A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202109610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109610

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

29 June 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom house. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord for over 20 years.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs into two repair priorities, these are, urgent repairs which should be dealt with within 24 hours and standard priority which are dealt with at the next available appointment that is convenient with the resident. The policy also states it is responsible for repairs to:
1. Internal doors in residents homes and fences and it would repair them as a standard priority.
2. Insecure front and back doors, windows, frames, and fittings and would repair them as an urgent priority.

Summary of Events

The landlord received and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 May 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence states on 12 May 2021:
1. It received a complaint from the resident about her front door, windows, and gaps in her back door. She informed the landlord an operative attended and said she required a new front door.
2. The windows were losing heat and she was told she would be provided with bigger radiators which she declined as it would lead to increase costs.
3. She was still awaiting the heating assessment she was informed would take place.
4. She reported issues with missed appointments about her front door and garden fence where a panel had fallen. The contractor advised her a new front door was required, but she had no follow up on this and wanted it resolved. She also wanted a surveyor to attend and assess her windows as they were letting in a draught. She explained the landlord previously attended to attempt to seal the windows, but the draught still existed and was making her home cold.
5. The resident said the back door that had been replaced, was loose and letting in air as there were more gaps in the back door. She wanted a new job raised regarding the matter.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one response on 18 May 2021. Within the response, it provided an action plan with the aim of resolving the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. Stated once it received the report of its operative who visited her property on 17 May 2021, it would know what work needed to be carried out at her property.
2. Committed to complete any outstanding works by 30 July 2021.
3. Provided a point of contact and a contact number for the resident. The point of contact was responsible for overseeing the remaining works and making sure they were completed to a good standard and within the timeframe.
4. Said as part of the redress, it:
  1. Apologised for the sub-standard service she received.
  2. Offered £25 compensation in recognition of the length of time taken for a supervisor to visit her property.
  3. Offered an additional £20 for the missed appointment in line with its Compensation Policy. The total amount of £45 would be added to her rent account.
5. Said as a result of her complaint, it had also spoken to its contractor about the missed appointment and had reinforced the service levels that it expects from them and the obligation they must provide a good service to its residents.
6. Explained it would not close the resident’s complaint until the date for any outstanding actions had passed and the service area had confirmed resolution. It explained if she remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the complaint within 20 working days.

The landlord’s records then show that it closed the case on the same day after sending the response to the resident.

