A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202233103)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233103

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

23 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift which resulted in the resident being temporarily moved a number of times.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 15 January 2001. The property is a 2-bedroom, third floor flat. The resident resides at the property with her 4 children. The resident is registered disabled and has been diagnosed with cauda equina, which is a severe spinal cord disorder that restricts movement from the spinal area.
  2. The resident’s representative brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf. For ease of reference, the Ombudsman will refer to the representative’s actions as the resident’s throughout the report.
  3. There are approximately 52 stairs between the ground floor and the resident’s property. The resident said she is unable to use the stairs due to her disability, and she relies on using the communal lift in the building to access the property.
  4. The resident said she reported issues with the communal lift frequently breaking down in the building since 2021. The resident said that when the lift broke down, she could not ascend or descend the stairs and could therefore not enter or exit the property. The resident said she complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift in October 2022.
  5. On 7 December 2022 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response. It explained:
    1. the resident had complained about its handling of repairs to the communal lift, and she was unhappy that this kept breaking down.
    2. on 22 October 2022 a fault was reported with the lift. The landlord said the lift was out of service.
    3. on 25 October 2022 an engineer attended the building and found that the lift’s top communications board was faulty. The engineer ordered a new printed control board (‘PCB’) which had an average lead time of 2 weeks.
    4. on 10 November 2022 the engineer fitted a new PCB. However, there were still issues with the lift. The engineer advised that it needed to refer the issue to the lift manufacturer in Italy.
    5. as of 15 November 2022, the landlord was waiting for advice from the manufacturer. However, on 18 November 2022 it identified an issue with a cable that ran from the lift car top board to the cop board and the lift was fully functioning.
    6. it had offered the resident £150 compensation, which comprised of:
      1. £100 compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused.
      2. £25 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  6. On 28 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 December 2022, but the landlord had not responded. She felt that the landlord had not considered her disability or the access issues she had raised, and that the compensation that the landlord had offered was inadequate. The resident also said that she had reported that her shower was broken on 25 January 2023, but the issue had not been resolved. She explained that she needed accommodation because she could not use her property because the communal lift and her shower were broken.
  7. On 1 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her complaint. The resident said she had not received a stage 2 response from the landlord.
  8. On 21 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and said:
    1. she wanted clarity from the landlord about the ongoing communal lift issues.
    2. the issue was having a severe and negative impact on her and her family.
    3. the landlord had previously moved her into temporary accommodation 6 times when the lift was out of service. The resident said that frequently moving into temporary accommodation had disrupted her children’s schooling.
    4. on other occasions, the resident said she had been expected to remain in the property or she was unable to leave her property whilst the landlord repaired the lift.
    5. the landlord had not provided her with a “long-term plan” about repairs to the lift and how it would stop it from frequently breaking down.
    6. the landlord had not responded to several emails about repairs to the lift.
    7. she wanted a management transfer if the lift was going to keep breaking down.
    8. she was unable to start a treatment/medication plan for an ongoing bowel condition, as she did not know if she would have access to a bathroom if she left the building and could not access the property.
    9. she wanted reassurance that a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (‘PEEP’) had been put in place for her, in the event of an emergency.
    10. she wanted an update on her stage 2 escalation.
  9. On 27 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a further stage 1 response. It explained that it had received reports that the lift was out of service on 17 March 2023. However, an engineer arrived at the building to find that the lift was functional, and they could not find a fault.  It had received a further report that the lift was out of service on 21 March 2023. The landlord said an engineer switched the lift off to make it safe and it returned the lift to service on 24 March 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience that the lift outages had caused the resident.
  10. On 3 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said:
    1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response.
    2. the issue had been ongoing since October 2022.
    3. the landlord had not responded to her previous escalation request.
    4. the landlord had placed her into temporary accommodation 8 times due to issues with the lift breaking down.
    5. she felt the landlord had disregarded her disabilities.
  11. On 6 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
    1. the reliability of the lift was below expectations. The landlord said it had been working with its contractor and an independent specialist lift consultant to identify the underlying issues with the lift and measures that could be taken to improve its reliability.
