A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202343044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343044

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 1 January 2007. He lives in a two bedroom flat with his wife and three children.
The resident’s wife brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as his representative, and is not named on the tenancy agreement. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report. As the resident’s wife made most of the contact to the landlord and this Service, we will use female pronouns.
According to its records, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s home on 3 May 2023. The report identified mould being caused by condensation at the property, and recommended immediate work to replace a broken trickle vent, and an inspection and overhaul of mechanical extraction ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom. A mould wash and redecoration of affected areas, and the installation of passive wall vents were also recommended.
The resident raised a complaint on 13 December 2023. She told the landlord that her home had suffered with persistent damp and cockroach infestations for 10 years, and that it was overcrowded, which was causing “physical and mental strain” on the family, further exacerbated by the health conditions of some family members. She also explained that they had been waiting to move to a larger property for 12 years.
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 15 January 2024. It said:
1. It could see numerous reports in regard to damp and mould at the property, and that some appointments had been cancelled due to its contractor getting no answer when they attended.
2. Its contractor had attended on one occasion for mould that the resident had already treated, meaning that they could not locate any signs of mould.
3. It could see a job had been raised in October 2023 via its damp and mould team, but was unable to see if any works had been carried out. It had subsequently asked a manager to liaise with the team and respond to the resident by 19 January 2024, and apologised for the delay in works being carried out.
4. It had no active jobs for pest control, and the last time a contractor attended the resident’s home for cockroaches was when it completed a job in February 2022.
5. It had communal pest control active, and a contractor had attempted a survey off the communal areas on 7 December 2023 but had experienced issues with gaining access. If the resident was still experiencing pest problems, she could contact the environmental services team for an investigation.
6. It understood why the resident wanted to move, and confirmed they had been registered on its internal transfer system since 18 January 2021.
7. It recommended the resident check property adverts twice a week, and register for its mutual exchange scheme. It also said she could contact her local authority, or consider privately renting.
8. It would assess any medical evidence the resident could provide to support a move.
9. It was partly upholding the resident’s complaint due to its service failure in handling damp and mould, and was awarding her £100 in compensation to recognise the delays. It identified no failure relating to pest control, as it had not received any report from the resident about the problem since 2022. It also said it had done everything it could to arrange a move.
The resident responded on 15 January 2024 and told the landlord that a surveyor had attended and explained that the flat needed major works, which would mean the family would need to be moved. She also explained that she was cleaning the walls every time she saw damp because of her children, and that she had complained to the block manager twice about cockroaches but had no further update.
The landlord responded on 16 January 2024, and reiterated that it had identified service failures and offered compensation in its stage one response, and confirmed it would contact the resident on 19 January 2024 to update her on the works. It said that if that date was not met, the resident could escalate her complaint. Subsequently, after receiving no update on 19 January 2024, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord provided its final response on 12 February 2024. It set out a timeline of events in regard to the damp and mould works, and explained that when its contractor attended they had identified that major works were needed, and the resident would need to be temporarily moved. It said that it would contact her regarding the move in due course. It also said:
1. Upon reviewing its timeline, it could have done more to keep the resident updated, particularly after contractor visits in May 2023 and January 2024. It identified that this was a service failure.
2. It had failed to update the resident as promised on 19 January 2024, and this was a further service failure.
3. It had spoken to its property manager and they had no recollection of speaking to the resident about pest issues. It apologised for any confusion, and said that its contractor had attended the communal areas in January 2024, and the landlord would share their report once it received it.
4. Repairs were currently on hold until it could temporarily move the resident, and it would contact her once an appropriate property had been sourced.
5. It was partially upholding the complaint, and outlined three lessons it had learned from the complaint about updating residents, improving its internal communication, and ensuring it met deadlines.
6. It was awarding the resident £425 in compensation. This consisted of the £100 it offered at stage one for delayed repairs, £100 for lack of communication, and £225 for the length of time taken to reach this point since its surveyor first visited in relation to the damp and mould in May 2023.
When the resident contacted this Service in February 2024, she reiterated that she was still experiencing problems with damp and mould, cockroaches, and overcrowding. The resident and landlord have also since confirmed that the family were moved into temporary accommodation in April 2024, to allow for repairs to take place. In a further discussion between this Service and the resident, she confirmed that she had been moved back into her home on 9 October 2024 and that issues with damp and mould and pests have been resolved. However, to resolve her complaint the resident wants the landlord to move her and her family to another property.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

In contact with the landlord the resident advised that issues with damp and mould, pests, and overcrowding had been ongoing for over 10 years. However, this report will not consider events from that time.
