A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202307731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307731

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

29 May 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 reports of an ongoing leak and unresolved damp and mould.
2. The report has also taken into consideration the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

3. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
5. In her contact with this Service, the resident highlighted several issues which included repairs to the kitchen, doors and windows, rat infestations and theft of belongings. These issues were not raised as part of the initial complaint; therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to investigate and respond to them as part of this complaint. As a result, these issues will not form part of this assessment. The resident may wish to submit a new formal complaint about these matters to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide a formal response.
6. The resident referred to the health of herself and her family which she states was impacted by the ongoing issues. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused. 
7. The resident referred to damp and mould that had not been resolved. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our 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. The landlord has provided evidence which confirms damp and mould was reported in January 2023, and prior to that, in February 2021. This assessment will only look at the actions of the landlord following the report in January 2023.

Background

8. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and has lived in the 2-bed flat with her 2 daughters since 7 February 2005.
9. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 20 January 2023. The landlord attended and noted mould and water stains around the living room and bedroom windows. The resident told the landlord rainwater came through the reveal at the top of the window. The window is below a balcony of the flat above. The landlord issued an inspection ticket to a contractor.
10. The resident reported a leak on 1 April 2023. She said rainwater was leaking into the property and tripping the lights. The landlord attended the same day however a cause was not found, and further investigation was requested. The same operative dealt with a further report of the same leak the following day. He confirmed a constant drip of water was present, but after an inspection of the property and the flat above, a leak was not located. The landlord chased the contractor following the previous inspection request. The electrics were made safe, and a further appointment was made for 12 April 2023, to reinstate when dry. A third report of the leak was made on 3 April 2023 and the landlord attended the same day. A leak in the property above was located and resolved.
11. The resident raised a complaint on 6 April 2023. She said the damp and mould she had reported had not been resolved. She added that there was black mould in every room and personal belongings had been damaged. She said the family were asthmatic and were struggling daily and the electrics had not been turned back on after the leak.
12. The landlord responded to the complaint on 14 April 2023. It committed to completing the outstanding repairs following the leak by 30 June 2023, and provided the name of the contact who would oversee the work. It apologised for the service received and offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. It sent an insurance liability form for the resident to complete and return in relation to the damaged belongings.
13. On 2 June 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. She said the repairs were still outstanding and she had not had any contact. The landlord apologised and advised it would escalate the matter to the contractor’s complaint team. On 4 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said no repairs had been completed, and she had not heard anything following her escalation request. The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 6 July 2023. Although other issues were discussed, the landlord confirmed it would only investigate those raised at stage 1. It told the resident a separate complaint would need to be made for the additional issues.
14. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 2 August 2023. It confirmed the resident wanted the repairs to be resolved and for it to recognise its failures. The landlord concluded:
    1. It would not address the issues that were not raised at stage 1. It provided signposting and guidance on what steps the resident could take if she wanted to pursue these.
    2. The leak was raised in April 2023, and fixed in May 2023. It acknowledged it did not pick up the follow-on work straight after the resolution of the leak and this led to mould growth. The landlord apologised for the service failure.
    3. The electrics were reinstated after being disconnected for safety reasons.
    4. A series of mould treatments had been arranged. Work to the ceiling and bath had commenced on 20 July 2023, but on a follow-up visit on 31 July 2023, there was no access. It would contact the resident to arrange another appointment to complete the mould treatment.
    5. In addition to the £100 at stage 1, £325 further compensation was offered for the following:
       1. £100 for not picking up the work after the leak was resolved.
       2. £100 for poor ticket management and poor internal communication.
       3. £50 for poor communication with the resident which resulted in her chasing the repairs.
       4. £75 for the delays in completing the works.

Post completion of the complaint process

15. It is evident through the contact with this Service that the resident continued to experience problems. While some of the issues related to those not included in the scope of this assessment, the resident mentioned the light had not been repaired after the water damage.
16. On 26 October 2023, the resident told this Service that the leak in the cupboard had started again every time it rained. An inspection was completed on 26 October 2023, following which repairs were raised and additional inspections were requested of the above property to check for leaks on the balcony. In the most recent correspondence from the landlord dated 17 May 2024, it was confirmed all work has now been completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
17. However, in recent contact with this Service dated 23 May 2024, the resident has said the damp and mould issues continue despite regular cleaning and mould washing. She said she was waiting for the landlord to investigate faulty wiring in the bathroom which is related to water setting in the ceilings. The resident confirmed appointments have been arranged to have these issues resolved.