    2. it would replace the lift, and it was working to confirm a programme of works. The landlord said it had appointed a contractor and agreed a specification. The landlord also said it had ordered the replacement lift.
    3. it would communicate the start date and estimated time it would take to replace the lift once it was confirmed by its contractor. The landlord said it would also confirm any measures it could put in place to support all of its impacted residents during the replacement.
    4. in the interim, it was continuing to maintain the lift and it was working to keep it in service.
    5. it was sorry for the delay in escalating the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    6. it was sorry for the inconvenience caused by the lift being out of service and it would offer compensation to the resident once all the issues had been resolved.
  12. The resident continued to report issues with the communal lift between February and July 2024. The landlord contacted the resident in July 2024 and said it hoped to replace the lift in September or October 2024.
  13. In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift, and that she had been reporting the issue for 3 years. She felt the landlord did not address all of her concerns in its complaint responses and it did not address her concerns about access issues, the temporary accommodation and her disability. She was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation because she felt this did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused. The resident also said she had incurred costs whilst living in temporary accommodation. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs to the lift so that it is reliable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists.  The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
  2. The resident said the issues in her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
  3. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this service’s role to determine whether the property conditions impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident and other occupiers. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute that it retained responsibility to keep the lift in reasonable repair.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy states:
    1. it will reimburse reasonable costs incurred by the resident which may include:
      1. reasonable extra travel costs (in excess of the normal costs from the resident’s main and principal home) relating to work or education whilst at the temporary accommodation.
      2. in the case of decants to a hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation – it will pay a food allowance in line with the compensation policy.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
    1. it will respond to “emergency” repairs within 4 hours, and it will complete repairs within 24 hours.
    2. it will complete “standard” repairs within 20 working days and all planned works within 90 days.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. For example, the landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint in October 2022, or copies of any of its repair records.
  3. The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and likely contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
  4. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift which resulted in the resident being temporarily moved a number of times

  1. The landlord has not provided any repair records to show the date that it first became aware of issues with the communal lift. However, the evidence shows that the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord by email about issues with the lift from October 2022 to August 2023 and again from February to July 2024.
  2. The evidence suggests that the landlord attempted to repair the lift on at least 8 separate occasions between October 2022 and July 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any repair records to evidence:
    1. what repairs it had completed.
    2. when it completed the repairs.
    3. whether it considered the repairs as “emergency repairs” or “standard” repairs.
    4. whether the communal lift required further repair works.
    5. whether the repairs had resolved the issues with the lift.
  3. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude that the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of issues with the lift, and within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was a significant failure in the landlord’s service and record keeping.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord said it attended the building several times to address the issues with the lift. The landlord explained that the delays in completing repairs to the lift were often due to needing extra parts or having to refer issues to the manufacturer which was based in Italy.
  5. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in regular communication with residents and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that this was not always the case. Further, we would expect to see evidence to support the landlord’s position, for example, of it referring issues to the manufacturer. No evidence of this has been provided.
  6. Following further reports of issues with the lift, the landlord agreed to replace the lift in July 2023. Whilst the landlord’s decision to replace the lift was reasonable, as the purported repairs had not resolved the issue, there is no evidence that the landlord:
    1. carried out a survey of the lift between October 2022 and July 2023 to establish whether a more extensive solution was required sooner.
    2. corresponded with the manufacturer and relayed the outcome of its investigations to the resident.
    3. regularly communicated with the resident in writing to inform her of the progress of its investigations and what it would do if the repairs did not resolve the issues with the lift.
    4. monitored the repairs to assess if they had satisfactorily resolved the issue.
    5. completed a lasting and effective repair to the lift between October 2022 and July 2023.
    6. gave consideration to the impact that the situation had on the resident in particular, in light of her disabilities.
  7. Whilst a reactive approach to repairs is generally considered appropriate for landlords, there is also a requirement for landlords to consider the history of serious issues, such as repeated lift issues, to identify how it can improve its service provision. The volume of reports the landlord received in this case suggested that there may have been a more serious underlying problem with the lift, and the landlord could have considered whether a more extensive assessment may have been required. This could have mitigated the resident’s complaint and the impact on the resident in relation to the frequency of the outages of the lift.