The landlord and resident then communicated further on 2 June 2021. The landlord’s internal communications provides a description of the conversation. It states she believed its contractor was due to attend her property about the windows on 3 June 2021. The resident explained to the landlord that after speaking with the contractor, she was advised they would not be at her property until 15 June 2021. The resident then queried which repair appointment was for 3 June 2021.
There are then no records of any communication provided to this Service between the landlord and resident following 2 June 2021, until 9 July 2021. The landlord did however ask on 28 June 2021, for payment for a missed appointment which should have taken place on 25 June 2021, to be sent to the resident and explained she had requested a call back. From the information provided, it is unclear what the missed appointment was for, or when the resident spoke to the landlord to request the call back.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor received communication from the resident regarding her repairs. She asked to be provided with appointment dates and details of what works were being completed at the specific appointments. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor emailed her and the landlord explaining:
1. It had been waiting for a quote for the fence to be agreed which had now been done. It should have an appointment date for the following week.
2. It was still waiting for the back door repairs to be agreed. Once this was done it would contact the relevant supplier to order the back door which was normally an eight to ten week turn around once ordered. It then said it would provide an update the following week.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2021, to explain its contractor would be contacting her on 19 July 2021 to book the required appointment for the fence.
The landlord’s contractor provided an update to the resident on 21 July 2021. It explained it had been advised that the internal door could be picked off the shelf. It stated the next available day it had for the repairs to the internal doors was the morning of 30 July 2021. The contractor stated it was waiting to hear back from the supplier of the front and back doors about when they would be available as the quote had been agreed by the landlord. The contractor explained it was also chasing the fencing contractor for the fencing works to provide a date.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor explained to the landlord that there were unfortunately, shortages of materials which could prolong the manufacture and installation of the front and back doors.
On the same day, the resident confirmed to the contractor the delivery of the internal doors could take place on 30 July 2021. She queried why the door supplier wanted to return to take measurements for the back door after it previously attended to take them. The resident said no one had measured her front door yet and asked for a date around her fence repairs. She stated, she had been told that all repairs would be completed by 30 July 2021, and this was not looking likely. She detailed she would like to know what happens next around complaints. The resident explained she had emailed the landlord two weeks prior but had not received a response.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the resident and landlord on 25 July 2021. It explained it had received the quote for both the front and back doors which were agreed. The door supplier said that there were still delays with the manufacturers and parts suppliers and as such they could not supply the backdoor by the promised date. It explained this was a national issue and there would be an eight-to-twelve-week delay for the external doors.
The landlord and its contractor communicated on 3 August 2021. The contractor informed the landlord that:
1. The back door repairs should be completed by 31 August 2021, and after this, the painting of the kitchen would be scheduled.
2. It had emailed its subcontractor for the heating assessment in the resident’s property, and it would be able to advise if the heat was escaping from the windows or not.
3. Regarding the front door, a quote was outstanding from the supplier and the landlord would need to approve it. Once done, the door could then be ordered.
4. The internal door had been ordered and it was still waiting for this, once received, it would contact the tenant to fit the door.
On the same day, the landlord communicated with the resident who was dissatisfied that the repairs were still on going and impacting her mental wellbeing. The resident explained:
1. She was not receiving updates and was constantly having to chase for these, and appointment dates.
2. So far, the fence panels had been sorted but she was still waiting for one internal door, the back door leading into the garden and the front door.
3. She had been told a heating assessment on her property would be arranged and this had not been done. Whilst she was not getting new windows, she wanted the seals checked, as she was advised that this would be done, and it had not.
4. The kitchen required painting, but she was aware that this would be done once the back door was fitted.
5. She had been informed she would not be getting a front door, although she was advised this would happen.
6. An operative was meant to attend on 3 August 2021, and did not turn up. She could not understand why they needed to keep coming out to agree the same things.

The landlord advised it would contact its contractor to find out what was going on.

On 8 September 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident and she detailed that throughout her complaint, the communication had been poor. In terms of pending works, she was still waiting for the repairs to her front door, windows, internal door, and painting to be completed. She said that the back door had been replaced. Although the landlord offered her bigger radiators, she declined this due to the increased cost and she was still awaiting the heating assessment. She confirmed that the back fence had been fixed. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation and confirmed it had processed her compensation payment.
On 7 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested an update on her stage two complaint. She explained:
1. She had been contacted by the landlord, about collecting the interior doors, she had in her house to swap them for other doors. She queried why the landlord wanted this when she had been waiting since May for one or more interior doors to be delivered. She also explained she had been in contact with the Ombudsman.
2. The landlord attended her property in September to measure up the interior door again and told her she would have it in a week. She said, it also queried why the painting and front door had not been completed as a request was made for it to be done.
3. The heating assessment remained outstanding, and it was getting colder, so the draughts were back. She was losing heat and money due to the repairs not being done.
4. She would like an update on when the necessary works would be completed.

On the same day, the landlord responded and explained it did not have sight of the stage two complaint while it was being reviewed by a director, but it had chased it for the resident and would respond as soon as it heard anything.

