A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202208921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208921

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 March 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about:

The landlord’s handling of upgrade works to the kitchen and bathroom.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident occupied her property, a two-bedroomed ground floor flat, under an assured tenancy which, she reported, had began in 2008. She occupied it with her son and daughter. She reported that both she and her son were under a disability. She was also pregnant at the time of the complaint. Her baby was due in May 2022.

3. The landlord provided this Service with two tenancy agreements. One was for a periodic assured shorthold tenancy which began on 10 October 2016 and which would convert to an assured tenancy after one year if the resident “had conducted the tenancy in a satisfactory manner” and another dated 16 October 2017 was for a five year fixed term assured tenancy.

Legal and policy framework

4. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident had an obligation to grant access to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs or other works to the property.

5. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord was to response within 10 working dates at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.

6. Under the compensation policy, it would offer a sum between £50 to £100 for each element of a service failure as follows: “Low £25, £50, £75 (1-3 months) medium £85, £95, £110 (4-6 months) and high £150 (6+)”. It would also take into account the impact on the resident, ranging from low to high.

Chronology

7. On 6 January 2022, the landlord’s project manager attended the resident’s property where its contractor (Contractor A) had begun, or was to begin, works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.

8. On 17 January 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:

She was left without a toilet seat for 2 days.
It had been 1 week and 4 days (since the works had begun). Her kitchen floor had not been levelled to a suitable standard and the bathroom flooring had not been levelled at all. There were nails and screws sticking out of wood on the bathroom floor. The extractor fan had not been fitted.
The toilet measured just below a standard toilet seat which due to her disability and joint problems, she struggled to get on and off.
There were various decorative issues, including tiling.
There were several items, worktops and units in the kitchen and bathroom which were not property secured. The wooden boards had not been put under the bath.
There were issues with the kitchen flooring.
An electrical socket impeded the fridge going back in its place and made the switch inaccessible. The extractor fan cord in the kitchen was behind a cupboard and inaccessible.
The soil stack was not boxed back and covered.
The resident was disabled, heavily pregnant, she had mental health problems, and a household member had autism. Her baby was due in May 2022.

9. The landlord’s records noted that on 18 January 2022, the contractor manager and the landlord’s project manager had attended to assess the standard of work. This was on day 9 of the 15 working day schedule. They agreed that the standard of works was not acceptable and most of the works would need to be started again. The job was to be handed to a different contractor (contractor B).

10. On 25 January 2022, in response to an email from the resident, the landlord wrote to say the contractor (it did not specify which one) would secure the items and level the floor once it had been laid. All the units would be secured. It stated that “the team was fitting the kitchen the same way it fitted all its kitchens”. The project manager would post-inspect.

11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2022. She attached pictures of her items that the contractor had used or broken, including her vacuum cleaner, cleaning items and door strips. Her hallway decorations were damaged.

12. On 15 March 2023, contractor B advised the landlord that all the works were complete. The toilet was replaced with a disabled toilet which was too high and was replaced with one sourced by the resident and fitted on 3 May 2022.

13. The landlord wrote to contractor A on 12 May 2022 with a list of issues raised by the resident.

14. On 23 May 2022, the contractor A and the landlord attended to compile a final snagging list, reflecting the issues raised on 12 May 2022, as follows:

Replace the toilet seat.
Tile the end of the bath to be angled to remove standing water issue.
Plaster and paint areas in the kitchen and bathroom.
Silicone the kitchen worktop to avoid water damaging units below.

15. On 25 May 2022, the resident reported that the toilet seat was “not clicking into place” and was insecure. She asked for a professional decorator. Contractor A attended the same day and secured the toilet seat.

16. On 29 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with the list of works to which was added fitting a window restrictor and checking the electrics. The resident added refitting the bath panel which was agreed.

17. On 1 July 2022, the resident reported that water that had run off the tiles had caused her cabinet to rot. Contractor A offered a replacement unit. It was agreed she would replace it and the contractor would pay for it.

18. Appointments on 4 and 11 July 2022 were scheduled in order to address the remaining works.

19. On 5 July 2022, the resident wrote to the contractor as follows:

The works were to have taken 2 weeks. The kitchen fitted then re–fitted due to poor quality work.
She had stopped the works as issues had still not been rectified. The contractor had agreed she could arrange for her qualified family members to complete the works.
The total amount for her items was £283.30, not including the fridge freezer or the cost of tradesmen. She was awaiting quotes. She asked for compensation.

20. There followed an email correspondence between the resident and contractor A. Contractor A offered reassurances to resolve the matter and acknowledged the stress the resident was under currently with her family situation. The resident referred to an agreement that she could choose her own contractors. It invited her to provide some decorating quotes.

21. The resident wrote on 11 July 2022 querying why contractor A had attended that day. The contractor replied the same day that the appointment was in place as it had not received any decorating quotes from the resident.

