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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202308064)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308064

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

16 April 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 repairs to a communal lift.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat in a block of flats. The resident pays a monthly service charge towards the management of the block and upkeep of the communal facilities, including a lift.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair records, the lift was out of service for a total of 91 days between May 2022 and January 2023. This was due to various issues with the autodialler and alarm system. The periods during which the lift could not be used by residents included 12 days in May, 39 days during August – September, and 40 days during November – January.
  3. Between May 2022 and December 2022, the resident’s partner was pregnant. During each period the lift was out of service, the resident contacted the landlord to seek updates on when it would be fixed. He made the landlord aware that his partner was pregnant and that she struggled with using the stairs, particularly as her pregnancy progressed.
  4. The third period of breakdown started on 29 November 2022. The resident contacted the landlord and was advised on 8 December 2022 that it would be at least another 2 weeks before it was fixed as the landlord was waiting on a part arriving. The resident raised concern with the landlord about this timeline as his partner was due to give birth any day by that stage. He complained that his “heavily pregnant” partner had to climb stairs 50 out of the last 90 days, with no information conveyed to the residents by the landlord about why the lift was not working. He asked whether, once the baby was born, he would be permitted to leave a pram in an area adjacent to the communal stairs on the ground floor until the lift was fixed. In response, the landlord advised that personal items such as prams could not be stored in the communal areas for health and safety reasons, and due to the risk of theft. It said any items found stored there would be subject to removal.
  5. On 13 December 2022, the resident’s partner gave birth by caesarean section. On returning to the flat from hospital, she and the resident found the lift was still not working. Over the course of the following week the resident spoke with the landlord on 3 occasions and sent an email to explain that due to his partner’s caesarean operation, there was a health risk with her using stairs. He provided the landlord with a letter from a midwife to verify this and to explain his partner would need access in and out of the property to attend medical appointments.
  6. On 21 December 2022, the landlord received a formal complaint from the resident. He complained that:
    1. The lift had been out of service for a considerable proportion of the year and there had been “zero communication” from the landlord to explain why.
    2. There was no management of the block. He queried why he paid a service charge.
    3. He and his partner had been given no access support, despite his requests to the landlord for this.
    4. The landlord would not allow them to store a pram in the communal area while the lift was not working, despite his partner having had a caesarean.
    5. The landlord advised him on a call to stay with family until the lift was fixed; this was not feasible as the closest family was a two hour drive away which was not a recommended distance to travel following major surgery or for a newborn baby.
    6. The ongoing issue was damaging mental and physical health.
  7. The lift was repaired by the landlord and fully operational again on 12 January 2023.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2023. It apologised to the resident for its lack of communication and said the resident’s details had been passed to the new property manager for the building who would contact him directly to discuss his concerns. The landlord offered the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident asked for a review of his complaint on 16 February 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 April 2023. It apologised for the lack of communication and support it provided to the resident and his family and offered £150 compensation on account of this. This was in addition to the £150 offered at stage 1 for stress and inconvenience. It stated that compensation would also be offered to all residents linked to the number of days the lift was out of service. The landlord also set out several improvements it would make in the future relating to communications and support.
  10. The resident was not satisfied that the compensation offered reflected the level of disruption and distress he and his family experienced. Additionally, as per his request to the landlord, he wanted a refund of his service charge fees for the period May 2022 to January 2023. The resident therefore referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in repairing the lift. It apologised for this in both complaint responses. It advised the resident in its stage 2 response that the reason was that some of the repairs were more complex to diagnose, and the landlord was reliant on the availability and delivery of replacement parts which added to the delays. The landlord said that it would be paying all residents in the block compensation in line with its policy. This sets out a payment of £1 per day where a communal lift remains out of service for more than 7 days. While this payment was referred to in the stage 2 response, the payment was not being made because of the complaint, but rather because it is an automatic entitlement for residents as per the compensation policy. It was appropriate however that the landlord referred to this in the complaint response as it demonstrated that it had compensated the resident for delays in repairs through this mechanism, leaving it to then consider whether any additional compensation was warranted on account of the complaint investigation findings.
  2. One of the resident’s main frustrations was that the landlord did not proactively communicate with him during any of the lift breakdowns to advise what the problem was and when it would be resolved. This was despite the resident having explained to the landlord of the difficulties experienced by his partner in using the stairs, particularly post-birth when recovering from a major operation. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to seek updates and provided the landlord with records to demonstrate the frequency of this. He said that when he contacted the landlord, he was met with “stone wall silence, delay, and error.” He complained of the amount of time he spent chasing the landlord, particularly after the baby was born, commenting that this was ““time that should have been spent with my partner and baby.”
  3. The landlord in its stage 1 response apologised for its lack of communication with the resident during its handling of the lift repair. It acknowledged that it should keep residents updated where there are delays in completing works, and appropriately recognised that this did not happen in this case. It said that as a result of the complaint, an internal recommendation had been made requiring better communication between the landlord and residents. It provided the resident with contact details for the new property manager for the building and said that he would be the resident’s “go to person going forwards.” The landlord also said the property manager would contact the resident directly to discuss his concerns.
  4. The landlord investigated the communications aspect of the complaint further at stage 2. It found that part of the issue was that in order to update residents, the landlord was reliant on updates from contractors and operational teams. It said that to improve communications in future, it would work with these parties to ensure they were all aware of the expected timescales for repairs. The landlord also said that having reviewed this complaint, it would ensure going forward that it keeps residents informed where there are ongoing repair issues. This demonstrated that in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was taking the lessons learnt from this case to improve future service delivery.
  5. A further aspect of the resident’s complaint was that he and his partner were not supported by the landlord. The landlord has a prioritisation policy which aims to identify specific support needs of residents, be they long-term or temporary, and to be proactive so residents are not at risk of harm where there is an interruption to service. The policy sets out a list of examples of interventions the landlord may consider where a resident needs support, including prioritising repairs and providing suitable temporary accommodation where a repair cannot be provided within a reasonable timescale. It states that the list is not exhaustive and that staff should feel empowered to determine when special priority is applicable.
