A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202113874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113874

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 April 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s response to repair needs following water ingress.
   2. the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.
   3. the resident’s report of poor customer service.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case and reach a view as to whether a complaint will or will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “we may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the members complaints procedure”.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c. The residents report of poor customer service.

5. This is because the resident first raised this complaint in their stage two escalation request dated 20 October 2021 and as such has not been considered at two discrete stages of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The landlord is asked to revisit and reopen this element of complaint and engage constructively with the resident towards a local resolution.

Background

1. The resident is the sole tenant in a three-bedroom property let under an assured tenancy in 2003 by a registered provider of social housing.
2. The resident previously reported a leak from the kitchen ceiling in February 2021. The landlord repaired the leak and reinstated the electrics.
3. The elderly resident has respiratory difficulties and reports that she is a vulnerable adult with mental health issues.
4. The resident’s daughter in law raised the complaint with the landlord. The resident raised the complaint with the Housing Ombudsman. For the purposes of this report, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’ unless where otherwise indicated.

Relevant policies and procedures

5. The assured tenancy agreement states the landlord’s obligation to:
   1. “keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including (ii) the roof (iv) internal walls, floors, ceilings, (vii) plasterwork.
   2. “keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the association for… the supply of water, gas and electricity including (ii) electric wiring, including sockets and switches.”
6. The assured tenancy agreement states the resident’s obligation to:
   1. “report the association promptly any disrepair or defect for which the association is responsible in the premises of common parts.”
   2. “to allow the associations employees or contractors…access at reasonable times…to inspect…or carry out repairs…”
7. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that electrical repairs, roof, and ceiling repairs are the landlord’s responsibility. Under section 4.1 this policy states “wherever possible [the landlord] will ensure at the earliest opportunity that residents are advised of any changes or delays to their appointment.” Under section 3.4 the policy states urgent repairs will be attended to “within 24 hours”.
8. The landlord’s complaint procedure states:
   1. upon receipt of a complaint into the complaints and resolution service, an acknowledgement will be sent to the complainant within two working days.
   2. if the outcome is “Upheld” or “Partially Upheld,” the complaints caseworker will refer to the Group’s Compensation Policy to review if compensation should be awarded.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
   1. Compensation will be payable where there is a loss of amenity. For example: a roof leak may be compensated to cover a percentage of rent paid and for any inconvenience caused: 35% of rent.
   2. There will be circumstances where a discretionary offer of compensation may be the only available option. For example, where:

(1)  the landlord has taken appropriate action but has delayed in doing so and the delay has caused wrong.

(2)  The complainant has sustained financial loss or has suffered stress and inconvenience.

3. Compensation for a missed appointment: £20.
4. Compensation for stress and inconvenience (this can be a separate payment for each element of service failure): Medium: £75, High: £100.
5. Compensation for time and trouble: Medium £85, £95, £110, High £150.

10. The landlord’s compensation policy defines a ‘high level’ service failure as:
    1. “usually a difficult error to put right. This might be because an opportunity has passed to resolve it, or the mistake impacted on the customer’s health, safety, or security. An example of this is where we have failed to deal with a repair, the impact of which has affected a customer’s health & safety.”
    2. “The mistake has caused high levels of hardship, distress, or inconvenience to the customer. For example, if an action has resulted in major disruption causing a high level of stress and inconvenience.”