22. The resident replied that she had been waiting for contractor A to get back to her as promised. She had said the contractor A was not to carry out works, except to replace the toilet seat and fittings. Contractor A replied that the decision about the way forward was not his to make and offered a further visit.

23. On 11 July 2022, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She reported that the kitchen “had been done 2 times, kitchen flooring been done 2 times, worktops been done 3 times, bathroom sink been done 2 times, tiling around bath been done 4 times, bath panel 2 times”. The contractors were “not capable” of doing the works. She would not give access to contractor A as they were very messy and did “bodge” jobs which had created further damage.

24. On 13 August 2022, the resident reported that the plug socket behind the fridge was hanging out of the wall and “a bit of the plaster” had crumbled. She also asked for compensation for previous damage.

25. On 16 August 2022, she reported that the extractor fan switch was “arcing out”. She had lost confidence in contractor A.

26. On 17 August 2022, the resident chased contractor A for the toilet seat and on 22 August 2022 she chased the landlord about her complaint.

27. On 30 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain about the landlord’s complaint handling as it had not responded to the complaint she ahd made in January 2022.

28. On 3 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:

The works remained outstanding as it assigned contractor A to complete the works and were not looking for an alternative contractor. The landlord acknowledged that the quality of work “could have been better”.
It made an offer of £225, comprising of £100 for her distress and inconvenience, £75 for the quality of work, and a further £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
It concluded that it could have had more contact with her whilst the works were being carried out so that her concerns could have been identified at an earlier date.
It had since introduced a snagging sheet for each property. Jobs that went “overtime” should be reviewed by a senior representative to take ownership.
It partially upheld the complaint. However, the works had not been completed as she had refused access to the contractor which was why it had only partially upheld the complaint.

29. On 4 October 2022, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. There had been 2 changes of management, 3 or 4 different teams. The works still remained poor and outstanding. It had not addressed her request for £600.

30. On 21 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:

Whilst it appreciated that her experience would have reduced her confidence in contractor A, it was “not reasonable to withhold access” and not allow contractor A to complete the snagging works. Another contractor would not attend to the works that had been complete by a different contractor with only snagging items remaining. The relevant manager would personally inspect the completed works to ensure they were satisfactory.
The contractor had agreed to replace the vacuum cleaner, bathroom cabinet, cleaning items, and door strips.
The contractor was ready to fit the new toilet seat and carry out the works she had outlined. The socket for the fridge freezer had been repaired. She would fit the 4 door strips and contractor A would refund her on receipt of the costs. The extractor fan had been repaired. It offered a further £150 for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues from the time the complaint has been logged.

31. On 24 October 2022, the resident wrote that she had sent receipts for the cost of replacement items and had also provided the cost of the items. She did not have a receipt for the vacuum cleaner and fridge freezer.

32. On 3 January 2023, the landlord wrote further to its Stage 2 letter as follows.

It referred to her email of 31 December 2022 regarding compensation.
The contractor had agreed to replace the vacuum cleaner, cleanings items, floor trims, and bathroom cabinet.
The list of outstanding work was agreed. If she were still unwilling to grant access to complete the works and provide the replacement items, it could not conclude this matter. If she did not agree to give access, it would consider applying for an access injunction. It appreciated she had been let down in the past. Its manager would oversee the works and the delivery of the items.

33. The resident replied that she wanted the cost of the items not the items themselves as most had been replaced. She was happy to allow another company in to do the works.

34. The property has since been transferred to another landlord.

35. On 8 March 2024, the resident informed this Service that the snagging works were not carried out.

Assessment and findings

The works

36. It was not disputed that the initial works were below standard so that the works had to be carried out again. This caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. It will be for the Ombudsman to consider whether the compensation and resolution provided by the landlord constituted reasonable redress.

37. It was reasonable of the landlord to attend the resident’s property while the upgrade was going on as a result of the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted reasonably and with transparency by arranging for “most of the works” to be carried out again. It was reasonable that the works were handed to a different contractor.

38. A certain degree of “snagging” works is to be expected as a matter of course, however, these issues would have affected the resident’s daily living, in particular given her disability. There was also an unreasonable delay between the further works being completed and the appointment when the works were due to take place, during which time contractor A had fitted a further unsatisfactory toilet seat. Matters also got worse as her bathroom cabinet had rotted.

39. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether contractor A agreed to the resident seeking her own contractors including family members and does not make a finding that is the case. It would not be unreasonable of the landlord to decline the suggestion as it should have oversight and retain responsibility for the works. However, the resident would have been content for the landlord to identify its own alternative contractor.

