A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202105952)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105952

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 March 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property as a result of the leak.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a one bedroom flat.

Summary of events

On 24 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to complain about “a leak coming from the flat above which [had] not been dealt with”. The landlord’s record of the conversation documented that the resident believed the leak was “waste water”. The landlord also noted that the resident stated that the leak had caused damage to the property’s walls, his carpet and his personal belongings.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and set out that it understood that the resident was “unhappy” that the leak into the property had not been remedied and its communication regarding the leak had been poor.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response following a telephone conversation with the resident earlier that day. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the “sub-standard service” the resident had received in relation to the leak (no further details given) and would like to offer £160 compensation for the time and trouble he had spent in pursuing the matter. It explained that this comprised £75 for poor communication and £85 for the length of time to complete the repair. It noted that the resident had refused its offer of compensation. It added that it was unable to escalate the matter on the grounds that the resident was unhappy with the level of compensation offered.
2. The resident had submitted a customer claim to its insurers for damage to his carpet and personal belongings and was waiting the outcome of his application.
3. It had contacted the resident’s Housing Officer to see if they were able to offer any “additional help” (no further details given).
4. It had reminded its repair contractor of the level of service expected.
The landlord concluded by confirming that if the resident was unhappy with its response, believing that the matter remained unresolved, he was able to request to escalate the complaint.
On 10 June 2021 the resident contacted this Service explaining that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. The resident explained the landlord’s handling of the leak had been poor, including poor communication and delays. The resident stated that the landlord had also failed to provide a satisfactory remedy in relation to damage to his carpet and personal belongings as a result of the leak. On receipt of the resident’s contact this Service wrote to the landlord to request that it escalate the complaint.
An internal record by the landlord on 10 August 2021 noted that the resident had been in touch to report that he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. The landlord’s record also documented that the resident had attempted to escalate his complaint, however his requests had gone unanswered as they were sent to an officer who had left the organisation.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord provided its stage two (final) response, following requests from this Service in June, July and August 2021. Within its response the landlord noted that it understood that the resident had requested to escalated the complaint as he was “unhappy with the compensation awarded, the outstanding damage to the property and [its] complaint handling”. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that it had not responded to the resident’s initial requests to escalate the complaint, explaining that this was as a result of the allocated caseworker leaving the organisation and therefore the requests not being picked up.
2. Its repair records confirmed that the leak was due to defective pipework in the flat above the property. It explained that every time the occupant of the flat accessed water, water would leak into the property. It noted that this would have been “very frustrating” for the resident.
3. Its repair records confirmed that the defective pipework was fixed in August 2021.
4. A claim was pending with its insurers for “damages”. It confirmed that its insurers would contact the resident directly with the outcome.
5. In line with its compensation policy it would like to offer a discretionary award of £350 comprising:
  1. £150 for time and trouble “in pursuing this matter and trying to get the leak resolved”.
  2. £100 for the “protracted communication from [its] repair service”. It acknowledged that its repair team did not contact the resident in a timely manner or provide him “with sufficient information on how and when they intended to complete the repair and rectify the leak”. It confirmed that lessons had been learnt.
  3. £100 for complaint handling. It acknowledged that its communication had not been timely.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident’s complaint was “upheld” and should he remain unhappy he may refer the complaint to this Service for consideration.
On 8 September 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s final response. In summary he said:
1. It was disappointing that the landlord had not informed him promptly that the allocated caseworker for the complaint had left the organisation.
2. It was “shocking” that the landlord had left him “in this state since the end of March 2021 [to] date”.
3. He was unclear how the landlord knew that the leak was fixed in August 2021 as no one had contacted him.
4. The landlord had reduced its offer of compensation for time and trouble at stage two from its original offer at stage one.
5. He believed that the landlord’s total offer of compensation did not reflect the circumstances of the complaint, believing that he was due “a month’s rent and an apology letter” in addition to making good the internal damage caused by the leak and replacement of his carpets.
On 16 September 2021 the resident wrote to this Service to confirm why he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. In summary the resident said:
1. The leak was not resolved. He explained that “toilet water [was] still leaking down [the property]”.
2. The landlord had left him in an “unhealthy environment” due to waste water leaking into the property for more than six months.
3. The landlord should replace his carpet rather than leave him to make a claim via its insurers.
4. He was “left in the dark” regarding the repair to fix the leak following reporting it. He stated that the landlord did not provide updates or inspect the property to determine if the leak had been remedied.
The resident concluded by reiterating that he would like a rent refund, replacement of his carpets, and redecoration of stained walls in addition to “extra costs incurred” while he was required to live away from the property due to the leak.
An internal record by the landlord dated 7 October 2021 noted that the resident had been in touch and reported that the leak was not fixed in August 2021, advising that it was “still ongoing”. In response the landlord raised a work order to investigate and address the leak.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the leak had been resolved and remedial works had been booked for 11 and 18 January 2022.
2. It would like to increase its offer of compensation from stage two from £350 to £450. It explained that the additional £100 was to reflect the “stress and inconvenience” experienced by the resident.
3. It was sorry for the length of time it had taken to remedy the leak. It explained that this was due to “difficulty gaining access” into the flat above “which prevented [it] from being able to fix the leak”.
4. The resident may submit a claim to its insurance team for any damage caused to personal items.
In an update to this Service dated February 2023 the resident reported that the leak was ongoing, however the landlord had not taken action to resolve the issue despite reporting it.
The landlord also provided an update to this Service in February 2023. The landlord confirmed it had recently applied to the court for a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) as the occupant of the flat had failed to grant access to allow repairs to address “further issues” causing water ingress into the property. The landlord also confirmed that it was its “position that access to [the flat] was made in December 2021 and not August 2021”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues identified which were its responsibility.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the resident’s report of a leak into the property. This includes repair records from the property and the flat. From review of the records the Ombudsman notes the following between January 2021 and the landlord’s final response on 2 September 2021:
1. The resident reported a leak in the property from the bathroom extractor fan on 17 January 2021, with the landlord attending as an emergency out of hours appointment.
2. Following the out of hours appointment the records show that the landlord made several attempts to arrange a follow up appointment with the resident.
3. On 8 February 2021 the landlord attended the property and documented that the bathroom extractor was checked and all was ok.
4. In February and March 2021 the landlord raised a work order to make good water damage. The landlord’s records suggest that no appointment was made as the resident could not be contacted.
5. The resident reported a leak into the property from the flat on 24 May 2021. The landlord attended the property on the same day however no access was gained. The record noted that it spoke with the resident and it advised him to call back when home to “re-raise emergency”.
6. On 4 June 2021 the landlord noted “someone needs to go into [the flat] and trace [leak]”. It also recorded that make good works were required in the property.
7. From 11 June 2021 the landlord’s records document multiple attempts to gain access into the flat, however it was not successful.
The evidence shows that the landlord finally gained access to the flat on 2 December 2021 when it recorded “fixed leak”, which was approximately seven months from the resident re-reporting the leak in May 2021.
While the landlord has provided evidence that it was attempting to resolve the leak into the property from the flat during the period under investigation, overall the Ombudsman is not satisfied with its approach. When it became clear that the occupant of the flat, who was its own tenant, was not engaging with the repair the landlord should have looked to have taken a more robust approach to compel the occupant to grant access to complete the repairs, such as considering legal action. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s ‘light touch’ approach in pursuing the occupant, by making multiple repair appointments, impacted adversely on the resident, including uncertainty, distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period of time.
At stage two of the complaint procedure the landlord confirmed that the defective pipework in the flat was fixed in August 2021, which was incorrect. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord’s investigation of the complaint, and the repair, was inaccurate. Had the landlord undertaken an accurate investigation it may have identified at an earlier time that more intensive liaison with the occupant of the flat was needed in order to progress the matter.
During the period under investigation the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord kept the resident updated and informed regarding the repair to remedy the leak. This is unsatisfactory and again will have impacted adversely on him.
The Ombudsman notes from both the resident’s information and the landlord’s update that, since the repair in December 2021, the leak has reoccurred. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the landlord’s response to the reoccurring leak as this falls outside of the scope of this investigation, because these are matters that the landlord has not had an opportunity to consider within its own complaints procedure. However, it is of concern that the same issue appears to have reoccurred and that matters have apparently not been fully resolved. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation to help bring the matter to a close.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the leak had not always been satisfactory, including communication, and therefore awarded £250 compensation, later increasing its offer by an additional £100 in January 2022.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it may award discretionary compensation “where the service delivery does not meet the service standard”. As the landlord had identified that a service failure had occurred in respect of its complaint handling it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the award does not accurately reflect the length of time the leak was on-going, the landlord’s poor communication and therefore the cumulative impact on the resident over an unnecessarily protracted period of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property as a result of the leak

