A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202305472)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305472

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

1 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 the residents reports of a leak and associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. She has occupied the property, which is a two-bedroom third floor flat since 12 April 2022. The resident has no vulnerabilities and the landlord’s records reflect this. The landlord lets the property to key workers at an intermediate rent level. The rent charged per calendar month was £950 for financial year 2022-2023, £1016.50 for financial year 2023-2024 and £1087.66 for the current financial year.
The resident reported water ingress to the property on 21 and 22 October 2022. She advised the landlord that there was damage to the walls in the bedroom and that her carpet was soaking wet. She requested an emergency call out. The landlord logged an emergency call on 21 October 2022. It logged another on 24 October 2022 which it later cancelled.
The resident advised this Service that she called the landlord again on 26 and 28 October 2022. A roofing contractor (contractor A) attended the property on 9 November 2022 and told the resident that it would send a quote to the main contractor the landlord used for repairs (contractor B).
The resident advised us that she called contractor A and B 6 times between 9 November 2022 and 25 January 2023. She said she also called the landlord who advised her that she needed to talk to contractor B. The resident called contractor B again on 27 January 2023 and it told her that it was trying to find keys to access the roof and would phone her back. She called contractor B again on 30 and 31 January 2023.
The resident complained on 10 February 2023 about the water damage and mould that had been present in the property since October 2022. She said that she was “frustrated at being bounced between the landlord, contractor A and contractor B.” She said that she had moved out of her bedroom into the adjacent one because she did not want to sleep in damp conditions.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 1 March 2023. It upheld her complaint. It said that it had identified a “breakdown in communication between internal teams as well as the contractor which has prolonged this repair” and apologised for this. It said that it had raised a new repair request on 17 February 2023 which had been issued to contractor A. It said that once the leak was rectified it would carry out remedial work and that all work would be completed by 12 May 2023. It gave her a named contact for a staff member who would oversee the work and who she could contact directly for updates. It offered £350 compensation:
1. £100 for stress and inconvenience,
2. £100 for communication breakdown
3. and £150 for the length of time the repair had taken.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said that the landlord had failed to recognise some aspects of the complaint and that she would like to escalate the complaint if it was unable to offer more compensation to reflect these. She pointed out that she had been unable to sleep in her bedroom since October 2022 due to the damp and that the damp conditions also meant that her bedframe was damaged.
The resident emailed the landlord and contractors asking for updates on 10 more occasions between 5 April 2022 and 12 May 2022. There is evidence that she received a response on 2 occasions. Contractor B advised that it still had issues with accessing the roof due to a locked gate. It promised a visit by a supervisor on 18 April 2023 but no-one attended. It emailed the resident on 12 May 2023 to tell her that it had purchased a lock and that a lock smith would fit it on 19 May 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023. It said that it understood that the resident wanted more compensation and that the repair was still outstanding. It said that it now requested that the repairs be “expedited as a priority”. It offered £750 compensation broken down as:
1. £100 for stress and inconvenience,
2. £100 for communications issues,
3. £100 for quality of service,
4. £150 for length of time taken,
5. £250 for time taken to complete works,
6. and £50 for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
There is evidence that the resident emailed the landlord to chase payment of the compensation at least 3 times. She told us in September 2024 that she has not received the compensation offered. A contractor completed the roof repair in December 2023. An inspector conducted a damp inspection on 22 February 2024 which reported that there was evidence of penetrating damp in the bedroom and living room caused by the previous roof leak. The landlord completed the remedial works recommended by the damp inspector on 30 May 2024. The resident has advised us that she reported another leak in July 2024 which the landlord has not yet repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

Reference to events that occurred after the stage 2 complaints response are included for reference only and are not otherwise considered with the exception of the recommendation set out below.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated repairs.