The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 October 2021 and detailed:
1. She had been in contact with the contractor who informed her that her interior door was on order and was to be collected on 18 October 2021. She was told the door would be fitted on 19 October 2021.
2. She was not provided with an update about the painting of the kitchen. She was told that the landlord was fully booked until the end of October 2021.
3. She then asked about the heating assessment and was told she should contact the landlord about it.
4. She further queried about her front door and was told it was with its supplier and it was awaiting a date for it to be complete. She rang the supplier for the door and was told to call back the following day to see if there was a date available.
5. She had chased the stage two response from the landlord. The landlord responded to her and said it could not provide an update as it did not have sight of the complaint whilst it was with the senior team at stage two. No update was provided on when she could expect to receive the response although the landlord did say they would chase it for her.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident on 28 October 2021. The landlord apologised for the feelings of disappointment she had experienced in the service she had received. It then provided its findings that:
1. It agreed that there had been delays from its side in carrying out the required repairs, and part of the reason for this was that it ordered the wrong interior doors and it apologised for this.
2. It committed to fit the internal door on 5 November 2021 in the morning; the remedial/ redecoration works would also be completed on the same day.
3. It would fit the new front door on 1 December 2021.
4. The heat loss assessment had been booked for 5 November 2021. It stated it understood that there was one previously booked in July, but the resident had refused it as she wanted it to be done for the windows. Unfortunately, it did not carry out the heat assessment for windows, and if she refused the one currently scheduled, then the matter would be closed on its systems.
5. It stated a post work inspection had also been booked for 2 December 2021, and it committed to complete all works by 6 December 2021.
6. The landlord apologised again for the sub-standard service the resident received and made:
  1. A discretionary offer of £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing the matter.
  2. It offered £100 for the poor communication.
  3. It offered £75 for the quality of work done by its contractors.
7. It identified it had learned that it should give its suppliers pictures of the door, the correct size of the door and specific make where required to ensure that the correct door was order the first time around.
8. It explained, it had spoken to its contractor, that dealt with the residents works and reinforced the service levels it expected from them, and the obligation they must provide a good service to its residents.
On 21 January 2022, the resident emailed the Ombudsman and explained she was dissatisfied with the fact she had reported the repairs in April 2021, and they remained outstanding including the heating assessment. She was having to chase updates and felt ignored and lied to. The matter had caused her emotional distress as the repairs were not completed and she was getting nowhere with the landlord. She explained that on one occasion when the landlord’s contractor came to fit her internal door, the workmanship was so poor that even the inspecting supervisor was dissatisfied. On another occasion, she had to ask the contractors who were there to complete the remedial works to leave as they were ruining the painting, and one of the contractors was a plumber who “did not know what he was doing”.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman information, on 28 March 2023. The landlord explained:
1. It understood the wrong sized internal doors were initially ordered. It had attempted to gain access to the resident’s property on 5 November 2021, but could not do so, and the doors were not fitted at that time. It had spoken to the resident on 9 March 2022, and agreed to leave the supplied doors with her, and she would arrange for a friend to fit them for her. The landlord reported it insisted it would fit the doors, but she indicated following the issues with the first door, she did not trust the landlord’s contractors.
2. The front door was fitted and completed on 2 February 2022. The landlord reported, it could not gain access to the resident’s property on 1 December 2021, 20 December 2021 and again in January 2022. It reported that the resident confirmed the repair was completed and to a high standard.
3. It confirmed the decorating and remedial works were completed at the property and a return call was made on 15 November 2021, to finish the works. The resident reported dissatisfaction with the quality of the works and as such a repeat visit was made on 19 November 2021. During this visit, there were issues between the resident and the landlord’s contractor which resulted in the resident asking the contractors to leave her home and no further work had been carried out.
4. With regards to the heating assessment, it explained, it discovered the issue appeared to be with the window frames being draughty and the resident wanted the draughts stopped. It reported its repairs contractor had agreed to organise an independent contractor to inspect the windows and advise if the frames could be sealed or if other action was required.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023 and requested information about the dates the resident raised her service requests for each of the repairs in question and the dates they were completed. As at the date of this report, the landlord has not provided the requested information.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to resident’s property

