Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202105943)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105943

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

13 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 complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about reoccurring leaks, defective brickwork, and loose cladding.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The background policy and legal context

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that complaints are dealt with as part of a 2-stage process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days, and the officer dealing with the complaint has a further 2 working days to get in contact with the complainant if needed to clarify and discuss the scope of the complaint. The policy or procedure does not provide a timescale for a complaint response, although the Service’s Complaint Handing Code states that responses should be sent within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint with an extension of 10 working days if there is good reason. At stage 2 the complaint will be reviewed within 25 working days by either a Service Director or a Complaints Panel. 
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
    1. If a customer does not have home contents insurance, their claim would fall into one of the following categories:
      1. “A2Dominion was warned about a problem and failed to take adequate remedial action within a reasonable period of time. This is then an insurance issue…
      2. A2Dominion did not know about and could not have foreseen the problem because we were not alerted to it. This is unlikely to be deemed A2Dominion’s fault and is an issue for our insurers to advise and determine.”
    2. “There will be circumstances where discretionary offer of compensation may be the only available option …” Examples provided are where the landlord has taken appropriate action but has delayed in doing so and the delay has caused wrong; and the/or the complainant has sustained financial loss or has suffered stress and inconvenience.
    3. “When assessing financial compensation, the compensation matrix should be used as guidance to ensure consistency.”  Regarding shared owners:
      1. for Detriment including Stress/Inconvenience it may offer “Low £50, Medium £100, High £150.”
      2. for Length of Time (Time and Trouble) it may offer “Low £35 £55 £80 (1-3), Medium £90 £120 £160 (4-6), High £240 (6+).”
  3. The lease outlines the landlord’s repair obligation stating that the “Landlord shall maintain, repair redecorate, renew and (in the event in the Landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve or shall procure the maintenance repair redecoration improvement and renewal of: the load bearing frameworks and all other structural parts of the Building, the roof (including roof terraces), foundations, joists and external walls of the Building (including roof terraces)…”
  4. The landlord’s Repairs Policy (August 2019) confirms the landlord’s legal responsibility to “maintain the external and internal structure of properties including fittings and services.” It outlines 2 repair priorities. Urgent repairs should be carried within 24 hours while Standard repairs should be carried out at the “next available appointment that is convenient for the customer.”  The updated policy of December 2022 confirms these timeframes.

