Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202103769)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103769

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

20 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the storage cupboard at her property and the handling of the repairs.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a third floor flat in a block of similar properties.
  2. The landlord’s contractor’s record show that, on 26 January 2021, it received a report that the cistern was not filling at the resident’s property and that there were various issues with the taps. The works were scheduled for 8 February, then rescheduled for 10 February, as the contractors were unable to gain access to the property on 8 February. The records show that, on 10 February, in addition to the scheduled work, the contractors found a leak coming from the heat exchanger in a storage cupboard. The works are recorded as being completed that day.
  3. On 10 February 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that she had had no water since 5 February 2021 due to a leak “coming from somewhere” and that water had been gushing through the ceiling in her storage area, which had ruined her possessions and carpet. She said it had left a damp smell and that she and her child had had to stay elsewhere due to the leak and the water having been switched off. She requested compensation for the damaged items and the inconvenience of having to stay elsewhere.
  4. On 10 March 2021 the resident raised a second complaint. She said the storage cupboard had not been redecorated yet despite the landlord telling her it would be done after two weeks due to needing time to dry out first. She said the damp smell was lingering, her property had been damaged and she had had to change the carpet. She asked why the leak (in the storage cupboard) had been an issue for nearly a month and how the landlord was going to address the inconvenience caused. She also said somebody (unnamed) had told her that day that there was a potential leak from her property into another property. A plumber attended and identified an incorrectly fitted valve in the toilet that would be attended to on Monday (15 March 2021). The landlord emailed the resident an insurance form that day in order to make a claim for the items damaged by the storage cupboard leak, which she returned via email on 11 March 2021.
  5. On 16 March 2021 the landlord responded to both the resident’s complaints. In its stage one complaint response for the first complaint, it apologised for the damage caused by the leak in the storage cupboard and that she had had to move out for a short period due to the damp smell. It said the leak was reported on 10 February and contained on 11 February 2021 and that she was left with hot water and heating. It confirmed that it had emailed her an insurance claim form. It offered £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused. In its stage one complaint response to the second complaint, the landlord reiterated that the leak (in the storage cupboard) was contained within 24 hours and that redecoration works had been booked for 26 March 2021. It said it was also replacing the toilet cistern and reassured the resident that no leak (from the toilet) had gone into the property below. It apologised for the service she had received and offered £100 compensation. It said further staff training had been carried out on recordkeeping and the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. It had also spoken to the contractor to remind them of expected service levels.
  6. On 22 March 2021 the resident escalated the second complaint. She confirmed that the plumbing work had been completed after several visits; the redecorating work was due to start the following day, but that she had originally been told it would be started two weeks after the leak was contained. She said there was still a damp smell. She noted that it was almost two months since the issues started on 1 February 2021 and that she didn’t think she should be responsible for paying rent for “these inconvenienced weeks”.
  7. On 11 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said that the complaint was about a leak from the property below the resident, as well as the outstanding redecoration works. It apologised for the delay. It said that the leak in the storage cupboard had been attended to on 10 February 2021 and the redecorating work had now been completed. It apologised for the substandard service, offered £50 compensation and said that staff training would be carried out “to certify that all aspects of a repair are taken into consideration and to provide the best outcome for the resident.” It advised the resident how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 18 May 2021 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the level of compensation it had offered. She said the leak had occurred on 1 February 2021 and that she had had to relocate due to the landlord switching the water off and the property being damp and wet from the leak.

Assessment and findings

Response to the leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists two categories of repairs: Urgent repairs which have a response time within 24 hours, and standard repairs where the response time is the “next available appointment that is convenient with the customer”. Although the landlord’s website classifies a leak within the home that cannot be contained as an urgent repair, the landlord has not provided this Service with any records of when the resident reported the leak to it. The resident has told this Service that the leak started on 1 February 2021 and has advised that the landlord switched the water off, however there is also no record of this communication. She also stated in her first complaint on 10 February 2021 that she had had no water since 5 February 2021. However, the only records we have been provided with are the landlord’s contractor’s records which show that an unrelated repair was logged on 26 January 2021 for the toilet cistern and taps. The contractors attended on 10 February and noted that, in addition to the scheduled work, there was a leak in the storage cupboard. The job was marked as completed on 10 February 2021.
  2. The landlord’s records mean it is unclear exactly when the leak started, when it was reported, when the water was switched off, and when it was contained. The landlord in its complaint responses has said that the leak was reported on 10 February 2021 and contained within 24 hours, (with one response suggesting it was contained on 10 February and another suggesting it was contained on 11 February). However, the contractor’s records suggest that they were already scheduled to attend the property on 10 February to complete other repairs and attended to the leak whilst at the property. The landlord has addressed its record keeping in its stage one response and has taken reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence by providing staff with record keeping training. It has also made reasonable redress for the impact that the failure in record keeping had on the resident, by offering £100 compensation.
  3. Once the leak had been contained it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to provide an accurate timescale for the redecoration works to be completed, and to have updated her of any delays to the schedule. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations effectively. However, the only timescale the resident says she was given was that redecoration would start two weeks after the leak was contained. However there is no record of this advice. The redecoration was eventually completed around seven weeks after the leak had been contained, which is an unreasonable delay regardless of what advice had been given. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging its failure to manage the resident’s expectations and providing staff training to ensure that “all aspects of a repair are taken into consideration and to provide the best outcome for the resident”. It has also apologised for the substandard service and made reasonable redress by offering £50 compensation, which is in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint handling 

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that at stage one it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within two working days of it being recorded and will aim to respond within 10 working days. If the resident is unhappy with the stage one response, the complaint can be escalated to stage two, where the aim is to respond within 20 working days.
  2. It is noted that the landlord has advised this Service that the first complaint the resident made on 10 February 2021 was in relation to a different issue compared to the second complaint that was made on March 2021. However, it is evident that the first complaint is indeed related to the second complaint. Although the second complaint also mentions a potential second leak from the toilet, both complaints refer to the leak in the storage cupboard and the damage to the resident’s possessions and the inconvenience caused. The landlord should have responded to the first complaint within ten working days, in line with its complaints policy and, if the resident was unhappy with its response, she could have escalated the complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
  3. There is no record of the landlord contacting the resident about the first complaint until she made her second complaint on 10 March 2021. However, by the time the stage one response for the first complaint was issued on 16 March 2021, it had been 24 working days since the resident raised the complaint.
  4. As the resident raised the issue of the damage to her possessions in her complaint on 10 February 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact her promptly to discuss whether she was able to make a liability claim on its insurance. However, the landlord did not contact the resident about this until she raised a second complaint on 10 March 2021. Once it did contact her it acted appropriately by emailing her an insurance claim form to complete and return to its insurance team. This was reasonable as landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damage to the resident’s possessions outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim for the damage to the resident’s possessions.
  5. Although it was reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to its insurance team, none of its complaint responses acknowledged, explained or apologised for the one month delay in doing so.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response to the second complaint was issued within the ten working days. It addressed the points the resident had made, offered reasonable redress for its failings in record keeping and acted appropriately by arranging staff training on record keeping. However, its stage two response was issued 34 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which was outside the 20-working day target in its complaint policy.
  7. There was some inaccuracy in the landlord’s stage two response, as it said that part of the (second) stage one complaint had been about a leak from another property, when the issue the resident had actually raised was whether there had been a leak from her property into the property below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the storage cupboard at her property and the handling of remedial repairs consequent to this, satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its delayed complaint handling.