Although the landlord’s repairs policy provides a timeframe for emergency repairs, it does not do so for standard repairs. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, that it is unreasonable for a timeframe to not be provided for such works, as this meant it did not set a standard for which it could be held accountable for the completion of repairs. Having a timeframe would also allow the landlord to manage residents expectations, on when repairs would be completed. This could leave resident’s waiting an unknown amount of time for repairs to be completed.
The resident chased updates on the repairs on multiple occasions. She also had to chase appointments which were scheduled as the landlord’s contractors did not attend. She also had to ask the landlord for clarification on what appointments were for. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows poor communication with the resident, and record keeping by the landlord. This would have added to her frustration and caused her distress and inconvenience. It also took the resident time and trouble to chase the landlord for updates on the repairs.
The timeline shows the landlord failed to complete the repairs by the promised dates in its stage one and two responses. It appears the only repair which it managed to complete by the deadline it set of 31 July 2021, was to the resident’s fence.
The national shortage of required materials to supply the front and back doors were issues which were outside of the landlord’s control. Although this contributed to the delay, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, with this explanation provided, it would be unreasonable to solely attribute the delays to the landlord. However, there is no evidence provided that it considered any alternative solutions to try and resolve the supply issue or attempted to provide any temporary repairs or supply options. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this could have been a consideration by the landlord and would have demonstrated a customer focused approach.
The resident was informed she required a new front door in May 2021, and she did not receive any update about this for almost two months. The resident was then informed that there was a delay in the production of the front and back door in July 2021. With the new eight-to-twelve-week lead time, the doors should have been available to be fit in October 2021, however the landlord did not plan to fit them until December 2021. It is unclear why the landlord waited until July 2021 to order the doors, or that it provided the resident with any updates about this until she chased it. Further, it is also unclear why the landlord waited till December to fit the doors, if they should have been available in October, with the 12-week lead time. If there were further delays, such as with the supply of the door, or for any other reasons, this should have been clearly communicated with the resident. This also shows poor communication by the landlord as it failed to keep her updated and when it did update her, it did not provide her with all the details around her repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have added to the resident’s frustration and the distress suffered by her as she wanted the works completed as soon as reasonably possible.
Further, the landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property on three occasions, which contributed to the overall delays, around the completion of the repairs to her front door. It is unclear if these were all prearranged appointments with the resident or what led to the lack of access. Had it been able to gain the necessary access to the property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is likely the front door would have been fitted within the time scale provided within its stage two response, as the landlord attended on the day detailed in its response to complete the repair.
It is unclear when the resident’s backdoor was repaired, however, the landlord’s contractor suggested the work would be completed in August 2021, three months after she raised her complaint about it. Although there was a shortage of materials, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is unreasonable that the resident had to chase an update before being provided with information around the repairs to her back door. The resident had to take time and trouble to find out what was going on with the repairs two months after reporting an issue, and no explanation was provided for the delay in dealing with the repair prior to the national shortage of materials.
The delays in the repairs to the back door also set back the painting to the resident’s kitchen as this could not be done until the backdoor was fitted. The landlord’s notes of its telephone conversation with the resident of 8 September 2021, say that the back door had been fitted, as such it is unclear why there was a gap of two months between fitting the door and the painting being completed in November 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the fact that a workman who was not skilled in the works which required completing was sent to the resident’s property to complete them, would have added to her frustrations with the landlord and added to the break down in communications and lack of trust in the landlord’s contractors. This would have caused the resident further distress as it led to worry that the works would not be completed properly and added to the ongoing delays with completing the works. The landlord should have been proactive in ensuring its contractors provided the correct operatives for the jobs that needed to be completed.
With regards to the resident’s interior doors, after the landlord discovered the poor workmanship around the installation of the first door, there is no evidence that it did anything to rectify the situation. Further, the landlord should have taken more care to ensure it ordered the correct interior doors for the resident. This added to the delays in completing the repairs and further inconvenience to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have apologised and explained the situation to the resident when it first identified the issue. It is also the Ombudsman’s opinion, the errors contributed to the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s contractors and led to the resident losing faith in the competency of the contractor. It is, however, positive that once the landlord acknowledged the issue in its stage two response, it learned from the issue to better its services going forward and apologised to the resident.
It is unclear when the resident raised the request about the interior doors with the landlord, however, as at 21 July 2021, the landlord had assumed responsibility for them as it ordered new doors. It took the landlord in total 161 days from July 2021, before the internal doors were given to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unreasonable delay. It did attempt to arrange to fit the doors in November 2021, this appointment did not go ahead. There was then a delay of 84 working days before it gave the doors to the resident, who due to lack of confidence in the landlord, had made her own arrangements for the doors to be fitted. It is not clear why it took so long for the it to agree for the doors to be left with the resident, or why the landlord did not make a proactive attempt to offer reassurances that it would be able to carry out the works.