Summary of events

11. On 24 July 2021, the resident reported a roof leak and collapsed kitchen ceiling. The landlord’s out of hours contractor removed loose plaster and insulation and used plastic sheeting to temporarily secure the leak. The contractor reported there were rotten timbers in the roof following a repair it previously completed in February 2021. A second contractor visited three days later and reported the property was safe, but also that further works were required and advised the resident to expect further contact by 30 July 2021.
12. A surveyor attended the property to assess doors and windows on 4 August 2021 and whilst there took photos of the kitchen ceiling to take back to the office.
13. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 9 August 2021 stating that the landlord had not responded to the collapsed ceiling since the plastic sheeting was installed as a temporary measure. The resident stated the room (kitchen) was unusable and a safety concern which caused undue stress and exacerbated respiratory problems.
14. The landlord’s contractor reinspected the property on 16 August 2021 and submitted a quote on 24 August 2021. The quote was rejected, revised, and subsequently approved by the landlord on 21 September 2021. During this time, the resident contacted the landlord three times about her complaint and the progress of the repair.
15. This service first communicated with the landlord on 17 September 2021 requesting a stage one response be issued by 1 October 2021.
16. The landlord provided a stage one response on 21 September 2021. The response named a point of contact and stated the roof repairs would be completed by 25 October 2021. The landlord offered £235 compensation for sub-standard service, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience.
17. On 22 September 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident confirming that a new joist beam would be installed on 18 October 2021. The resident then requested an earlier appointment due to their concern that inclement weather was increasingly likely as winter months approached. Also due to the cleaning maintenance and stress the leak was causing. The landlord did not reply or schedule an earlier appointment following the residents’ request.
18. The contractor cancelled the appointment on 18 October 2021 due to forecasted inclement weather and said it was unable to contact the resident to explain.
19. The resident provided the landlord with a copy of a weather report showing a ten percent chance of rain and complained about a day taken off work unnecessarily and the landlords’ lack of concern for residents. The landlord explained work cannot be conducted in the rain and provided a different weather report showing rain all day. The landlord advised it had rebooked new appointment dates on 28 October 2021 for the roof and 1 November 2021 for internal repairs.
20. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 20 October 2021 stating:
    1. the ceiling repair was not completed after three months, and the landlord did not uphold its repairing obligation.
    2. the room was unsafe.
    3. the cancelled appointment was not notified resulting in unnecessary time off work.
    4. the landlord considered the impact wet weather had on the contractor but not the resident.
21. On 7 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating both repair appointments had been missed, the property was in total disrepair and an acknowledgment of the stage two escalation was not issued. The landlord rescheduled repair appointments and acknowledged the stage two escalation request within four days. The ceiling and roof repairs were completed on 18 November 2021.
22. The landlords’ stage two response was issued on 30 November 2021. The landlord apologised for the impact the delays had on the resident and for the failure to provide adequate updates about the repairs to decorative works and electrics. The landlord provided a timeline of events and offered an additional £50 compensation for further delays. The landlord set out that it had obtained learning from the complaint in relation to improving the quote approval process and outlined that it would reinforce expected service levels with contractors.
23. The resident approached this service as they were dissatisfied with the communication from the landlord and the time it took to complete the repairs, as well as the level of compensation it had offered. Their complaint was accepted as duly made by this service on 20 January 2022.
24. On 24 June 2022, the landlord offered a further £709.38 compensation for the loss of a room between July and November 2021. The landlord stated, “the Housing Ombudsman will regard the complaint as resolved without further investigation if [the landlord] accepts the outcome sought by the customer, or if the customer accepts any alternative proposal.”
25. On 22 March 2023, the landlord stated it offered a further compensation award of £1,418.70 for the loss of amenity between July 2021 and February 2022.

Assessment and findings

26. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Services opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

Repairs following water ingress.

