A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202309936)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309936

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

16 May 2025

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:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of a property of which the landlord is the owner.
3. The property is a flat in a block of flats owned by the landlord. It is responsible for arranging buildings insurance which the resident pays for through a service charge. She has lived at the property for over 20 years. The landlord informed us that the resident does not have any vulnerabilities. However, in May 2024 the records show it was made aware that the resident was unwell.
4. In July 2021 the resident told the landlord she had been communicating with its insurers (the insurers) to resolve and repair a leak that damaged her bathroom and kitchen in or around May 2020. She said the insurers told her the source of the leak was the soil stack, which was the landlord’s responsibility to repair. She said the leak had damaged her flooring, which was mouldy and a trip hazard.
5. In October 2021 the insurers told the landlord that, while it was clear the leak was coming from above, they needed the landlord’s help to ascertain exactly where from. They said the leak was “still damaging” the resident’s property and “really does need solving” so that they could begin the drying and “reinstatement process” at the property. While the landlord raised a repair, for various reasons it did not go ahead. The insurers repeatedly asked the landlord for an update before the resident complained.
6. The resident formally complained on 14 March 2022. We have not seen a copy of this complaint. She had also expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s inaction on 1 December 2021 and on 20 January 2022.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 July 2022. It apologised for miscommunication and delays and offered £180 compensation, which the resident did not accept. It said that, because of the resident’s current insurance claim, its complaints team could not “investigate anything to do with the repairs currently needed in your property.”
8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 August 2022 and the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It apologised for the delay, offering £240 compensation. It said an 8 August 2022 survey had shown no structural defects at the property and since that date, the resident had not reported any further leaks. It apologised that it had failed to inform her it had attended. It said the stack pipe was working correctly.
9. The landlord added that it had completed a further inspection on 18 August 2023. This had revealed damage in the bathroom and kitchen. It said it noted that the resident was awaiting confirmation about the cause. It offered £100 for the delay in “resolving the matter” and said it would reimburse the resident for the excess payable on making a claim to the insurers. It also offered £150 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had experienced pursing her complaint. The total compensation offer was £490.
10. The resident asked us to investigate in November 2023. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a leak at her property

