A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202107046)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107046

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of faulty electrics at the property.
2. Reports regarding the communal and bin doors being broken and accessed by non-residents.
The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a two bedroom flat on the second floor of a two storey block. The lease commenced on 17 October 2008.
The landlord’s repair history shows that in October 2019 the resident reported a fault with the communal door’s lock. However, there is no evidence of the resident raising a complaint with the landlord regarding this issue until June 2021. Therefore, this review will only consider events from October 2020 which is within a reasonable timeframe of the date of the resident’s formal complaint of February 2021.
On 27 October 2020, the resident called to chase up redecoration works agreed following a leak in the roof the year before that was delayed because of covid-19. On 19 November 2020, the landlord’s operative attended and reported that the walls were dry but as there was evidence of past staining, they prepared the walls and ceiling and completed redecoration.
The resident reported to the landlord on 11 February 2021 that the electrics were faulty and tripping. She reported that she had an investigation done and was told rodents were chewing through wires in the roof cavity which was affecting the electrics. The landlord’s call centre passed the resident’s report directly to a responsive repair operative who attended on 12 February 2021. The operative reported that only half the sockets were working and that they were not able to find/rectify the fault. A job was the raised but then cancelled as it was not deemed to be the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident complained to the landlord on 16 February 2021 regarding not being informed about the job being cancelled. On the same date the landlord acknowledged her complaint in writing and advised that it aimed to provide a response within ten days.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 February 2021. It acknowledged that to resolve her complaint she sought compensation and an apology in recognition of the manner in which the situation had been handled and confirmation of how and when the outstanding works would be completed.
It acknowledged a commitment was made to carry out a repair in relation to the reported issue with the electrics and roof hole and that the resident was not informed that this had been cancelled by the contractors. It agreed that the service she had received on this occasion had fallen below what would normally be expected. The landlord explained this was because the issue was inside the flat and its repairs contractor’s remit is to solely assess and carry out communal repairs. It said this work had been reassigned to its repair contractor and a pest control contractor who would attend on 17 February 2021.
It offered the resident £140 in compensation which it said is in line with its compensation policy which provides discretion where its service may have fallen below expected levels. It said this amount comprised:
1. £50 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter
2. £40 for the missed appointment
3. £50 for the lack of communication about the repair
On 18 February 2021, the resident acknowledged the landlord’s response however said as the job was cancelled it left her in the “freezing cold” with no electricity for at least fourteen hours with a six months old and a two year old. Not only this, but it left her with a loss of a day and a half’s earnings as she could not work from home due to the issue with the electrics.
She referenced that an out of hours electrician attended the previous day but only because someone from its responsive repair team had “argued her case” to the repairs contractor named in its complaint response. She said the landlord had not resolved the outstanding electrical issue despite her calling the repairs contractor every day for an update. The resident said she was seeking:
1. Financial compensation for the loss of earnings.
2. Confirmation of how and when the outstanding works would be completed.
3. The issue with the rodents to be solved quickly, with all entry points blocked up.
4. An official apology
On 18 February 2021, the landlord acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. It advised that she would receive a response by 29 April 2021, if not before.
The resident contacted the landlord approximately a week later to advise she had not heard further from the landlord regarding her escalation request. She also advised that the repair contractor had only just booked an appointment for an electrician to come out after nearly two weeks of calling.
The landlord’s internal records show that due to reports received from residents about the communal door being easy to “kick open”, it arranged for its mechanical and electrical contractor to attend the property building on 23 April 2021 to investigate this issue.
On 7 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the internal door leading to the bin store was not secure and enabled non–residents to access the building.
On 23 June 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman advising of the complaint she made to the landlord about a rodent infestation and loss of power in February 2021. She said after receiving its stage one response, she escalated the complaint however she had not received any further correspondence from the landlord.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord held a stage two review meeting. The landlord’s internal notes reference that a previous job was raised to address the resident’s faulty electrics but then cancelled as the resident was a leaseholder therefore responsible under the lease for repairing electrics. It said as a gesture it would arrange for an electrician to attend to check for any damage.
On 7 July 2021, an operative attended and reported that doors and locks, including all ironmongery, were in good and working order. The note stated the bin store itself was very dirty and full of overflowing rubbish with bin bags all over the floor. The note also suggested that residents were leaving the doors open and unlocked so as to throw their rubbish in the general direction of the bins.
After contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided the resident with a stage two response dated 7 July 2021. It said her initial complaint concerned outstanding works to the electrics in her property and the delay in carrying out the works and missed appointments.
The landlord acknowledged she was dissatisfied with the way her complaint was dealt with at stage one. It said it was sincerely sorry for the delay in getting these matters responded to and hoped that the information now being provided would reassure her that all was in hand. When it spoke to her on 30 June 2021, it confirmed that its team would contact her alongside its estate services team in an effort to mobilise and provide a co-ordinated approach to her outstanding issues.
Regarding her complaint that the communal and bin doors constantly being broken allowing access by non-residents, it understood that there was a visit to the property that day to remedy the bin store doors. It had been informed that the doors and door locks were in good condition and that the problem seemed to be that some residents were leaving the bin store doors open. It said it would ask its leasehold team whether or not it would be possible to put some signage around the bin store area to advise residents to keep the doors closed and put their rubbish in the bins.
Regarding her complaint about pest infestation and her belief that it was contributing to the issue with her electrics, its repair contractor would attend on 13 July 2021 to inspect the electrics and also said its pest control contractor would visit on the same date to establish whether or not rodents were still within the void space in the roof.
Within its response, the landlord also mentioned that residents had been written to inform them that the lobby door codes would be changing on 26 July 2021. It said hopefully this would assist in any non-residents accessing the block.
It said that it appreciated that communication had not been timely which would have compounded the issues, which was unacceptable. It had addressed this with the team, recognising that overall management of her complaints and the length of time to provide a response had been too long considering the circumstances. As a result of her complaint, further staff training would be carried out to ensure that this type of situation did not happen again.
Within its response it also apologised for the “sub-standard service” she had received and offered the resident a discretionary payment of £240 for her time and trouble and the length of time taken to resolve the matter and a further £75 for the quality of service received. It said this offer was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident replied to the landlord on 9 July 2021 advising in regards to the bin store doors, residents did not have a key to the external bin doors, and therefore they were not leaving the doors open. She was still awaiting reimbursement for the £200 that she spent on pest control and £205 spent on fixing the faulty electrics. She had previously sent these receipts to the landlord, but provided these invoices again.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2021 to advise that rodents were still entered her property. She also said that she had not received a response from the landlord to her 9 July communication.
Visits from the landlord’s repair contractor and pest control contractor took place on 13 July 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was not happy with the resolutions that were offered by the landlord in its final response and she was “severely unhappy” with her treatment by the landlord.
In response to this Service’s information request, the landlord advised in February 2022 that works to the locks to the communal doors had in fact been carried out on 29 May 2021, providing the invoice from its mechanical and electrical sub-contractors dated 23 April 2021 which detailed the work.