This is in line with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. There do not appear to have been any reports of damp and mould in the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in December 2023 other than the one attended in May 2023. Similarly, there is no indication of reports of pests or concerns raised about overcrowding in the 12 months prior to the formal complaint. Taking this into consideration, our assessment will focus on events from May 2023 onwards.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has suggested that the issues in her home had negatively affected her family’s physical and mental health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her family’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.” The report also highlights that landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months before a move is considered.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. Emergency make safe repairs including out of hours will be completed within four hours of being reported, and emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours of being reported.
2. Standard repairs will be completed within 20 working days of being reported.
3. Planned and packaged repairs will be completed within 90 days of being reported.
The evidence available suggests that the landlord was aware of a damp and mould problem at the property from at least 3 May 2023, when it carried out an inspection of the issue. It is unclear what priority the identified works were given under the repairs policy timeframes, but we might have expected these works to have been carried out in 20 working days.
While there is a copy of the inspection report the landlord has provided no evidence of the action it took following this, such as repair records or works orders, only a timeline set out in its final response to the resident’s complaint. This says that following its inspection, it raised a work order with its contractor on 7 May 2023, but that this was cancelled when their contract ended with the landlord in September 2023.
The landlord has said that the works were then passed on to its new contractor on 3 October 2023, and that they visited the resident on 16 October 2023 to scope out and raise a quote for the required works. The landlord said that an asbestos report was needed before works could be carried out, and this was provided to the contractor on 8 November 2023. They then started work on 3 January 2024, but reported to the landlord that the scope of works did not match the amount of work that was required at the property. The landlord said that it received a new scope, which also advised that the family would need to be moved into temporary accommodation so repairs could be carried out. A decant form was subsequently completed and signed by the resident on 10 January 2024.
It is a concern that there are no records that substantiate the landlord’s account of events. Nevertheless, the timeline provided by the landlord suggests that it failed to respond appropriately to the damp and mould after its initial inspection in May 2023. It has explained that works were cancelled when its agreement with its contractor ended in September 2023, however, this was four months after the inspection, and no explanation has been given by the landlord for this delay. It has also not provided any evidence to show it made the resident aware of this issue at the time, which would have been appropriate, and would have also helped to manage her expectations around repair timescales.
The evidence therefore suggests an opportunity to improve the resident’s conditions was not taken, until around five months later, when the job was given to its new contractor. It is reasonable to conclude the resident likely experienced unnecessary distress and inconvenience during this interim period and she previously made it clear to the landlord that she was cleaning mould herself frequently out of worry for her children, and this had been noted by the landlord.
Further unnecessary delays appear to have occurred following the new contractors receipt of an asbestos report on 8 November 2023, when no works began until 3 January 2024. No explanation has been given for this delay, and this was further exacerbated when the contractor discovered the scope of works that presumably had been based on the May 2023 survey did not match the extent of works needed. This may suggest that either the findings of the May 2023 inspection were not accurate, or that conditions in the property had deteriorated in the meantime. No details of the new contractor’s findings or updated schedule of works has been provided to us however.
The timeline therefore points to total delays of around 9 months between the landlord’s inspection in May 2023 and its final response to the resident’s complaint in February 2024. The landlord has said that some delays were caused due to its contractor not being able to gain access to the property, however it has provided no evidence to support this. It has also not provided any information to show that it pre booked any appointments with the resident, or notified her of any missed appointments, which would have been a reasonable approach.
It is noted that works could not start until the landlord could relocate the resident and their family, however, although the relocation took place in April 2024, the works required were not completed until October 2024. This means that it took 17 months for issues identified in the in initial inspection to be addressed (and the later inspection suggests that the issues were more significant than initially found). This was not in line with our Spotlight Report on Damp in adopting a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. This likely caused the resident distress, time and trouble pursing the matter, and meant the family lived with damp and mould for longer than they should have.
Overall there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. In its final response to the resident, the landlord upheld this aspect of their complaint, and offered them £425 to recognise the delays, and lack of communication. However, the Ombudsman deems it fair and reasonable to order the landlord to award an additional £325 to recognise the additional prolonged distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
This award also brings the compensation amount in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for “excessive disruption”, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that the landlord has attempted to put right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
We have previously ordered an independent review of the landlord’s response to leaks, damp and mould following several severe maladministration findings. The review was undertaken earlier this year by the landlord. The review report found improvements were needed in various areas and showed how the landlord has already taken steps to drive positive change. As such, no further orders for learning are made in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation

The landlord’s environmental services policy states that it will deal with pest infestations in communal areas, but may take remedial action within homes at its own discretion where there are particular needs, for example arising from its prioritisation work and policy.
