A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202234253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234253

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

18 December 2023

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 5 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he had noticed significant levels of dampness in the lower parts of the walls in his hallway and bedrooms. The landlord attended to inspect on 6 December, and several more times over the next weeks. A leak from the toilet was initially discovered, and another bathroom leak was reported soon after.
4. The landlord ordered new parts at the end of December 2022, which were received speedily, but no further appointments were made until 25 or 26 January 2023 (the records are contradictory), at which time the resident has explained that a third leak was discovered under the bath.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2023. The landlord’s notes state that he complained there had been water damage to his floors and walls, broken tiles were being left on the bathroom floor and impeding his use of it because he used a wheelchair, and the damp and mould in the property was affecting his health.
6. Repair work stalled at the end of January 2023 when leaks were discovered to also be penetrating from a neighbouring property. The landlord has explained that it needed to resolve the neighbouring leak before it could complete work on the resident’s home.
7. In early February 2023 the landlord raised a work order to assess damp and mould in the property, and on 9 February it sent its complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that there had been delays, and explained the next steps it would be taking. It said it aimed to complete the work by 24 March, and offered the resident £125 compensation for the inconvenience caused to him so far.
8. The resident and his advocate escalated his complaint because he felt the estimated completion date was too far away and he was concerned about the damage being done to his home, in particular the wooden floor in his hallway, which he wanted the landlord to replace. In several emails he and his advocate explained again that the work was impeding his wheelchair access to the bathroom facilities, and said that he had developed breathing difficulties because of the damp. At one point the advocate asked if a decant for the resident was being considered (no response has been seen) .
9. Work on the neighbour’s home was completed at the start of March 2023, and the landlord’s records state that the work on the resident’s walls was completed on 16 March. The landlord sent its complaint response on 22 March. It largely repeated what it had said in its first response, but added explanations about the further actions it had taken. It apologised for the delays so far, said that work still remained to address dampness in some walls, and that it had scheduled an inspection to assess what was needed. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint about difficulties using his bathroom, and said it had escalated his comments to the relevant teams. It explained how it intended to improve its services, particularly around time frames and missed appointments (which it said had happened on 20 January). It said that the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his home (such as the wood floor) was not something it could address through its complaints process, and explained how he should make a claim against its insurers. Nonetheless, it offered the resident a further £120 compensation for the ongoing inconvenience the repairs were causing to him.
10. The resident has told this Service that the final works on the damp were completed towards the end of April 2023. He also told us that he had made a claim for his damaged floor against the landlord’s insurance, but it was rejected. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, and its decision not to compensate or replace his damaged floor.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repair of pipes and related fixtures and fittings. It also states that tenants must report to the landlord promptly any repairs or defects which the landlord is responsible for.
12. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident has the right to make improvements and alterations to the property, provided he has permission from the landlord. The landlord’s changes and improvements policy states that tenants can fit different flooring to that provided by the landlord, but that the landlord will not repair or service the new installations.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify any particular time frame for resolving repairs, referring only to making appointments at the earliest time convenient for the tenant. The policy states that it will make its contractors aware of any tenant requirements, require them behave appropriately in a tenant’s home, and show respect for the tenant. It states that the landlord is “committed to providing services, which are relevant and appropriate to the needs of people.”

The landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s home

14. The resident first reported that he had discovered significant levels of damp in his home, and a suspected leak, on 5 December 2022. The landlord’s note of the report states “water from the leak damaged my wood floor”. Accordingly, by the time the resident first reported the problem, the indications are that his wood floor had already been damaged.
15. In general, a landlord would usually be expected to consider providing compensation for household damage when its actions, or lack of action, demonstrably led to or exacerbated that damage. Nothing in the information provided by the resident or the landlord for this complaint suggests how the original leaks that lead to the water damage came about, and the damage had already occurred before the landlord had an opportunity to do anything about it. Added to that, the damaged wooden floors had been installed by the resident to replace the original floors, and the landlord’s policy on that matter is that it is not responsible for any subsequent repairs or maintenance. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend the resident make a claim to its insurers, because there were no indications of failings by the landlord at that initial point when the matter was reported.
16. The landlord initially responded promptly to the resident’s report. The repairs clearly expanded in complexity over the next several weeks, with new leaks being reported or discovered, and work needed on the neighbouring property as one of the leak sources. It is understandable, then, that the work exceeded what would usually be considered a base line repair time frame of 28 days (the common industry standard for non-emergency repairs).
17. The records show generally consistent efforts to resolve the leaks, and the damp and mould that had occurred because of them. However, there appears to be a gap from the end of December 2022 to late January 2023 where it is unclear what work was being done, and the case notes suggest that the necessary work was awaiting authorisation or a surveyor inspection. The resident has said that he experienced three missed appointments over that period. The landlord acknowledged only one. The available records do not provide enough detail to decide which is the more accurate account. Nonetheless, delays for the apparent reasons would usually be within the landlord’s control, and so that period suggests the delays could potentially have been avoided.
18. In its complaint responses the landlord clearly appreciated the inconvenience the repairs were causing to the resident, and that regardless of their scale and complexity there had been delays. It apologised, and explained what it would do to learn from the resident’s complaint. It offered a total of £245 compensation for the delays and impact. That level of compensation was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings which caused short-term inconvenience and frustration, but no long term consequences. Overall, the remedies the landlord offered were in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and proportionate to the delays.
19. However, in January 2023 the resident made clear to the landlord that he was concerned about the impact the damp was having on his health. The landlord had earlier set up a dehumidifier to deal with the damp, but the resident reported later that it had failed, and it is not apparent from the evidence if it was replaced. The resident also explained multiple times that he used a wheelchair, and that because of the repair materials and equipment left in the bathroom he was having difficulties using the facilities, even with the assistance of his carer. The only clear acknowledgement of the resident’s circumstances was in the landlord’s final complaint response, in which it simply explained it had passed his comments on to the relevant teams.
20. That overall response to the resident’s explanations was not in line with the landlord’s policy goal of providing services relevant and appropriate to its tenants’ needs, and which recognise their requirements. In line with its policy and basic good practice what should have happened, at the very least, was the landlord discussing with the resident (and his advocates) how it could potentially adjust its operations to better reflect his needs and circumstances. Repair work on the scale in this case would likely always entail a certain level of inconvenience to a tenant, but there may well have been ways in which the landlord could work in a manner which satisfied both its goals of resolving the repairs, and limited the impact on the resident. It may have been that after such discussions no effective and reasonable way could be found, but at least the resident would know that his voice had been heard and considered. No evidence of this happening has been seen. Accordingly, there was a further failure in the landlord’s services, which it did not acknowledge or remedy.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

22. The repairs involved in this case were extensive and relatively complex. There were some delays, and these were acknowledged and reasonably remedied by the landlord. There is no evidence of the landlord’s actions causing damage to the resident’s floors, and so its decision to refer him to its insurers was reasonable. However, the landlord did not respond meaningfully to the resident’s reports about his health concerns and accessibility difficulties during the repair work. That was counter to its repair policy, and basic good practice.

Orders

23. In light of the inconvenience and frustration that may have been avoided if the landlord had properly considered the resident’s circumstances, it is ordered to pay him compensation of £470. This amount includes the £245 already offered.
24. This payment must be made within 5 weeks of this report.
25. The landlord must review this case and consider what lessons it can learn from the identified failings to improve its repair services for all its residents. This review, along with an action plan to implement its conclusions must be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.