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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202104119)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104119

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

2 April 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of the poor condition of her property’s boundary wall.
    2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The resident has experienced an ongoing issue with the poor condition of a boundary wall which has affected several gardens and garages in the area, including those of the resident, The issue has remained outstanding for several years. The boundary wall was part of a property which is not owned by the landlord.
  3. An inspection of the wall was undertaken on 12 October 2020. The inspection report stated that the boundary wall had a pronounced lean into several gardens, was unrestrained by the ground slab or garage roof, and had become completely detached. The report recommended that the wall should be demolished and reconstructed, and that remedial work to support the wall and protect the gardens should be undertaken in the meantime.
  4. The resident has been in correspondence with the local authority and the landlord about the matter. She has expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to resolve the matter and that she was unable to use her garden due to the position of the wall, which was unsafe.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 20 May 2021 to state her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had progressed her complaint. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, which sent a stage one complaint response on 26 May 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. It had been in contact with the local authority to agree a solution to the problem and repair the wall. Repairs had yet to begin as the boundary wall and garages affected by the issue were owned by different parties. The local authority first had to investigate which of these parties would be responsible for the repair and had then made the decision that all freeholders who own a garage should contribute to the repair. The landlord agreed with this decision and would be contributing to the costs of the repairs.
    2. It could not provide the resident with a timeframe as to when the repairs would commence but would keep her updated. The local authority would be responsible for overseeing the works.
    3. The local authority had imposed an order under the Building Act of 1984 which meant that the garages and surrounding land could not be used until the issue was resolved. This decision was outside of the landlord’s control.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 June 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that the repair remained outstanding and the landlord had not offered any compensation for the loss of use of her garden and garage.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the request on 14 June 2021, confirmed that the complaint had been escalated on 21 June 2021, and sent a stage two complaint response on 15 July 2021. It confirmed it had recently met with the local authority to discuss the matter and it hoped to arrange a further meeting where it could confirm some dates for when the work was likely to start and end. The landlord offered the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill in view of the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the ongoing issue affecting her property.
  8. In an email sent to this Service on 26 October 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint were that the landlord had not provided any compensation for the loss of use of the garage and garden and she had yet to be given a timescale of when the repairs would be undertaken. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive compensation for the loss of use of the garden and garage, and to have a reduction in rent until repairs were completed.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider awarding non-statutory compensation in circumstances where a complainant “can demonstrate they have suffered severe inconvenience equivalent to financial loss due to our service failure”.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of the poor condition of the boundary wall

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with documentation from the Land Registry which confirms that the landlord does not own the boundary wall. As it is not the owner of the wall, the landlord was not responsible for repairing it and could not carry out any repairs to it without permission from the owner. It was therefore appropriate for the local authority to take the lead when it became apparent that the owner of the boundary wall was not arranging repairs which they were responsible for. This is because the local authority has legal powers under the Housing Act 2004 to service notice when hazards are identified, and to take enforcement action if the notice is ignored. The landlord does not have these powers itself and was therefore limited in the actions it could take to resolve the situation.
  2. The landlord also provided this Service with its correspondence with the local authority. This showed that it had cooperated with the local authority’s plan for the affected garage owners to contribute towards the cost of the necessary repairs to the wall. The landlord has also attended meetings with other affected residents and met directly with the local authority in an effort to resolve the matter.
  3. There is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in its handling of the wall repair. The landlord has explained to the resident why it cannot undertake repairs itself and how it was working with the local authority in order to commence repairs to the wall. The orders put in place to put the garages and surrounding landing out of use was a legal process undertaken by the local authority under the Building Act of 1984 and therefore outside the control of the landlord.
  4. The poor condition of the boundary wall and the delays in commencing repairs was not a result of service failure by the landlord and therefore it is under no obligation to offer compensation for any distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. However, the ongoing issue is understandably frustrating for the resident and it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a goodwill payment in recognition of the ongoing delays in commencing repairs and the legal orders put in place that have restricted the resident’s use of her garden and garage.
  5. This Service understands that a second goodwill payment was offered by the landlord following the end of the complaint process as the matter remained outstanding and it was unable to provide the resident with a timeframe as to when it expected the work to start and be completed.
  6. As part of her complaint, the resident has requested a partial rent rebate as she has been unable to use the garden or garage attached to her property for an extended period of time. The landlord would not be expected to offer a rent rebate in this situation as the resident was able to use the other facilities within her property and the landlord was not at fault for the resident being unable to use the garden and garage, therefore as explained above it would be expected to pay compensation for this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. During the telephone conversation with this Service on 22 May 2021, the resident explained her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had progressed her complaint and that she had yet to receive a formal complaint response. The resident explained that she had raised the complaint in November 2020 and provided this Service with a complaint reference number which she said had been issued by the landlord.
  2. This reference number does not appear in any of the correspondence provided by the landlord relating to this case. It is therefore not clear when, or if, a formal complaint was opened prior to the resident contacting this Service.
  3. The landlord has provided correspondence from November 2020 between itself, the resident and the resident’s local councillor and Member of Parliament. In this correspondence, the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the boundary wall issue. the landlord therefore should have opened a formal complaint and responded accordingly in line with its definition of a complaint as stated in its complaint policy.
  4. It took six months and the intervention of this Service before a stage one complaint response was provided by the landlord. While the landlord apologised for the distress the issue of the boundary wall had caused the resident in the response, it made no reference to the delay in providing a complaint response.
  5. Therefore, there has been a failure by the landlord and compensation is warranted to fully resolve this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.
    2. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint.
    3. Significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant
  6. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has confirmed that the landlord has offered her a total of £325 including £75 for delays in its stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has attempted to put things right for the resident through this offer of compensation. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above the £75 offered by the landlord for the delay in responding to the complaint is not sufficient in view of the length of the delay and the inconvenience this would have caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident a further £200 in recognition of the six-month delay in providing a complaint response, and for the distress and inconvenience that this caused her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of the poor condition of the boundary wall.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Order

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a further £200 compensation.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report and the landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

  1. The compensation award is in addition to any offers of goodwill made by the landlord to the resident relating to the outstanding repairs to the boundary wall and the associated complaint.
  2. The landlord should now pay the £325 compensation it offered previously though its complaints process, unless this has already been paid.