We asked the landlord to provide evidence of repairs reports and the date and type of action it took for each report. It provided some undated repairs reports and anecdotal evidence, not taken direct from its systems. We also asked it to provide evidence of telephone calls and emails sent to the resident concerning the repairs but it was unable to provide these. This has hampered the investigation in this case and we have relied mainly on evidence provided by the resident when investigating the landlord’s response to the leak.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. Given the above there was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the premises in good repair, including the roof. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it attends emergency repairs to make safe within 4 hours and that it will complete emergency and standard repairs within 20 working days.
The resident reported the leak on 21 October 2022. The landlord has advised us that a contractor attended at 9pm on the same day and resolved the leak, however the resident disputes this. As there is evidence that the resident called again the next day to say that the leak had worsened it is apparent that the contractor did not rectify the fault on 21 October 2022. The roof, which was the cause of the leak, was not repaired until December 2023, 14 months later.
The resident was living with damp and mould throughout this period. This lengthy delay was not acceptable and not in accordance with the landlord’s policy of completing a repair within 20 working days. It caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience and it cost her time and trouble chasing the repair on numerous occasions.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that there are several causes of damp, one of which is “external penetrating damp – this is where water leaks through walls.” An example given of the cause of this type of damp is roof leaks. The policy says that it “sets out a clear framework for the landlord to monitor, action and respond to reports of damp and includes proactive and reactive investigations”.
The landlord failed to adhere to this policy when it allowed the resident to live with damp and mould from October 2022 until May 2024. It did not carry out a damp survey at the property until February 2024.
The resident complained that she was “bounced” between the landlord and its 2 contractors. The landlord admitted that this was an issue and that it had contributed to the delay in completing the repair in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident was told by the landlord to call contractors herself but the landlord should have taken responsibility for making sure that the repair was completed and its obligations were fulfilled. This failing caused the resident inconvenience and cost her further time and trouble.
One of the main causes for the delay in repairing the roof was a lack of keys to access it. Despite the landlord committing to completing the full repair including remedial works by 12 May 2023, contractor B did not purchase a replacement lock until that date. The landlord should have had oversight of the repair, particularly as it was subject to a complaint, and taken responsibility for ensuring that this issue was rectified sooner. This failing caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
Both the landlord and contractor B’s communication was poor. There is evidence that the resident emailed on numerous occasions for an update but we have seen no evidence that she received a response to most of these emails. She was also promised a visit from a supervisor and was not advised that he would not attend. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had arranged time off work. She told the landlord that she had to move out of her bedroom due to the damp but it still failed to act. This communications failure also cost her considerable time and trouble during her down time from working in a stressful role for the NHS.
The £700 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings because:
1. As set out above the delay in identifying the cause of the leak, what remedial work was required and in carrying out the necessary work was significant.
2. The landlord added to the resident’s distress by failing to keep her updated about how it was addressing the issues.
3. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates.
4. The landlord did not take into account when awarding the compensation that the remedial works had still not been completed and it did not know when they would be completed.
5. The landlord also did not take into account that the resident had not been able to use her bedroom to sleep in.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation for loss of a room or amenity will be payable when something has gone wrong. It specifically gives the example of “a roof leak may be compensated to cover a percentage of rent paid and any inconvenience caused.” The payment schedule in the policy for loss of a bedroom is 35% of the rent charged.
The resident had not been able to sleep in her main bedroom for 8 months at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, however the landlord did not offer compensation for this. Therefore, to reflect this an order has been made for the landlord to pay a further £2,577.35 which is 35% of the rent the resident paid during the 8 months. This reflects the loss amenity. A further £800 has also been ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident and the significant impact it has had on her.
Due to the failings identified there was severe maladministration in the landlords handling of the leak and associated repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time (the Code) said that “the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.”
The stage 1 complaint response informed the resident the date by which all repairs would be complete. However, the landlord did not follow the remedy through to completion. Another example of not following the remedy through to completion was when it offered compensation which, despite chasing, the resident says she has not received. This complaint handling failure meant that the landlord did not use the complaints process to resolve the issue. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, prolonged the resolution of the repair and cost her time and trouble chasing responses.
The Code also said “landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.” The landlord’s complaints policy complied with the code.
However, the landlord took 66 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This cost her time and trouble because she emailed the landlord several times to chase the response. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code also said that “communication with the resident should not generally identify individual members of staff or contractors as their actions are undertaken on behalf of the landlord.” However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord repeatedly referred to a specific member of staff and their handling of the stage 1 complaint. This failure to follow the Code meant that the landlord was not considering that all staff members are acting on its behalf and that it is responsible for their actions.
The stage 2 complaints response did not give adequate focus to resolving the outstanding repairs. The only time it referred to the repairs, which were the cause of the initial complaint, was when it said that they were still outstanding. The only update given was that it had “contacted the repairs manager for an urgent update, and I have also requested that your repairs are now expedited as a priority.” This failure to offer a remedy which clearly set out what would happen and when, gave the resident no further insight into when the issues would be resolved which caused her further distress.
The landlord’s compensation policy said that if a resident believes that it, or a contractor working on behalf of the company, “is liable for damage or personal injury then the claim should be assessed and referred to the appropriate insurance company.”
The resident told the landlord, in her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process, that her bed had been damaged due to exposure to damp conditions. It should have signposted her to its insurance company but it failed to do so. This failure to follow its own policy meant that the resident was not given the opportunity for her claim to be assessed.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for complaint handling due to the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. This was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the complaint handling failures. Therefore, an order for it to pay a further £200 has been made.
Due to the failures identified there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident directly a total of £4,327.35 in compensation:
  1. £750 as originally offered by the landlord at stage 2.
  2. £2,577.35 in accordance with its policy for the lack of a bedroom from when the repair was reported until the complaint process was complete.
  3. £800 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling the leak.
  4. £200 to recognise the further distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling.
2. Apologise to the resident. A senior member of staff must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures in this case.
3. Signpost the resident to its insurance company regarding the damaged bed.
The landlord must review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information with regards to its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords. This to be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f. This was in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould and complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has now demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure that the new leak is rectified in line with its policies.