Assessment and findings

Communal and bin store doors.

In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for “common parts of the estate”.
During the timeframe considered in this review, there is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about an issue with the communal doors until 7 June 2021 when she reported that the communal and bin store doors were not secure and enabled non-residents to enter. The landlord’s records show that it arranged for an operative to attend on 7 July 2021 who reported that both the communal and bin store doors including all ironmongery, were in good and working order and closed properly. Its operative however noted that the bin store itself was very dirty and full of overflowing rubbish with bin bags all over the floor. They suggested that some of the residents were not locking doors after themselves.
In its stage two final response of the same date, the landlord reiterated the findings of its operative who had attended that day including that the problem may be that some residents were leaving the bin store doors open. It said it would ask the leasehold team to put up signage reminding residents to close communal doors. It is noted however that the resident replied a few days later to advise the landlord that residents did not have a key to the external bin doors.
By arranging an inspection of the communal doors following the resident’s concern raised about security, the landlord acted appropriately. However, in response to this Service’s information request, the landlord advised in February 2022 that works to the locks to the communal doors had in fact been carried out on 29 May 2021 and the invoice it provided from its mechanical and electrical sub-contractors dated 23 April 2021 supports this.
The comments in this invoice indicate the reason for the visit on 23 April 2021 was because the landlord had received reports from other residents about the communal and bin doors being “easy to kick open” . Within the invoice it is stated that the lock on the communal door was working fine however they quoted works to replace the current lock with a “PH800 mag handle” and install a key switch which they said residents would be able to use with their existing keys.
As such this evidence indicates that the landlord had arranged for works to be carried out to strengthen the locks on the communal doors during the complaint timeframe, indicating it took seriously the concerns raised about the security of the communal doors. Therefore, by inspecting and undertaking works to the communal doors and locks in response to residents’ reports about this issue, the landlord took appropriate steps to address this issue. However, the landlord did not explain to the resident in its final response that works to the doors/locks had been undertaken in May 2021 indicating a failure by the landlord to sufficiently communicate with the resident regarding the action taken. Nonetheless, as this is a minor failure, it does not establish a service failure on the part of the landlord.