Assessment and findings

Ongoing leak and damp and mould

18. When the landlord received a report of mould and damp on 20 January 2023, it attended on 3 February 2023, which was a reasonable response time. The landlord’s evidence confirmed a roofing inspection was issued to a contractor for a roofer to inspect the balcony to the property above.
19. When the landlord received a report of a leak on 1 April 2023, it complied with its repair responsibilities by attending the same day, visiting the resident and the flat above. There was however no further detail to confirm what checks were completed during the visit, or if a temporary measure was put in place to try to limit the damage from the water. This is an example of poor record keeping by the landlord who is expected to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records. These records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise, particularly when there are repeat visits for the same issue. A leak was visible but could not be located, therefore the Ombudsman finds the request for further investigation a reasonable step to take as it demonstrates commitment to resolving the issue.
20. The same operative returned the next day following a second report of the leak. He confirmed his attendance from the previous day and that an inspection of the roof had been requested. However, it is not clear from the records if any additional checks were completed during this visit. This is a further record keeping failure in relation to the notes recorded by operatives attending repairs.
21. There is evidence to confirm the landlord had to chase the contractor on 3 separate occasions between 1 and 13 April 2023, for an update. The lack of response from the contractor raises concern around its communication, repair management, record keeping and performance. It is acknowledged the inspection was passed to the contractor, but the landlord has ultimate responsibility to ensure all repairs are completed. As such, it should have measures for monitoring performance on communication and response times. Although section 5.3 of the landlord’s repair policy states it has mechanisms to monitor contractor performance, a recommendation has been made to include elements around communication and effective record keeping.
22. A third report was made for the same leak on 3 April 2023, and the landlord attended the same day. A leak was traced to the bathroom of a flat above and was repaired during the same appointment. The landlord has not provided evidence of the checks made during each visit; therefore, it is difficult to compare the diagnostic assessments conducted by the operatives. It also makes it difficult to determine if the leak could have potentially been located during a previous visit and resolved sooner than it was, reducing the impact and inconvenience to the resident.
23. When the resident complained about the unresolved damp and mould and the damage to personal possessions because of this, the landlord sent an insurance claim form to complete. This was a reasonable response and was in line with its compensation policy. It did not however confirm how it would address the damp and mould that had been reported in January 2023. The Ombudsman finds this a failure of the landlord for not addressing an issue raised by the resident. She also complained about the leak; and the electrics which were still isolated. In April 2023, the landlord committed to completing the outstanding repairs following the leak by 30 June 2023. It offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was an appropriate offer to make at that point in time.
24. The landlord provided the resident with a point of contact to oversee the outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman finds this a reasonable step to take as it demonstrated a commitment to completing the repairs. However, it is evident this approach was not successful. The resident had to invest time and effort in contacting the landlord to advise no contact had been made and no repairs had been completed. Because of the lack of action, the resident escalated the complaint. The resident was inconvenienced further when she had to chase the landlord again on 4 July 2023, due to the lack of progress. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that a commitment following a service failure led to a further service failure from the landlord (or its contractor). It is a further concern that the landlord did not know the repairs were outstanding until this was raised by the resident. The landlord should be able to identify any outstanding repairs to take the necessary action without the prompt of the resident.
25. In its final complaint response, the landlord identified several service failures. It acknowledged the delay in identifying the remedial work following the resolution of the leak, which led to mould growth. It confirmed mould treatment had commenced but did not offer reassurance that the remaining repairs would be completed in a reasonable timeframe. This demonstrates the landlord did not take appropriate learning from the previous service failure when the point of contact approach failed, and the complaint escalated as a result.
26. The landlord addressed the service failures with the contractor and offered compensation by way of redress. £325 compensation was offered for the delays, poor repair management, and poor internal and external communication. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this level of redress would be offered for a finding of maladministration, however it is not felt that it this offer fully reflects the service failures identified or the inconvenience it is likely to have caused the resident. In addition to this, the landlord failed to address the damp and mould that had been reported in January 2023, and so the resident was left not knowing what was happening in relation to this. As a result, this offer should be increased. Further information can be found in the orders section of the report.
27. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to an ongoing leak and unresolved damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged several service failures and addressed the learning taken because of these. It recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered compensation. Despite this, it is not clear from the evidence when the work was completed in full. It is therefore difficult to determine how long it took the landlord to complete the repairs from when the leak was first reported in April 2023, and the full impact this had on the resident. The attempts of the landlord to offer redress are noted, and if it had not been for these efforts, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration.