Scope of investigation

  1. Information from 2018 is included in the summary of events for history of the case and for context in relation to the issues experienced. As the resident did not pursue a formal complaint at this time and considering the length of time until his next report of a leak, this investigation has not assessed the landlord’s actions during the period.
  2. This investigation will focus on the actions the landlord took from 2021 when the resident next reported leaks and water damage to his property. It will also consider the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident is a joint shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord.  The lease commenced on 12 July 2013 and the property is a two-bedroom second floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s chronology of events show that the resident reported water ingress in January 2018. An operative thought there may be a defect on the exterior cladding as the windows were well sealed and sheltered. The landlord’s chronology of events states that when a roofer attended on each occasion the resident advised there was no leak and no need for action.
  3. The resident made contact with the Service on 10 June 2021. In his complaint form he stated that the “structure of the building is causing leak into our property during severe rain, this causes damage inside and outside of the property”.  He said works were carried out in 2013 but water marks returned. He followed up the repair in 2018 and the landlord offered £100 compensation and closed the complaint.  The resident also advised that earlier in 2021 a contactor had attended to spray the outside of the building, but this did not resolve the issue.  The landlord had agreed to cover the cost of works to remedy the damage inside the property which was assessed to cost over £2,000. However, it then declined to do so. The resident added he was concerned about the health of his baby due to possible mould behind plasterboards.
  4. On 22 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to complete works to:
    1. remedy loose cladding.
    2. prevent water penetrating walls and ceilings during rain which he had reported on several occasions over the previous 8 years.
    3. repair crumbling mortar.
    4. repair internal damage caused by water penetration.
  5. The Service wrote to the landlord on 16 September 2021, requesting it to respond to the resident’s complaint. We confirmed his complaint was about its handling of his reports of water penetration into his home, the damage caused, repointing of the brickwork, repairs to cladding, and his request for compensation.
  6. On 27 September 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint advising the resident that the cladding repair had been completed and that its insurance team was looking into his claim.  A member of staff would contact him about the works to resolve the leak. The landlord stated it would close the complaint but did not indicate that it was responding under stage 1 of the complaints procedure or how the complaint could be escalated. The resident responded on 14 October 2021 contending that scaffolding had been put up on the wrong side of the balcony at the beginning of the year, meaning work had definitely not been completed. He stated that he wanted compensation as there had been leaks over several years.  The landlord did not reply further.
  7. The resident advised the Service that the landlord had not sent a stage 1 response or contacted him about repairs.  On 3 February 2022 we emailed the landlord to request that it provide a formal stage one complaint response no later than 10 February 2022.
  8. The landlord’s chronology states that the resident reported water penetration on 25 March 2022. There was internal discussion between April and August 2022 about the safety and suitability of scaffolding that needed to be erected to trace and access the leak although its “notes [are] unclear.” On 20 September 2022 a roofing sub-contractor provided quotes and on 1 November 2022 it completed works.
  9. During this period, on 30 May 2022, the resident told this Service that the insurers had paid him compensation to redecorate inside his property. However, he had not been informed if the landlord had carried out works to prevent water penetrating the walls and there was still crumbling mortar on the outside.
  10. On 13 September 2022, the Service wrote to the landlord to request that it provide us with a copy of its stage one response no later than 21 September 2022.  On 13 October 2022 the Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord as it had not provided a complaint response since we had first asked it to send one on 16 September 2021. In response the landlord provided a stage 1 response to a different complaint by a different resident.
  11. On 17 January 2023 the resident reported another leak into his property and said that he would need to redecorate his flat again. He disputed that works to remedy leaks had been carried out and asked the landlord to provide details. The landlord in its Stage 1 response stated that landlord’s roofing contractor attended at the time and found that all repairs had been completed and no signs of a leak but recommended further investigation.  
  12. On 19 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that he could make another claim to its insurers for the further damage to his property. It added it could consider a compensation claim for stress, time and money if he completed a form.
  13. On 27 January 2023 the Service wrote to the landlord to advise that it had responded to a different complaint, and the stage 1 response to these issues remained outstanding. We requested that it provide a complaint response to the resident no later than 10 February 2023.
  14. On 17 February 2023 the landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response:
    1. It stated that its records showed that the leak had been ongoing since 2022 and further damage had been caused to the property.  It outlined that its roofing contractor had completed works in November 2022 and when recalled in January 2023 could not find a leak. The landlord advised that discussions about follow-on works would take place the following week.
    2. It committed to complete outstanding repairs by 7 April 2023 and to monitor the standard and timeliness of the works.
    3. It attached a form the resident needed to complete to raise a claim with the Insurance Claims Department for damage to decorations.
    4. It offered compensation of £200 which comprised:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
      2. £50 for poor communication.
  15. On 20 February 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to repoint the mortar between brickwork and repair loose cladding. Its records confirm that it did not think there was a roof leak.
  16. On 22 February 2023 the resident responded to the complaint response:
    1. He disputed the issue was first raised the previous year.  In 2018, the contractor did not attend on 2 occasions. When the leak worsened in 2020, he had no option but to report the leak again. After he complained scaffolding was erected and left for 6 months but still the leak persisted. It was erected twice thereafter but he was not kept informed of works competed. When he phoned, he was advised that “something had been sealed”.
    2. He stated in 2021 he submitted an insurance claim which was repeatedly rejected until accepted in 2022.  He repaired and redecorated the affected areas in May 2022. However, cracks and bulges appeared which he reported in January 2023.
    3. He did not understand what works the contractor had previously carried out. He wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve the leak, and furthermore to:
      1. repoint the mortar between the brickwork which had crumbled.
      2. repair the loose cladding.
      3. cover the cost of redecoration of the property.
      4. compensate him for the inconvenience, risk, loss of time and stress that had impacted him due to the delays in having the repairs completed.
  17. On 23 February 2023 the landlord stated that it had not investigated the previous leak as it had already done so and paid compensation at the time, and because over 6 months had passed. The landlord added its complaint response had addressed failures since the previous complaint and its offer of £200 reflected those failures and not for the last 10 years.  The resident needed to contact its contractor which would manage the repair.
  18. On 15 March 2023 the landlord accepted a quote from a subcontractor for works. The landlord advised the resident on 29 March 2023 that its subcontractor had completed the works to the brickwork. The resident responded on 5 April 2023 stating he was at home when the contractor attended as his partner was pregnant, and the works completed would not fix the issue as:
    1. A gap above the balcony door had been filled with silicon but this was below where the leak was coming from.
    2. Mortar was still crumbling leaving gaps.
    3. The operatives had discussed covering vent holes in the brickwork, but this was just a guess as the holes were not the same height as where the water was coming from.
    4. He had previously been told that the issue came from the ledge between his flat and the one above and was unsure why this was not a possibility anymore.
    5. He was not sure the cladding was safe or that it was secure enough to use the balcony. 
  19. On 21 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to update him on the repair issues he had raised.  On 17 May 2023 he asked for another update after the landlord visited the site on 2 May 2023, and on 5 June 2023 he asked for an update again. On 7 June 2023 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to carry out further pointing works with a target date of 17 July 2023.
  20. On or around 13 June 2023, the resident reported that mortar was still crumbling, and vent holes had not been covered. On 13 June 2023 the landlord advised that it had made a new repair request to the subcontractor in relation to the brickwork. On 5 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the contractor would be coming on 15 July 2023. On 18 July 2023 the landlord marked works as being complete.  It has confirmed to the Service that the works involved the refitting of timber boards and the application of sealant products, and that after these works, internal decoration works were completed.
  21. On 15 September 2023, the Service informed the landlord that we had accepted the case for investigation as it had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 or complied with the CHFO.
  22. On 9 October 2023, the landlord sent a further response to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It stated:
    1. The earliest record it could find of a leak in its records was January 2018. It believed the leak was due to a failure in the building fabric to provide an effective watertight envelope during heavy or windy rain.
    2. It believed the leak had been resolved. The most recent repair had provided an effective seal against the elements.
    3. The building insurance would resolve the consequential damage to leaseholders. It would pay the insurance excess as a gesture of goodwill.
    4. If the leak reoccurred, it would liaise with the original builders.
    5. It was sorry that it did not progress the resident’s stage 2 escalation in April.
    6. It offered compensation of £1,030, in addition the £200 offered at stage 1, which comprised:
      1. £100 – external communication
      2. £150 – internal communication and poor job management
      3. £240 – Delays in completing repairs
      4. £240 – Delays in actioning stage 2 request
      5. £300 – ex-gratia for the length of time taken to resolve repairs and the inconvenience caused.
  23. In February 2024 the parties confirmed to the Service that there have been no further leaks since the works of July 2023; however, some decorations have bubbled or cracked. Additionally, the resident advised that the cladding was due to be replaced in November 2023, but this had not been completed. The landlord has committed to carry out an investigation of the building fabric to determine if any moisture is present in the external wall system.
  24. The resident also advised the Service that the latest insurance claim had been processed but that he is still awaiting reimbursement of the insurance excess of £360 from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about reoccurring leaks, defective brickwork, and loose cladding