Faulty Electrics

Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible to keep in good repair and condition all radiators, water and sanitary apparatus and gas and electrical apparatus of the premises and all pipes, drain and wires. The lease also states the landlord is responsible for the roof foundation and the main structure of the building.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident first reported an issue with the electrics at the property on 11 February 2021 when she said pest control had suggested there was a cavity in the roof through which the rodents were entering. The landlord immediately arranged for an operative to attend on 12 February 2021 who found that there was faulty electrics at the property but was unable to fix it. The evidence indicates that a job was then raised for an electrician to attend however this was then cancelled as the landlord deemed it was not its responsibility as under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairing the electrics.
It is clear that the resident was not informed of the cancellation of the job which prompted her to raise a formal complaint with the landlord. During its investigation into her complaint, the landlord’s internal notes show that because she alleged there was a roof hole, it was unclear about whether responsibility lie with it or with the leaseholder. In its stage one complaint response provided to the resident, the landlord acknowledged that having made a commitment to carry a repair in relation to the reported issue with the electrics, its failure to inform the resident about the cancellation of the job, was a failure in the service provided. It apologised for this and offered £140 in compensation for the missed appointment, the lack of communication and the resident’s time and trouble. It also advised it had assigned jobs to contractors for the issue with the electrics and the roof hole to be investigated.
Due to the potential root cause of the faulty electrics being due to a hole in the roof allowing rodents to enter the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to further investigate the issue. Its commitment to do so, as stated in its stage one response as well its offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of the situation on the resident, was reasonable.
However, there is no evidence of the landlord’s contractor subsequently attending the property to repair the electrics and so the resident contacted with landlord on two occasions over the next two weeks to complain about the delay and asked it to escalate her complaint.
There is no further communication between the parties regarding this issue over the next three months however the ‘service report’ from the landlord’s pest control contractor provided to this Service show they had made a number of visits during this period to resolve the rodent issue. However, a comment in the report dated 17 February 2021 indicates they could not access the roof space but baited other areas where they thought rodents might be accessing the property.
Following the resident’s contact with this Service on 23 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage two response on 7 July 2021. Within the response it confirmed that its repair contractor would attend on 13 July 2021 to inspect the electrics and also said its pest control contractor would visit on the same date to establish whether or not rodents were still within the void space in the roof.
The ‘Domestic Electrical Installation Condition Report’ dated 13 July 2021 provided by the landlord shows the agreed visit to check the electrics went ahead the results of which confirmed that all wiring and accessories inspected were in a safe condition and the overall assessment ‘satisfactory’. Comments in the report also noted the previous repair to the damaged cable in the lounge which it said had been “renewed correctly”. An invoice the resident provided to this Service confirms she paid to get the electrics fixed in March 2021 when cable in the lounge was repaired.
The pest control contractor notes show that bates were left on the visit of 13 July 2021. On the next visit of 29 September 2021, they noted the baits were untouched, that the resident reported no noises for several months and therefore it was agreed to close the case. Within the entry of this date, it was noted that the roof had been repaired. The landlord’s records of responsive repairs shows an operative attended on 8 July 2021 to refix the vent cover on the roof to stop rodents entering.
Therefore, whilst the steps taken by the landlord in July 2021 to repair the roof and check the electrics were appropriate, its failure to take this action within a reasonable timeframe of originally agreeing to do so in its stage one response is evidence of a failure in the service provided by the landlord. Visits from its pest control contractor did take place after its stage one response as promised however, on balance, the delay by the landlord in addressing the roof issue meant the issue continued for longer than could reasonably be expected.
In its final response, the landlord offered the resident a further £240.00 in compensation for her time and trouble and the length of time taken to resolve the matter and a further £75 for the quality of service received. It also apologised and explained that as a result of her complaint, further staff training would be carried out to ensure that this type of situation did not happen again and that it would provide a more co-ordinated approach when issues are raised covering several departments within the business.
On balance, the remedies offered during the complaints process are sufficient to put right the service failure by the landlord and as it has also shown that lessons have been learned from the resident’s complaint which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the landlord has reasonably resolved this aspect of the complaint.
It is noted that in her email to the landlord dated 9 July 2021 (post final response), the resident requested the landlord to reimburse her the cost of repairing the electrics and for a pest control visit in January 2021 and enclosed invoices for £205 and £200 respectively. Whilst in the same email she stated she had previously provided this evidence to the landlord, this is unclear from the available evidence. In the circumstances, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to consider and respond to the resident’s request in this regard.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process which states it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two internal review within 20 days with the final stage two written outcome provided within 5 days.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her stage one complaint on 18 February 2021. Whilst it acknowledged her request and advised that she would receive the final response by 29 April 2021, the landlord failed to provide any final response to the resident. It was only after contact from this Service on 23 June 2021, that it then held a review and provided the resident with a stage two final response on 7 July 2021. This demonstrates the landlord failed to follow the timescales state in its policy. As a result this prolonged the complaints process by a significant length of time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling reports about the communal and bin doors being broken and accessed by non-residents.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of faulty electrics at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the communal doors to be inspected and works to be carried out in order to strengthen the locks to improve security in response to residents’ concerns.
The landlord did not inform the resident when it cancelled an appointment for the electrics at the property to be checked and then failed to follow up on all promises made in its stage one response to investigate and resolve the cause of the faulty electrics. However, it subsequently took appropriate steps at stage two of its complaint process to address the issue. As the landlord also offered the resident £445 in total compensation during its complaints process, its actions were sufficient to resolve the complaint.
There was an unreasonable delay by landlord in providing a stage two final response to the resident showing it failed to follow its complaint process when dealing with the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation for stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow the timescales stated in its complaints policy.
2. Comply with the above order within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Ensures all residents have the keys to the communal bin store, if not already done so.
2. Considers and responds to the resident’s request for reimbursement of invoices for £200 and £205 for the cost of pest control and repairing the electrics respectively.