Associated complaint

28. Upon receipt of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident in line with the complaint policy timescales. It is noted the response was verbal and was followed up with an email. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the email response does not fully comply with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). For example, it did not include the complaint definition, any evidence of the investigation conducted, or any decisions made and the reasons behind these. This does not provide a clear and accurate record of the complaint which should be captured for audit purposes. While the landlord gave a date for outstanding repairs to be completed, it did not provide clarity by listing the repairs required. This makes it difficult to determine if the landlord understood and addressed all the issues raised by the resident and does not provide reassurance.
29. The complaint policy and the Code (at the time of the complaint) did not have a specific timescale for acknowledging a complaint escalation. It is however expected that the landlord must set out its understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcomes sought by the resident in a reasonable timeframe. It is evidenced it took a further chase from the resident for the escalation to be acknowledged 24 working days later. The Ombudsman finds this delay unreasonable and is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration after spending time and effort chasing the landlord. In the final complaint response, it is noted the landlord did not acknowledge or address the delay in the response which took 43 working days to provide. There was no apology or explanation behind this delay, and no evidence of any communication with the resident throughout this extension period. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. It raises concern with the landlord’s record keeping, communication, and compliance to the complaint policy which states any extensions will be agreed with the resident and regular updates would be provided.
30. The landlord’s final complaint response briefly addressed the issue regarding the leak and electrics and apologised for the delays and level of service provided. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate to include more detail to demonstrate the completion of a thorough review. The landlord should have included confirmation of the action taken to address the issues raised, and the reasons for the delays identified. The landlord failed to take this final opportunity to provide a response to the damp and mould issues which were reported before the leak. In doing so, the landlord has not demonstrated an understanding of the full complaint. The landlord used the complaint process to address the service failures and learning associated with the repairs, but it failed to identify the failures with the complaint handling.
31. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord was inconsistent in terms of complying with the Code, and its own complaint policy. It failed to identify or acknowledge all the issues raised by the resident and the service failures linked to the complaint handling. It therefore did not evidence how it would learn from these errors or offer any compensation as a result. This raises concern in relation to the landlord’s complaint management. For the service failures identified, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of an ongoing leak and unresolved damp and mould.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £825 compensation. This is made up of the following:
       1. £425 offered across both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process.
       2. An additional £200 for the delays and inconvenience caused.
       3. An additional £200 for the complaint handling failures.
    3. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding money owed to the landlord.
35. In May 2023, this Service published a spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should provide this Service with an updated version of its self-assessment and any improvements made because of this.
36. As the resident has indicated the issues may be ongoing, the landlord should arrange a revised inspection to consider what works are still outstanding. Once a scope of work has been confirmed, the landlord should provide this Service and the resident with a schedule of work which confirms when the work will be completed. It should then continue to monitor the property for a reasonable time following completion of any work to ensure the issues have been resolved in full.
37. Considering the potential health issues raised by the resident, if the landlord identifies an ongoing damp and mould issue with the property, it should complete a risk assessment and set out what emergency works it will conduct to alleviate any potential risk to the household.
38. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should consider reviewing its performance measures regarding contractor performance. The landlord should specifically consider including measures around communication and effective record keeping.
40. The landlord should consider completing refresher training to all staff involved in complaint management. This should cover the importance of capturing the full understanding of a complaint, response times and the importance of complying with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
41. The landlord should consider introducing a ‘repeat visits’ performance report. This would identify the properties that have had multiple visits for the same issue and should act as a support tool for how the landlord manages these more effectively. The report could also highlight any training needs for visiting operatives (and contractors).
42. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in response to these recommendations.