40. The landlord’s reasons for not doing so was because a contractor would not undertake works to correct the work of another contractor. Under most circumstances, the landlord should be entitled to arrange for the contractor doing the works to do the snagging. There may be a number of reasons why it would be reasonable to do so. Contractually, they should be able to have the works done at no extra cost and the landlord is obliged to protect its charitable and public funds. However, in this instance, it was understandable that the resident had lost confidence in the contractor’s abilities to complete the works satisfactorily, and without causing further damage and losses, and in the landlord to monitor and ensure they were completed to a reasonable standard. The landlord had had an opportunity to rectify the issues. Moreover, a different contractor had already carried out the fresh works. Therefore the landlord should have given more consideration to the resident’s request for a different contractor for what were, essentially, repairs. Given the delays, the loss of confidence and the nature of the works, the Ombudsman does not find the landlord’s explanation for not employing an alternative contractor reasonable.

41. The landlord reasonably recognised its failings and set out what lessons it had learnt. It arranged for contractor A to replace the damaged items. The resident requested a refund as she had made those replacements. It had been agreed that contractor A would refund the resident for the bathroom cabinet. There was no evidence contractor A was responsible for the fridge freezer, only the socket. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it would be fair to for the landlord to refund the resident for the vacuum cleaner, bathroom cabinet, cleaning items, and door strips. The landlord and contractor A can make its financial arrangements between them accordingly.

42. However, the Ombudsman does not find the resolution and level of compensation of £325 constituted reasonable redress. It did not take into account the particular stress the resident was under, being a disabled household and given she was expecting a baby. She had refused the further works because she had lost confidence in the contractors.

43. There was a lack of proactivity. It is concerning there was damage to the resident’s property and possessions The resident was under particular stress. The evidence indicated that there had been a number of attempts to rectify the works following the initial complaint. Issues continued to emerge, such as with the extractor fan and the fridge freezer socket. There should have been additional monitoring of the works given the initial works were carried out to a poor standard. There was no evidence that it asked Contractor B to rectify the issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling

44. The landlord reasonably accepted responsibility at the outset. It acknowledged that there was a significant delay to its Stage 1 response from January to October 2022. It did not provide an explanation in its Stage 1 response why it would not employ an alternative contractor. While the landlord recognised the delay, the Ombudsman does not consider that £50 is sufficient compensation for the delay, given it was significant and caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience and, in any event, does not correlate with its own compensation policy.

45. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to the resident threatening her with legal action if she did not agree to giving access to the contractor. It is recognised that the landlord would wish for the works to be completed and for the property to be maintained to a standard. The resident also had a legal obligation to give access to the landlord to carry out works. However, a landlord should also have regard whether an injunction would be just and convenient and also proportionate, in the resident’s circumstances. Such a warning would be naturally frightening to the resident, in particular given her circumstances. Any such suggestion should be addressed with caution and as a last resort. The Ombudsman found the landlord’s approach heavy-handed and disproportionate.

The landlord’s record-keeping

46. This investigation was hampered by the lack of records provided by the landlord. The reason for the lack of records was in connection with a transfer of case management systems by its contractor. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to maintain its own system so as not to be reliant on its contractors’ records in order to track its own actions and decisions. Contractor A appears to be linked with the landlord either because contractor A is in the same group or is a “brand” of the landlord. Howsover linked, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have ensured, as far as possible, that contractual arrangements provided for a robust system where there is a change of a case management system. This investigation relied on the resident providing her email exchanges with the landlord. This was not satisfactory and the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom upgrades.

48. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

49. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping.

Reasons

50. While the landlord acknowledged the failings by the initial contractor, in all of the circumstances, its decision not to instruct another contractor to rectify the issues was not reasonable as it did not give sufficient weight to the impact on the resident.

51. While the landlord acknowledged the delay to the Stage 1 response, the compensation did not reflect the impact on the resident or its own compensation policy.

52. The investigation was hampered by the lack of records due to records not having been preserved through a case management transfer.

Orders

53. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:

Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £950 to include the initial offer of £375 comprising as follows:
1. £700 to include the £325 already offered in relation to the delays to the completion of the works. This includes a contribution to the outstanding repairs as follows:

(1) Tile the end of the bath to be angled to remove standing water issue.

(2) Plaster and paint areas in the kitchen and bathroom.

(3) Silicone the kitchen worktop to avoid water damaging units below.

£150 to include the £50 already offered in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
£100 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Within 4 weeks, if it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the equivalent sum of the replacement cost of the vacuum cleaner, bathroom cabinet, cleaning items, and door strips to be reasonably assessed by the landlord based on receipts received and the costs it would have incurred by effecting the replacements itself. Any dispute will be resolved by the Ombudsman.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

54. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:

The landlord should ensure that it responds to complaints within its policy timescales.
The landlord should ensure that the necessary data back-up arrangements are carried out and that it keeps its own records regarding works, including repairs and upgrades.
The landlord should consider the legal status of the resident’s tenancy, whether there was an existing tenancy prior to 2016, whether the periodic tenancy of 2016 still stands, whether the tenancy is shorthold and send a copy of its conclusions to the resident and the Ombudsman. It may need to consult with the resident’s current landlord.

55. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.