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that repairs to the roof and the external parts of building are completed. In this case, the resident reported loose cladding, water ingress, crumbling mortar and internal damage in June 2021. There are no contemporaneous records such as repair logs, schedules of work, inspection reports or responses to the resident to confirm that the landlord investigated the issues raised. Its complaint response of 27 September 2021 stated that cladding works had been completed; however, there is no evidence that the resident’s other concerns about the mortar and water ingress were resolved at this time.
  2. The resident made a further report of a leak in March 2022.  In this instance the landlord did not complete works or remedy the leak until over 7 months later. Even with the need to erect scaffolding this was an unreasonable delay.  The landlord has not provided any repair logs or schedules, so it cannot be confirmed whether the leak was traced and what work was carried out. Nor is it evident that the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm that works had been satisfactorily completed.
  3. The Repairs policy does not provide any clear timescales for non-urgent work to be completed, which gives no assurances to residents that their repairs will be carried out within a reasonable timescale. Following the report of March 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident to manage his expectations about the specification and timeframe for the works and to thereby provide assurance it was addressing his issues.  The lack of updates was particularly unreasonable as the resident had a concurrent insurance claim and it would be prudent for the remedial internal works to be completed after the leak had been traced and remedied.
  4. The resident reported a further leak in January 2023. While the landlord stated that its contractor attended, there are no records to support its finding that there were no leaks from the roof. The landlord evidently considered it needed to carry our repairs to the mortar and cladding as it raised a repair order in February 2023.   The correspondence between the parties further confirm that works were carried out at the end of March 2023 and then in July 2023 after the resident stated further works were required.  However, again there are no repair logs or schedules, or details of inspections, to confirm that the landlord had taken identified all necessary works and ensured all works had been completed to the required specification and standard. In fact, the resident has raised specific technical repair issues which the landlord did not consider or respond to.
  5. The lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
  6. The resident explained he was worried about the effects on the health of his young family, which likely added to his distress. Along with the lack of communication about its handling of the repair issues raised, the landlord did not offer any solutions to the resident in managing potential damp and mould issues in the property. The Service’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. In this case, there was no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the potential hazards of the mould.
  7. Excluding the compensation offered for the failings in its complaint handling, the landlord offered a total of £990 for the delay in carrying out repairs and for its poor communication. When investigating complaints, the Service takes into account whether the landlord’s actions and offer of redress were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance. The landlord’s offer of compensation was within a range the Service would recommend for long-term failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, the offer was not made until after the Service had already accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right, and learn lessons from the outcome at the earliest point, which was at the time of the original complaint. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and we have therefore found maladministration.
  8. The Service has previously found maladministration following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould and complaints handling. As a result of these investigations, wider orders were issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme under a previous complaint. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case (202122336). The landlord was ordered under the previous case to:
    1. carry out a review, within 12 weeks, of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. This entailed an exploration of failings identified by the investigation; identifying all residents affected by leaks, damp and mould; a review of determinations issued by the Service over the last 6 months about leaks, damp and mould; and a review of staff training needs.
    2. produce a report setting out the findings and learning; recommendations to prevent similar failings occurring; the number of other residents who have experienced similar failings and the steps it proposes to provide redress at the earliest opportunities.
    3. self-assess against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management (May 2023).
  9. The landlord has now complied with the orders from the previous case (in December 2023 and January 2024). It is also noted that the landlord is due to meet with the Service on 19 March 2024 to discuss the wider orders. Therefore, the Service considers that the actions taken in relation to the wider orders are sufficient in the circumstances, and further orders have not been made as part of this investigation accordingly.