27. The landlord responded promptly to the residents initial report and made safe in line its repairs policy.
28. The landlord’s contractor had identified “rotting timbers” related to a works order to address a crack in the roof and reported these to the landlord five months prior to the ceiling collapse. There is a potential relationship between the later leak and ceiling collapse and the previous contractors feedback to the landlord. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acted on the reports provided by its contractor and returned to the property to assess the robustness of the loft area and roof. Had it done so it may have identified the additional repair needs and taken prompt action that could have prevented the ceiling collapse and the associated adverse impacts on the resident.
29. The landlord did not visit the property again to review the required repair follow-on works until some three weeks after it completed initial make safe works. This left the kitchen ceiling in a poor condition with just plastic sheeting to limit water penetration. Photographs provided to this service show the plastic sheeting was weighed down with wood and clearly intended only as a temporary solution. The resident subsequently reported continued water ingress from this repair which further indicated it was not providing a satisfactory weatherproofing solution.
30. The landlord was informed that the resident had respiratory problems in an email dated 9 August 2021. It is likely that the ongoing exposure to the water ingress into the property would have had an elevated impact on the resident. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of this health condition prior to that report, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to take the residents welfare into account in its actions thereafter.
31. The landlord did not approve a works order until two months after the first report. Given the nature of the temporary repair and the residents vulnerability, the landlord was expected to assess, submit, and approve an accurate works order within a reasonable time. This service does not consider two months to be reasonable. The delay limited the resident’s use and enjoyment of the room during this time.
32. A further two months passed before the roof was repaired in November 2021. During this time there were four missed or cancelled appointments which resulted in an extended period of amenity loss, distress, and time off work for the resident.
33. In the stage one and stage two complaint, the resident reported ongoing water ingress, an increased cleaning requirement and levels of distress and concern for the time taken to complete repair. It is understandable that the time taken to affect an enduring fix to the ingress would have cumulatively increased the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
34. The resident challenged the landlord’s advice that inclement weather caused appointment delays. The landlord indicates a different forecast. It is not within the remit of this service to assess these contradictory forecasts for the dates in question, but the delays in follow-on survey and repair works would have increased the likelihood of inclement weather. This, alongside the failure to provide advance communication of aborted appointments efficiently, has contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
35. The landlord was unable to finally provide an enduring repair until November 2021, four months later. The landlord failed to resolve the repair in line with its policy standards. Although it offered an apology and compensation to the resident, this did not adequately address the detrimental impact its delays had on the resident, and this is addressed in the compensation complaint section in this report. Cumulatively, the landlord’s failings in respect of its assessment of the repair, the administration and approval of the works order and its scheduling of repair appointments as outlined in this element of complaint, constitute maladministration.

Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

36. In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
37. The landlord’s complaint policy clearly sets out the expectations for handling complaints at both stage one and two. The complaint policy and procedure reflect the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
38. There is evidence that the landlord did not comply with its complaint policy standards when handling the complaint at stage one and stage two in the following ways:
    1. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage one complaint and so the resident did not know when to expect the landlords’ response.
    2. The resident unsuccessfully asked for the landlord’s stage one response three times before contacting this service.
    3. This service wrote to the landlord about the outstanding complaint response which resulted in a response being issued. This was however 21 working days over its target response date.
    4. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage two complaint escalation request until 19 working days after its two-day target.
    5. It’s stage two acknowledgement did not include an expected response date.
    6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response nine working days later than its target timescale.
39. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delay to issuing complaint responses. Further, the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining when the resident was likely to receive a response, rather than the resident having to chase the landlord for this information. Therefore, because the landlord failed to comply with the obligations set out in its complaints policy, the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing her complaint was greater than necessary.
40. Notwithstanding the above, there is evidence that the landlord’s complaint responses at stage one and two met the expected complaint policy and complaint handling code standards in the following ways:
    1. The landlord apologised and reported lessons learned from its service failures and also provided advice about how to escalate the complaint and a signpost to this service.
    2. The landlord clearly explained that it upheld the complaint at both stages and offered financial redress in recognition of the adverse impact the service failures had upon the resident.
41. These examples show the landlord took a positive approach to complaint resolution and that it tried to put right what had gone wrong.
42. The landlord compensation procedure required it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the repair to be completed and the adverse impact on the resident.
43. The landlord offered the resident £285 compensation for ‘time and trouble’ and ‘distress and inconvenience’. The landlord did not offer compensation for ‘missed appointments,’ for which the compensation policy sets awards at £20 per missed appointment.
44. It is not clear how the landlord determined the compensation award or if the matter required a ‘high’ or ‘medium’ level of compensation. A medium level award for ‘time and trouble’ and ‘distress and inconvenience’ would total a maximum of £185. Therefore, by offering £285 it is likely that the landlord recognised the matter caused ‘high’ levels of hardship, distress, or inconvenience to the resident.
45. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards of between £250-£700 where there has been service failure without a permanent impact on the resident and where the resident was forced to repeatedly chase responses. In this case, the delays and poor complaints communications did not affect the outcome of the substantive repair issue as the landlord managed to fulfil its repairing responsibilities. However, the resident had reported to the landlord their respiratory and mental health issues, complained about the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue, and clearly expressed the adverse impacts that the unresolved matters were having on them. Given the underlying failings and these elevated impacts an enhanced level of compensation should have been considered and offered.
46. The landlord has revisited its compensation assessment and revised its’ offer of compensation since the residents complaint was accepted by this Service. While retrospective in nature, this decision represents a positive approach towards complaint resolution. The landlord revised offer includes an additional sum of £1,418.70 for the ‘loss of a bedroom’ between July 2021 and February 2022.
47. The landlord’s policy sets compensation for ‘loss of amenity’ at ‘35% of rent’ for the period loss was incurred. The award complies with its compensation policy and therefore provides remedy for the loss of amenity element of the residents complaint. However, this award did not provide additional redress for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble.
48. The landlord’s supporting statement issued with its increased compensation award said:
    1. “The Housing Ombudsman will regard the complaint as resolved without further investigation if [the landlord] accepts the outcome sought by the customer or if the customer accepts any alternative proposal.”
49. The context of the landlords’ additional award is an incorrect interpretation of paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme which reads “the Ombudsman must investigate any complaint duly made, not withdrawn or not referred to a member for resolution”. Whilst the Ombudsman encourages local resolution at all stages, Paragraph 39 is not intended to suggest that an investigation would not be progressed by this Service irrespective of whether additional redress measures, such as increased compensation are affected.
50. For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 40 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme sets out that “a complainant may withdraw the complaint at any time, but the Ombudsman must be satisfied as to the circumstances and may make whatever enquiries they see fit, before ceasing consideration of the complaint. The Ombudsman may investigate any complaint duly made but withdrawn.
51. Such an incorrect communication might deter or discourage a resident from the exercise of their rights to approach this Service.
52. When all the factors, positive and negative, in respect of the landlord’scomplaint handling, assessment of compensation, subsequent offers, and communications are considered, the landlords actions in respect of this element of complaint constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:
    1. Repair needs following water ingress.
54. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    2. Complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

55. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

c. The residents report of poor customer service.

56. Reasons
57. The landlord took four months to provide a satisfactory and enduring remedy to repairs brought to its attention. Multiple factors influenced this delay in the fulfilment of its repairing responsibilities and delivery of service to agreed and published standards. The resident has experience detriment as a direct consequence of these avoidable delays.
58. The landlord failed to comply with the principles and expectations of its own complaint procedure and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in its management and responses to the resident’s complaint.
59. The level of compensation offered was below what would be reasonable considering the elevated levels of detriment, distress, and inconvenience the matter caused for the resident. The landlord failed to compensate for four missed repair appointments. Additionally, misinformation was presented to the resident that is likely to have created a distorted understanding of their rights, curtailed their exercise of these rights, and perversely influenced their consideration of remedy offered by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

60. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:

a) £380 compensation for the distress and inconvenience factors caused by the impact of delays in repairing water ingress from the kitchen ceiling including four missed appointments.

b) £300 in compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

c) £200 in compensation for the landlord’s failings in respect of its handling of its compensation offer.

61. The total compensation award is £880. This award replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £285 and it is to be noted is awarded in addition to the £1,418.70 the landlord provided for the loss of amenity.
    1. If the landlord has already paid the resident a sum of £285, this should be deducted from the total amount ordered and therefore £595 should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
62. The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and intentions, including timescales, to ensure that its publications, communications, and operated practices provide a fully clear, accurate illustration of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.
63. It is recommended that that landlord works towards developing systems and processes that effectively capture, and use in its operations, relevant information about the welfare needs of its resident and resident households who may be adversely and exceptionally impacted by leaks, damp, and mould. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.
64. It is recommended that that the landlord proactively provides or offers to provide suitable dehumidifying equipment in all properties where leaks, damp or any other water ingress has been diagnosed. The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this recommendation within 28 days of receipt of this report.