The evidence suggests the issue with the resident’s windows were historic, as the landlord had previously attempted to fix the seals around the windows to stop the draughts but could not. It is unclear when this was.
The resident explained to the landlord in her complaint that her windows were draughty, and this led to the offer of a heating assessment. It was not until March 2022 that the landlord identified the issue was with the window frames and then decided to have the resident’s windows assessed by a specialist contractor, as opposed to the heating assessment which remained outstanding. It took the landlord 10 months to identify and understand the issue the resident complained of around her windows. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable. This is because, this had the impact of leaving the issue with the windows outstanding for a substantial amount of time. This has had the further impact of causing inconvenience and distress as well as continuing frustration to the resident. She was also left chasing an assessment which was potentially unnecessary to resolving her issue.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
Whilst the landlord did make some redress in offering an apology and acknowledging its failures, the compensation offer was not proportionate to the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience in repeatedly reporting the issue with her window, having to chase updates around her repairs, requesting the reasons for appointments, dealing with missed appointments and delays in repairs for a number of months. It was also not proportionate to the frustration and distress caused to the resident, waiting for the repairs to be completed to her property which caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy which was provided to this Service shows no time frames for response to complaints at any stage of its complaints process at the time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows a lack of transparency and leaves residents wondering when they are likely to receive a response and could lead to unnecessary worry. This also shows poor customer service by the landlord and is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The code published in July 2020 states under paragraph 3.11:
1. Stage one decisions should be provided within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint and stage two responses provided within 20 working days.
2. Where a landlord is unable to meet these timeframes, an explanation should be provided and a response should not exceed a further 10 days at stage one and 10 working days at stage two, without good reason.
However, it now provides a timeframe under its service standards for 10 working days. A recommendation has been made below for this to be included in its complaints policy if it has not already done so.
Following its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint at stage one, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a date or the length of time in which it would provide its response to her at stage one.
The landlord also failed to provide time frames at stage two of its complaints process. The resident was inconvenienced as she had to take the time to chase an update on her complaint at stage two, 21 working days after the landlord acknowledged the escalation. Although she was promised an update, this was never received.
It was not until the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the provision of its stage two response, that it provided a date and explanation for the delay in providing the resident a response. When the landlord did provide its response, it failed to apologise or explain to the resident the delay in its response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this shows poor communication around the landlord’s complaint handling process as it did not demonstrate a customer focused approach in its communication with the resident.
Further, the landlord took 36 working days to provide its response to the resident. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a response should have been provided within 20 working days. This means the landlord took an extra 16 working days to provide its response to the resident. This falls outside the expectations set within the Ombudsman’s code. Although the landlord provided an explanation to the Ombudsman for the delay, it failed to do so to the resident and failed to apologise to her. It also failed to seek an extension from the resident to provide its response late. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this demonstrates a failure to acknowledge its own shortcomings in addressing the matter promptly.
When coupled with the failings around the repairs to her property, the delays in the landlord’s complaints handling, and lack of communication, would have led to further frustration and distress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to the timelines it provided for the completion of repairs. This led to delays in completing them for the resident. She was left chasing updates and the Landlord’s contractors also missed appointments.
The landlord failed to provide timeframes around its complaint handling and did not adhere to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This left the resident chasing updates around her complaint. It promised the resident an update around her complaint, at stage two, and provided no evidence that it did. It also failed to apologise for the delays to the complaint response to the resident, neither did it explain or acknowledge them.

Orders and recommendations

Orders:

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £775 in compensation. This comprises:
  1. £325 which it previously offered the resident.
  2. £350 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and the time taken to chase updates around the outstanding repairs.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
2. The landlord should complete an inspection of the resident’s property to identify any outstanding works, draw up a schedule of works with timeframes for completion, and provide this to the resident and this Service.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations:

The landlord should consider:
1. Reviewing its complaint handling policy and ensure it complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, specifically by providing timescales for responses to complaints within the policy.
2. Providing communication timeframes to avoid resident’s chasing for updates.
3. Reviewing its repairs policy and aim to provide timeframes for the completion of standard repairs.
4. Reviewing the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information management spotlight report to identify recommendations it could implement around its record keeping.
5. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.