience and £75 for the quality of service she received.
8. It agreed to carry out further staff training to ensure that when repairs are ordered, all repairs orders include additional works that are required. It accepted that this process would add additional time to the works being completed but would provide a better outcome for the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. She informed this Service that the landlord attended the property on 13 May 2021 to carry out the work to the ceiling but were unable to carry out the work as the sofa needed to be moved. The landlord attended on 26 May 2021 to take down the living room ceiling and returned on 28 May 2021 to put up the new ceiling. The resident advised that the works were not completed on 28 May 2021 and a further appointment had been made for 21 June 2021.
Furthermore, the resident explained that she remained dissatisfied with the length of time that it had taken to identify the problem with the electrics and to carry out the work. She advised that due to missed appointments from the contractor, her settee had been damaged. In addition, she said that the rubbish in her garden was as a result of the landlord removing a fence from her garden. Furthermore, she expressed that she had experienced poor communication from the landlord and its contractors, that appointments had been made at the last minute with no regard to that fact that she had to book time off work.
After the complaint process, the landlord advised that on 26 May 2021, it carried out the removal of the asbestos from the ceiling wall coverings, the removal of the non-standard electrical fittings and defective wiring and issued the electrical safety certificate.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. This assessment will consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive matters and the formal complaint and consider whether its responses were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Taking into account its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

repairs required to the electrics in the property included the associated removal of asbestos material.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the electrical installations in the property. Therefore, when it received the report of an electrical fault, it should have arranged to carry out an inspection.
The landlord accepted in its complaint response that it delayed when responding to the resident’s report on 17 December 2020. It acknowledged that it did not attend until 20 January 2021 which was not in accordance with its repair standards. It apologised for this and offered a compensation award of £50 for its service failure.
The landlord’s records show that an electrician attended the resident’s home on 15 January 2021, following a separate report that the resident was experiencing problems with her electrics tripping. The engineer attended within the landlord’s repair handling timeframes and appropriately carried out an inspection of the consumer unit within the resident’s home. However, the initial engineer, during his inspection of the property, did not recognise that the electrical units within the resident’s home were non-standard electrical fittings and that there was likely to be asbestos in the property. Nevertheless, this was noted by the second engineer in his visit which was five days later. The landlord in its final complaint response acknowledged that further training was required for its staff when raising repairs, to ensure that the repairs it raised captured the end-to-end process to improve the customer experience.
The landlord has accepted that when the resident moved into the property, an electrical check should have been carried out and it appears that one had not. It agreed to carry out an electrical check to the property and issue an electrical safety certificate which it did when it attended the resident’s property on 26 May 2021.
The landlord agreed to assess whether there was asbestos present in the resident’s property and if present, it agreed to move it. This was in accordance with its repairing responsibilities. From the available information, the landlord could not remove the asbestos in the resident’s living room on 21 May 2021 due to the living room not been cleared and it has advised that the asbestos was removed on 26 May 2021.
The resident complained about the communication she had received from the landlord and its contractors, describing it as “poor.” In response, the landlord appointed a point of contact to keep the resident informed and updated of its actions. The resident has expressed the difficulty she experienced getting in contact with the named member of staff. Before it issued its final complaint response, the landlord arranged for its named point of contact to speak to the resident to regarding the delay in removing the asbestos from the front room. This was reasonable as it had assigned the point to contact to keep the resident updated, informed and to address any concerns she had regarding the works to be carried out to her home.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance. The Remedies Guidance explains that where there has been service failure by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
The landlord has accepted that its service provision could have been better with regards to the checking of the electrics within the resident’s property. The landlord has acted appropriately by recognizing the service failures, apologising to the resident and making an award of compensation of £260 compensation, broken down as for £135 for the time and trouble in making the complaint and £125 for service quality. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which recommends awards within this range where there has been considerable service failure but there has been no permanent impact on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer of compensation recognises the landlord’s delays in checking the electrics to the resident’s property and the award of compensation represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.

clearance of rubbish from the garden

37.The landlord in its complaint responses offered the resident an award of clearance of rubbish from the garden

The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the resident to maintain the fencing to the property and its repair standards state that for standard repairs it will offer residents the next available appointment.

Following a tree falling in the resident’s garden and damaging the fence, the resident requested on11 March 2021 that the landlord remove a fence from her garden. The resident had to chase the landlord on 20 April 2021 before it took action to remove the tree stump and fence in May 2021. This was an unreasonable delay as it took two months for the landlord to act in accordance with its repairing obligations.
The landlord’s records show that when it attended the resident’s property on 12 May 2021, it only removed the wire fence from the resident’s garden and did not remove the associated rubbish related to the fence removal. This was inappropriate as it caused further inconvenience to the resident in getting the matter addressed. This was recognised by the landlord in its complaint response who offered an award of compensation of £75 for this.
In its final complaint response, the landlord queried that the amount of rubbish present in the garden resulted from the fence removal only. However, it acted reasonably and proportionately by agreeing to clear the rubbish from the resident’s garden. In addition, it apologised for the error caused when the operative closed the repair order on the system in error following the visit to assess the rubbish that required clearance at the resident’s property. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised and apologised for its specific failings and awarded an appropriate level of compensation for this.

the related complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 24 February 2021 regarding the condition of the electrics in the property which she had experienced as tripping.
In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord spoke to the resident the same day it received the complaint to understand the resident’s concerns. In addition, it responded to the complaint that same day, providing the resident with a comprehensive response to the issues raised.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated the complaint on 15 March 2021. The landlord did not respond for almost two months. This was outside of the timescale that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends, and it was not until 13 May 2021 (after the intervention of this Service) that the landlord responded.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends the complaint handling timescales that landlords should adopt. The landlord’s complaint procedure does not set out its complaint handling time limits but states that these should be agreed with the resident. However, the landlord needs to set the parameters its staff should work to when discussing time limits with residents which conform to those set out within the Code.
In its complaint review, whilst the landlord recognised the inconvenience experienced by the resident, it did not consider whether it should offer a compensation payment for its delay in providing its final complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the electrics in the property including the associated removal of asbestos material.

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handing clearance of rubbish from the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord removed the asbestos, carried out the electrical check and issued a safety certificate for the electrics. Although it delayed in completing these works, the landlord recognised its service failures, apologised and made an appropriate award of compensation which provided reasonable redress to the resident.
The landlord apologised and made an appropriate award of compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident and by its delay in clearing the rubbish from her garden.
The landlord did not progress the resident’s request for her complaint to be considered at the final stage of the complaint procedure and therefore delayed in providing a final complaint response.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to carry out a post inspection of the property as agreed in its final complaint response and inform the resident of its findings.
The landlord to review its complaint procedure to assess whether it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £335 compensation agreed in its complaint responses.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to arrange for the clearance of any remaining debris from the garden.
The landlord should confirm compliance with this recommendation to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.