In response to the resident’s reports of damage to his personal belongings and carpet the landlord directed the resident to make a claim via its insurers. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of the insurance claim, as we cannot determine liability, this Service will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue an insurance claim for damage to his personal belongings and carpet. This is because, if a landlord disputes fault, it may be reasonable to refer a resident to its own insurer to establish liability.
In responding to the complaint the landlord set out that it had provided a “sub-standard service” and acknowledged that the resident had spent “time and trouble trying to get the leak resolved”.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance claims sets out “a landlord only becomes responsible for any damage caused by the leak to its tenants and third parties if it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable time”. As the landlord had acknowledged a failing in respect of the repairs service it provided it would have been appropriate for it to have considered whether its shortfalls did, or could have, resulted in damage to the resident’s personal belongings; in addition to signposting him to its insurers. There is no evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory.
This would also have been in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which sets out that it there is scope for discretionary compensation where a resident has sustained financial loss as a consequence of its failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint chronology demonstrates that the landlord promptly provided the resident with its stage one response. However the evidence shows that the landlord’s stage two, final, response was provided significantly outside of the 20 working days prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code – taking approximately 12 weeks. The evidence further shows that the stage two response was only provided following intervention from this Service. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage.
Within its stage two response the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory and it therefore apologised and awarded £100 compensation. Where a landlord has a acknowledged a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has made an offer of redress to resolve the matter.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it acknowledged the service failure and the impact on the resident.
As the landlord had identified that a service failure had occurred in respect of its complaint handling it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. The landlord offered £100 compensation which was in line with its matrix for stress and inconvenience for “high” impact. The Ombudsman considers that the award was proportionate to the service failure.
There were shortcomings in terms of the contents of the landlord’s complaint responses.
Firstly, in respect of its stage one response, while it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that it had provided a “sub-standard service” following its investigation of the complaint, it did not provide any explanation as to what had happened, the nature of the service failure identified and the reasons behind it. This is unsatisfactory as a complainant should be told the particulars of the investigation and the response should provide adequate reason and explanation to support the decisions made, which the landlord did not do in this case.
Secondly, within its stage two response the landlord confirmed that the defective pipework in the flat was fixed in August 2021. However the landlord has subsequently confirmed to the Ombudsman that this was not the case. This indicates to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not thoroughly consider the complaint while it was live as it provided inaccurate information. This is unsatisfactory and meant that the landlord’s response was unable to reflect the true circumstances of the resident’s situation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property as a result of the leak.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property