  8. In July 2024 the landlord said it had not yet replaced the lift. This was 12 months after the landlord had agreed to replace the lift and 21 months after the resident said she had initially reported the issue. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay in it replacing the lift. It is unclear if the landlord has replaced the lift at the time of this investigation.
  9. The law does not say how long a reasonable time for a repair is. This depends on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the Ombudsman considers that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord replacing the lift, given the nature of the repairs, the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the length of time that the issue had been ongoing.
  10. Throughout the complaint, the resident informed the landlord that:
    1. she was disabled and had complex medical needs.
    2. when the lift broke, she was unable to safely use the stairs without assistance from a family member to carry her.
    3. she was unable to start a treatment/medication plan for an ongoing bowel condition, as she did not know if she would have access to a bathroom if she left the building and could not access the property.
    4. she wanted reassurance that the landlord had put in place a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (‘PEEP’) for her, in the event of an emergency.
  11. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord said it offered the resident temporary accommodation when the lift was out of service. In April 2023 the resident said the landlord had moved her and her family into temporary accommodation on at least 8 occasions due to issues with the lift breaking down.
  12. The landlord has not provided details of each time it offered the resident temporary accommodation. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its approach to the frequent lift outages. Whilst it was reasonable to offer temporary accommodation, this was not a suitable long-term replacement for fixing the substantive issue with the lift. This approach would have caused uncertainty, distress and disruption to the resident and her household. Had the landlord identified the trend in the lift outages at an earlier stage, this may have mitigated the impact on the resident.
  13. The resident said that the process of moving into temporary accommodation on a regular basis was disruptive and impacted her physical and mental wellbeing. The resident said the landlord had expected her to remain in the property or she was unable to leave her property whilst the landlord repaired the lift. The resident said that moving into temporary accommodation had disrupted her children’s schooling and she had incurred costs in moving into temporary accommodation.
  14. While the landlord offered temporary accommodation to the resident, it did little else to reassure the resident about her concerns or acknowledge the significant impact that the need to frequently move into temporary accommodation had on the resident and her family. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord:
    1. addressed the resident’s concerns about the temporary accommodation in its complaint responses, or the impact this had on the resident and her family.
    2. communicated with the resident once it was aware that the lift was out of service. The evidence shows that the resident had to regularly inform and chase the landlord about the lift repairs and the need for temporary accommodation, rather than the landlord contacting her when it became aware that the lift was out of service. The evidence also shows that the resident often had to wait a number of days to receive a response from the landlord once she had informed it that she required temporary accommodation. This was not appropriate.
    3. regularly updated the resident about the lift repairs whilst she was in temporary accommodation.
    4. considered whether it should complete a risk assessment or PEEP, based on the resident’s concerns for her safety and ability to access the property in the event of an emergency. In the absence of any evidence of other safety planning, this was particularly concerning to note.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs. This is because:
    1. there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property which had a significant impact on the resident and her family over a prolonged period.
    2. the landlord failed to evidence that it responded to the resident’s reports of issues with the lift within a reasonable time.
    3. the landlord failed to consider the underlying cause of the continued lift outages and whether more extensive assessments were required.
    4. the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident about the repairs and the concerns she had raised about her disability and access issues.
    5. the landlord failed to monitor the repairs to assess if it had resolved the issue.
    6. the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had completed a lasting and effective repair to the lift.
    7. the landlord failed to recognise the delays, or the impact caused to the resident in its complaint responses.
    8. the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its approach to the repairs to the lift.
  16. The landlord has been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for its failings as identified by this investigation. It has also been ordered to contact the resident to discuss any out-of-pocket expenses she has incurred whilst in temporary accommodation, and whether it will reimburse her in accordance with its decant policy. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
  17. Additionally, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to contact the resident with a date that it will replace the lift. The landlord should also inform the resident in writing how long the replacement will take and whether it will offer the resident temporary accommodation during this period. The landlord must also complete a post-works survey to confirm that it has completed all repairs/replacement of the communal lift, and that this has rectified the issues. The landlord should provide a copy of the survey to the resident and this service within 10 working days of the date of installation of the lift. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right.