The landlord’s communication and its handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. There have been a series of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Service initially asked the landlord to register a formal complaint in 2021.  While the landlord responded promptly, within 2 weeks, it did not respond under stage 1 of its complaint procedure or offer the resident the opportunity to escalate its complaint. This was not in line with good practice as set out in the Service’s Complaint Handling Code of the time which stated that complaint responses should make clear the complaint stage, the outcome of the complaint and details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
  2. The Service made further requests for the landlord to send a stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2022 and 13 September 2022, but as the landlord did not respond, we served a CHFO.  When the landlord responded to the Service, it provided a complaint response to a different resident. Not only was this a data protection error, it also caused further delay in the handling of the resident’s complaint.  The fact that that within this period, he had reported another leak, on 25 March 2022, which the landlord was delaying in responding to compounded his frustration, uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
  3. It was not until 17 February 2023 that the landlord sent a formal stage 1 response during which time the resident had reported another leak, in January 2023. The response itself was delayed being sent a week after the deadline set by the Service.  After the resident responded on 22 February 2023, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint as required by its Complaint Procedure. Correspondingly, the Complaint Handling Code which at the time stated a “landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action” was not followed.  The landlord missed an opportunity to set out when the “previous leak” was and when it had considered the previous complaint and offered compensation, so as to avoid misunderstandings of the scope of the current complaint.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2023. It appears to have been prompted to reconsider its position and send a further response  following the Service accepting the complaint for investigation. It remains the case that the landlord missed several opportunities to potentially resolve the complaint at an earlier point, and it is of concern that the landlord did not use its complaints procedure to address the particular matters the resident raised. 

45.The landlord offered £240 compensation for failings in its complaint handling in the response of 9 October 2023. The offer only reflected the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. It therefore did not cover the series of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling since the initial complaint of September 2021, and consequently was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The complaint handling led the resident to perceive repairs at his property and his requests for redress were being ignored. This exacerbated the situation and further undermined the relationship the landlord had with him.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about reoccurring leaks, defective brickwork, and loose cladding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by way of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not undertake actions to investigate and resolve all repair issues raised by the resident within a reasonable timeframe, such as investigating the water ingress, and carrying out repairs to the mortar and cladding. The landlord did not adequately update the resident about the progress and specification of the repairs. The landlord did not offer any solutions to the resident in managing potential damp and mould issues in the property.
  2. There was series of failings by the landlord regarding registering, responding and escalating complaints received.  Its responses also lacked clarity. The length of time taken to respond to the complaint compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience regarding the handling of the repairs reported.

 

 

Orders

  1. The Service orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to write to the resident to:
    1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Confirm the outcome of the current investigations and provide a timeline for any identified works. This should include making clear whether it will be referring any issues to the builder of the block.
  1. The Service orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to reimburse the resident the excess on his insurance claim.
  2. The Service orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to pay the resident £1,700 comprising:
    1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of reports of reoccurring leaks, defective brickwork, and loose cladding.
    2. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the related complaint.
    3. The landlord may deduct any payments already made to the resident.
  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 12 weeks, to devise:
    1. A framework for its record keeping standards, including the standards expected of contractors acting on its behalf.
    2. An action plan for how it intends to embed the use of the framework throughout the landlord and its contractors to ensure people have access to relevant information when needed. In particular, that its complaint handling staff have access to appropriate and relevant records when responding to complaints.