In response to the resident’s complaint in December 2023 the landlord said it had not received any reports of pests from the resident after it previously completed a pest control job at her home in February 2022. It also advised her at the time that it had a communal pest control order active, and asked her to contact its environmental service team if she was experiencing pest issues. This was a reasonable response, given what was set out in its policy, and that it had no record of further reports of infestation at the resident’s home after February 2022.
The resident did explain that she had told her block manager about the infestation twice and not heard anything back. There is no information available to support this, but the landlord has provided information to show that the block manager contacted all residents at the block by post and email in September and December 2023 explaining that communal cleaning was taking place, and asking residents to get in touch if they were experiencing pest issues within their homes. This suggests that the landlord had attempted to proactively address pest issues with the resident on previous occasions.
Following this exchange with the resident, the landlord arranged a pest control visit from its contractor. They attended the property on 23 February 2024 and discovered a cockroach infestation, which they then treated. They then reattended on 22 March 2024, and noted that the resident had said they had seen an improvement since the last visit. A final treatment was carried out on the same day. This was reasonable.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. It had attempted to proactively engage with the resident about the issue, signposted her to the relevant department to report any issues, and arranged treatment works following the resident’s stage two complaint, which was reasonable and in line with its own policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord’s allocation policy sets out that it operates its own choice based lettings system to internally allocate properties. The banding criteria is as follows:
1. Band A – emergency/top priority (for example where an applicant’s life would be in immediate danger if they continued to live in their current accommodation, or where there was an emergency medical need seriously affected by their current housing).
2. Band B – urgent need to move (for example where an applicant is currently severely overcrowded, or there was an urgent medical need seriously affected by their current housing).
3. Band C – identified need to move (for example there was an identified medical need shown to be affected by their current housing, or where the applicant was overcrowded by 1 bedroom).
In order to ascertain exactly how medical factors affected an applicant’s housing, the landlord would seek the advice of an independent medical advisory service experienced in this field. The assessment would determine whether the applicant had any medical need and, if such a need was identified, whether it fell under band A, B, or C.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed she had been registered on its internal transfer system since 18 January 2021 as a Band B priority due to requiring a four bedroom property as per the landlord’s allocation policy. This would appear to be in line with the landlord’s allocation policy. It also noted that the resident had agreed to accept three bedroom properties which she could also bid for. In addition, it confirmed the resident had been registered on a separate housing options service since 8 May 2012 as a Band C, three bedroom property required. It said it could see that the resident had been consistently placing bids for properties on both schemes, and advised her to continue to check them twice a week.
Furthermore, the landlord recommended that the resident register to a mutual exchange scheme, contact her local authority, or look into renting privately. It also explained that demand for housing outstripped supply, and that it was required to return a high percentage of its homes back to the local authority. While the resident’s home situation was clearly distressing for her, the landlord acted appropriately in clearly explaining its position as per its allocation policy. It also managed the resident’s expectations by making her aware of the lack of available properties, and recommended alternative housing options in an effort to potentially increase the chances of her securing a move.
In response to the resident’s report the situation was affecting her family’s health, the landlord asked for medical evidence so it could carry out an assessment.
When the resident submitted supporting information for medical priority, the landlord needed to consider these in line with its allocation policy. The evidence available demonstrates that it did so, by seeking the advice of an independent medical advisory service.
On each occasion, this medical advisory service determined that, on the basis of the information provided, there was no medical priority for a move. The landlord acted in line with its policy here, and it was reasonable for it to rely on the view of the medical specialist and act accordingly when determining the decision not to offer medical priority. The resident’s banding therefore appropriately remained at B.
Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
When speaking to this Service, the resident advised that her eldest daughter had applied to the landlord for a one bedroom flat, but had been told that it could take “up to 29 years” for a flat to be allocated. However, this appears to be a misunderstanding, as the landlord has said that it explained to the resident on 23 April 2024 that her daughter could be offered a one bedroom flat as part of its “New Generation Scheme”, which is designed to relieve overcrowding among household members by offering separate housing to an adult non-dependent (i.e. child over 18) living as part of a household, but the resident declined.
A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and assist with her daughter’s application under its New Generation Scheme.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a pest infestation,
2. the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £750 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. The £425 it awarded in its final response to the resident’s complaint, if it has not already paid it.
2. £325 for its failures in regard to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident and assist with her daughter’s application for housing under its New Generation Scheme.