The landlord’s approach to remedying the leak into the property was unsatisfactory as it failed to take a robust approach to compel the occupant of the flat to allow access to complete a repair. While the landlord did acknowledge that its handling of the leak into the property had not always been satisfactory, and therefore awarded £350 compensation, the level of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his property as a result of the leak

As the landlord had acknowledged a failing in respect of the repairs service it provided to the resident, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered whether its shortfalls did, or could have, resulted in damage to the his personal belongings, and therefore warranted additional compensation. There is no evidence that it did so. The landlord’s signposting to its insurers was not sufficient alone.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised and awarded compensation in recognition of its delayed stage two response, the landlord’s complaint responses fell short as it:
1. Failed to provide an explanation to support its finding that the repairs service it had provided to the resident had fallen short at stage one.
2. Incorrectly set out that a repair to fix the leak was completed in August 2021 at stage two.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repairs service it provided together with assurances in relation to next steps
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,150 compensation, within four weeks of the date of this determination. This figure includes the landlord’s previous offer of £450 and an additional £700 comprising:
1. £300 in respect of the repairs service it provided.
2. £200 for not demonstrating that it considered whether compensation was due to the resident for damage to his personal items and carpet as a result of the leak.
3. £200 for not providing adequate explanation and accurate information within its complaint responses.
If the resident’s insurance claim has not been decided upon, the landlord should contact its insurers in order to provide him with an update on the status of the claim.
The landlord should consider the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his personal belongings and carpet under its complaint procedure. The landlord should write to the resident, within four weeks of the date of the determination, to confirm the outcome of its assessment. Where additional compensation is not deemed appropriate the landlord should provide a full explanation setting out its reasons.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has applied for a NOSP to gain access to the flat to complete repairs to address on-going leaks. The landlord should write to the resident to provide a comprehensive update on the current situation to provide reassurances that it is taking robust steps in order to address the situation. The landlord should provide the update within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should inspect the property to assess the extent of damage caused by the leak in order that repairs can promptly be instructed once the leak has been remedied. The landlord should write to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection within four weeks of the date of this assessment, providing an action plan to be triggered once the leak has been remedied.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance claims. The landlord should ensure that it considers whether discretionary compensation is due for damage to personal belongings where it has identified a failing in service delivery during the complaints procedure, in addition to signposting to its insurers.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…” The landlord should ensure that it in responding to complaints it adheres to this requirement to ensure that a resident is given a comprehensive response to their complaint.