  6. When the resident contacted the landlord to advise of the difficulties his partner was having with using the stairs, the landlord did not consider whether its prioritisation policy was applicable. It took no steps to prioritise the repair, nor did it consider any support that could be put in place to assist the resident and his partner pending the repair of the lift. Instead, the landlord advised the resident on a phone call shortly after the baby was born that it could provide no assistance and that he should consider staying with family until the lift was fixed. The landlord said the resident could not store a pram in the communal area and it did not consider whether it could provide any alternative storage solutions. The landlord’s response was unreasonable as it failed to consider its prioritisation policy and showed a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation.
  7. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the lack of support in its stage 2 response. It said that having reviewed this complaint, it would consider the practical support measures it could offer to residents in similar situations, such as helping with carrying shopping or pushchairs. It said that if the lift was out of service again, the property management team would review any vulnerabilities and requirements for support, which would extend to considering additional storage facilities for pushchairs. This was a further example of the landlord learning from outcomes in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a discretionary payment of up to £150 maximum to be paid to residents for stress and inconvenience. It states that there can be a separate payment for each element where the landlord has failed. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for stress and inconvenience in the stage 1 response. It then offered an additional £150 at stage 2 for its lack of communication and support. In the Ombudsman’s view this was a fair and reasonable offer. It was made at the top end of the landlord’s compensation scale to reflect firstly the failure in communication and support, and secondly the stress and inconvenience its failures caused the resident. Compensation for the delays in the repair to the lift was dealt with separately, as explained above, through a payment to all residents calculated in line with the compensation policy.
  9. It is evident there were failings by the landlord in terms of the time taken to repair the lift on each occasion of breakdown between May 2022 and January 2023, and in relation to its communications and provision of support. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its complaint responses. It offered compensation in line with its policy and it set out the actions it would take following its review of the complaint to improve service delivery in the future. Its complaint responses were in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the handling of the communal lift repair.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. As outlined above, the landlord’s approach to addressing the complaint about its handling of the lift repair was overall good and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, there were two complaint handling issues identified during the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  2. Firstly, the landlord’s complaint responses were late at both stages of the process. The landlord’s complaint policy, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), require complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days. From the date of the acknowledgement, complaints must then be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord does not appear to have acknowledged receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and the response was issued 25 working days after the complaint was made. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint after 7 working days and provided the response 25 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord did not apologise during the complaints process for the delay in issuing both responses. This amounts to service failure in complaint handling for which the landlord should pay the resident £50 in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance.
  3. The second complaint handling issue is that the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in its entirety. The Code is clear that landlords must address each element of a resident’s complaint. In this case, in addition to the landlord’s handling of the lift repair, the resident also raised concerns about the management of the building. When making his initial complaint he said, “The management of the problem from [the landlord] appears to be failing, no one is responsible for the block. Why do we a pay service charge for management?” In his escalation request he referred to there being “essentially no management and no service” between May 2022 and January 2023. As such, he asked for a full refund of his service charge during this period.
  4. The service charge for the building covers much more than lift maintenance. The landlord has a guidance document setting out what a service charge typically covers. It includes, for example, block cleaning, maintenance, and repairs to the building and other communal areas, testing and servicing of fire systems and equipment, servicing of door entry systems, energy supplies to communal areas, insurance of any engineering equipment such as lifts, administration fees, and ad hoc costs such as pest control.
  5. Given this, the complaint that there was no management of the building is much wider than the complaint about the handling of the lift. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider this as a separate issue requiring investigation and a response. It should reasonably have considered whether the provision within its compensation policy was engaged which states, “where a paid estate service has not been provided at all or badly provided, residents will receive reimbursement of service charges for the period that the service was failing.” The policy does not qualify this to say that it does not apply in the case of lift breakdowns where the provision providing for the payment of £1 per day is applicable. On the face of the policy, the two provisions operate independently from each other and the landlord has not provided an explanation to say otherwise. Given that the resident specifically asked for his service charge fees to be reimbursed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate firstly whether it had failed to provide any other management services during the period, and thereafter to consider whether in line with its policy there should be a full or partial refund of service charge fees. The fact it did not do this was a further failing in its complaint handling for which the landlord should pay the resident £50 in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance.
  6. The total amount of compensation to be paid to the resident for the service failure in complaint handling is therefore £100. The landlord should also consider the resident’s request for a refund of his service charge fees between May 2022 and January 2023 in line with its compensation policy. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision, this should then be progressed through the complaints process and should not be time barred given it was due to a complaint handling failure of the landlord that this request was not dealt with sooner.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its handling of repairs to a communal lift.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation on account of the complaint handling failures.
    3. Consider the resident’s request for a refund of his service charge fees between May 2022 and January 2023 in line with its compensation policy. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision, this should then be progressed through the complaints process and should not be time barred given it was due to a complaint handling failure of the landlord that this request was not dealt with sooner.

 

Recommendations

  1. The determination of reasonable redress in relation to the handling of the lift repairs is contingent on the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience. If that compensation has not been paid, the landlord should reoffer it to the resident. It should be offered in addition to the £100 ordered in this report for the complaint handling failure.