  18. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the Ombudsman does not consider this proportionate to address the significant impact of its failings on the resident. With consideration being given to the Remedies Guidance, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures over a significant period. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of it acknowledging the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of it acknowledging a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
  2. The resident said she raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the lift in October 2022. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to assess when the resident raised a complaint and whether the landlord responded to the complaint in line with the Code. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping because the Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a full record of the complaint including the original complaint
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 7 December 2022, which acknowledged that it was aware that the lift was out of service on 22 October 2022.
  4. The resident said she wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2022 and asked it to escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. However, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence on 16 December 2022 and said it would review the document with a senior colleague. This was further evidence of a failure to keep full records of the complaint in accordance with the Code.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 28 January 2023 and said she wanted to escalate her complaint, and that she had not received a stage 2 response.
  6. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2023, 1 March 2023 (via a new complaint form) and 10 March 2023 to request an update on her complaint escalation. The landlord responded to the resident on 11 March 2023 and said the resident’s complaint was with its “silver complaint team” which dealt with escalated complaints, and that the resident would need to wait for a full response. There is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of their complaint. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not do this until 11 March 2023. This was not appropriate given the resident’s repeated communications leading up to this time.
  7. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response to the resident on 27 March 2023 under a different complaint reference. However, the landlord did not explain why it had responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, when she had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the lift to stage 2. This caused confusion to the resident who was chasing her original complaint. The landlord ought to have been clearer which elements related to a new complaint, and which related to the complaint it had already logged.
  8. The landlord’s records acknowledge that an escalation request was made, as it had referred the complaint to its “silver complaint team”, but it did not provide a stage 2 response to the resident. This was a significant failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
  9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint again on 3 April 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 July 2023. This was 64 working days later. The landlord’s response time was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. The landlord did not inform the resident that it would provide its stage 2 response later than the 20-working day timeframe set out in the Code.
  10. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process and seeking recourse from this service.
  11. Further, the landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns that it had frequently moved the resident into temporary accommodation, or that she felt it had disregarded her disabilities. This was a failure by the landlord because the Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  12. Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. These meant that the resident had to expend a considerable amount of effort to progress her complaint and had to wait several months for a stage 2 response. This likely caused her time, trouble and frustration. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. Neither is there any evidence that it took learning from the complaint, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  13. The landlord offered the resident £75 for the delays in its complaint handling. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the level of compensation does not adequately address the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident. As such, the Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance for this level of failing and considers £200 to be appropriate redress in the circumstances. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
  14. The Ombudsman has also recommended that the landlord considers re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift which resulted in the resident being temporarily moved a number of times.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. A senior director must make the apology.
    2. pay additional compensation to the resident of £1,700 (£1,875 in total, inclusive of the £175 offered in the complaint responses) broken down as follows:
      1. £1,500 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift and its communication with the resident about the temporary accommodation.
      2. £200 for the likely time and trouble caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord can reduce the total compensation by the £175 already paid to the resident, if applicable. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

  1. contact the resident with a date that it will replace the lift, which should then be adhered to. The landlord should also inform the resident in writing how long the replacement will take and whether it will offer the resident temporary accommodation during this period.
  2. contact the resident to discuss any out-of-pocket expenses she has incurred whilst in temporary accommodation, and whether it will reimburse her in accordance with its decant policy.
  3. contact the resident to discuss a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (‘PEEP’).
  4. in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should review whether it received other complaints from residents in the block, and if it has taken appropriate action, including providing appropriate redress.
  5. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.
  1. Within 56 calendars days of the date of this determination, the landlord must complete a post-works survey to confirm that it has completed all repairs/replacement of the communal lift, and that this has rectified the issues with the lift. The landlord should provide a copy of the survey to the resident and this service within 10 working days of the date of installation of the lift.

Recommendations

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.
    2. support the resident with her request to move from her current property and discuss her options with her if it has not done so already.