11. Following our enquiries about alleged continuing issues with the property soil stack in July 2024, the landlord provided us with an email dated 8 February 2025 from a loss adjuster. The loss adjuster asked the landlord to arrange for its contractors to repair the leaking soil stack. It said that this was the same issue that had “been ongoing since December 2020 when we were first instructed.”
12. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it has a responsibility to deal with repairs to the soil pipe as “an urgent priority.” Soil pipes are connected to the soil stack, which is part of the wider soil system. We consider the landlord had a responsibility to address this issue urgently, which it failed to do.
13. The insurers first asked the landlord to repair the soil stack in October 2021. A loss adjuster is a professional instructed by an insurance company to thoroughly investigate and assess insurance claims. Therefore, we consider it is reasonable to rely on information provided by a loss adjuster.
14. In this case, the loss adjuster said that the landlord failed to properly address a known issue with the soil stack for over 3 and a half years. At the time of writing, we have not been informed that the repair has been completed. This is clearly an inappropriate approach to an ‘urgent’ repair.
15. The landlord may have considered it had conducted the repair at an earlier date. On 5 August 2022 it completed a drainage survey. It concluded that there were no structural defects to the drainage system and that no follow up work was required “from a drainage perspective.” However, it also said a leak detection engineer should attend to rule out other leaks. We have not seen any evidence to indicate this happened.  The landlord said that over the next year the resident did not report any further issues. Nonetheless, it still took the landlord, from the point at which its insurers had asked it to repair in October 2021, almost a year to act on an urgent repair request. This remains an inappropriate response.
16. During this time, the resident repeatedly explained that she needed the landlord to complete the repair so that the insurers could redecorate. She explained, as early as October 2021, that her flooring was mouldy. In December 2021 she told the landlord she was “living in a state of disrepair”. In February 2022 she said she “continued to live in an unsafe environment” and asked the landlord for its plan of action.
17. In April 2022 the resident expressed her exasperation that “…waste water from the soil stack continues to leak into my flat yet [the landlord] does not see this as a concern for prioritised attention.” In June 2022 she asked if it found it acceptable for the wastewater to continue leaking into her flat. She, and the insurers, explained on more than one occasion that she was unable to redecorate because the landlord had failed to act to identify where the leak was coming from.
18. However, in the landlord’s July 2022 response, it said that its complaints policy set out that it could not investigate “anything to do with the repairs” because of her insurance claim.
19. The landlord was correct that its complaint’s policy said it would not look at insurance claims. However, the resident was not asking it to examine how her insurance claim was being handled. Its policy did not prevent it from looking at a complaint about its standard of service. This is what she was complaining about. It should, therefore, have processed the complaint.
20. The resident complained that the landlord’s failure to identify the source of the leak was frustrating her insurance claim and stopping the completion of the repair works. As she explained in her complaint escalation: “You do not seem to understand…as long as [the landlord] continue[s] to drag [its] feet on acting on the insurers instruction, this claim will remain open (note first logged in May 2020) and the redecoration of my flat cannot take place and I will continue to live in unacceptable conditions.”
21. In its August 2023 response the landlord referred to the survey of the previous year and apologised for failing to inform the resident that it had completed the repair. It also said that it noted the damage to her bathroom and kitchen and advised her to inform the insurers.
22. This caused the resident further frustration because she had told the landlord in October 2021 that she had raised the matter with the insurers and was awaiting the landlord’s response. We asked it why it gave her this advice and it said it was not aware of that correspondence. We provided it with a copy of its correspondence, which was its stage 2 response, but it still did not respond to our request for clarification.
23. In its stage 2 response, apart from offering to pay her insurance excess, the landlord also offered the resident £240 for the time taken to respond to the issue. However, as the delay was actually over 3 and half years, this sum was disproportionate to the inconvenience and distress this matter caused her. This view is supported by evidence provided by the resident that she reported ongoing issues with the soil stack in July 2024. We gave the landlord the opportunity to comment on those reports. It initially said it did not have any records of those reports. The landlord then provided the response from the loss adjuster. Even if the landlord considered the repairs had been completed in August 2022, this sum would not have been adequate.
24. The resident says she has been living in “unacceptable conditions.” We consider the failing to identify the issue and to remedy it for such a prolonged period caused her significant adversity and warrants a finding of severe maladministration.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy says a “high impact issue” is one where it is responsible for a “serious failure” in service standards. It says it could relate to a persistent failure over a prolonged period or where there has been an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address an issue.
26. We consider this to be a “high impact” case. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000. This is in line with our guidance on remedies which says that where there was a failure which had a significant impact on a resident, a payment in the range of £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. We consider this to fall in this range.
27. The records show the landlord has been aware that the resident had “medical issues” from at least May 2024. The stress of the situation would have added to her distress. While we cannot make findings in relation to how a person’s health may have been affected by maladministration, we have taken the distress caused to the resident into consideration and awarded compensation at the top of the £600 to £1,000 range.

The landlord’s complaint handling

28. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy says that residents “do not have to use the word complaint for an enquiry to be treated as such.” Therefore, we consider the landlord should have logged a complaint at an earlier stage.
29. At stage 1 it commits to providing a response in 10 working days. It failed to do so in this case. It took 87 working days. We also note that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach at earlier stages, on 1 December 2021 and again on 20 January 2022.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will take 20 working days to respond at stage 2. It took 257 working days to respond. It has accepted that this was an unacceptable delay.
31. In addition, as is stated above, the landlord wrongly refused to handle the complaint. This was a further complaint handling error.
32. In total the landlord offered £250 to acknowledge the length of time it took to respond to the resident’s complaints and for the time and trouble she expended pursing her complaint. At stage 2 it also said it had raised the case as part of its “lessons learnt from complaints” with an aim of improving its services in the future.
33. Our awards of compensation for complaint handling errors are lower than those for other failures in service. We therefore find that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures. If it had not offered the compensation and taken steps to demonstrate its willingness to learn from outcomes, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration.

Determinations

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, there was reasonable redress by the landlord that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

36. Within 28 days the landlord must:
    1. Inform the resident, the insurers and this Service of the steps it has taken to repair the soil stack. It must complete a repair within 28 days unless it can show good reason for any further delay. If the landlord is unable to meet that deadline it should write to the resident (and us) setting out why it has been unable to meet that deadline and the date by which it will have completed this repair.
    2. As the resident complained that the failure to repair caused mould issues at the property, the landlord should also conduct a damp and mould survey, provide a copy to the resident and to this Service and remedy any issues that it has responsibility for within 56 days.
    3. Pay the resident £1,000 (inclusive of the £240 offered during the complaints process) to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by its prolonged delay in identifying a soil stack leak.
    4. Provide a report to the resident and to this Service, setting out the lessons learnt from this case and what steps it has taken to ensure the identified failings are not repeated.
37. The landlord can deduct the £240 it originally offered the resident if it has already paid this. The landlord must pay all compensation sums to the resident and not off-set against any arrears that may be owing.

Recommendation

38. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £250 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the reasonable redress finding on that basis.