A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202209000)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209000

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

23 September 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:
1. Hot water repairs
2. Front door repairs.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between 2008 and 2023. The property was a 1 bedroom flat.
The property had an electric heating and hot water system, including an immersion heater.
The landlord had a contact arrangement in place with the resident, which included that all contact was to be made via a single, named individual.

Summary of events

On 1 July 2021, the resident reported a large gap around the front door. The landlord raised a routine works order and noted that it tried contacting her twice by phone to arrange this and sent a letter. It cancelled the job 11 days later, due to no access being provided.
The following month, the resident reported a gap between the front door and the frame and that it was stiff to open. The landlord raised a routine works order and booked to attend on 10 September 2021.
The landlord sent a text message to the resident on 9 September 2021, confirming the appointment for the following day. It attended the following day and noted that no access was given. It said it attempted to contact the resident that day and 4 days later but was unable to speak with her and sent a letter. The repair was closed on 21 September 2021, due to no contact.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord raised a routine works order to check for gaps around the front door. In a subsequent email exchange between the landlord and the resident, the landlord advised her of an appointment on 22 November 2021.
The landlord attended on 22 November 2021 and noted that it adjusted the door. The operative fed back that an asbestos survey was required for the floor tiles in the hallway by the front door, before any further works could be completed. The next day the landlord contacted its asbestos contractor to arrange the asbestos survey.
On 23 December 2021, the resident reported a fault with the front door that meant she could not open it and get out of the property. The landlord raised an urgent works order and noted that it attended the same day and completed works to resolve this issue, and fitted a draught excluder.
In December 2021 and January 2022, the landlord noted that it attempted to contact the resident to book the asbestos survey.
On 6 January 2022, the resident reported no hot water in the property. The landlord raised an urgent works order and noted that it attended the following day, but no access was given.
At the end of the month, the landlord noted that it booked the asbestos survey with the resident for early February 2022. It subsequently noted no access was given on this date.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported no hot water at the property. The landlord raised an emergency works order and noted it attended the same day, but no access was given.
The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 24 March 2022. She said that she had no hot water supply for nearly 4 months. When she reported this, she was told she would get a call with an appointment but did not receive this. The landlord sent its out of hours contractor who told her to use the booster switch as they could not fix the problem, but this was expensive. The front door had been fitted incorrectly and she had been waiting 1 year for it to be repaired. The door was draughty and unsafe. She asked for compensation for her increased electricity bill and the stress caused.
Four days later, the landlord suggested it attend on 30 March 2022 to complete the asbestos survey, to allow the front door repair to be carried out. The resident replied that it was ignoring the hot water repair. The landlord asked if she had reported this previously and when she would be available for it to attend. It suggested a further date in April 2022 for the asbestos survey.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and said it would respond within 10 days.
The same day, the landlord provided the stage 1 response to the first complaint. It said the resident had not given access for the outstanding repairs to be carried out; and failed to arrange an appointment for works to be done. This had resulted in the delays.
On an unknown date between 29 March and 1 April 2022, the resident asked to escalate her first complaint. She said that works at the property had not been completed and she did not agree that she had not provided access for these to be done. She had not been contacted about the hot water and door repairs and felt she was being ignored, as no appointments had been scheduled.
On 30 March 2022, during an email exchange between the resident and the landlord, the resident confirmed she had reported the hot water issue repeatedly. The landlord said it had attended 2 emergency jobs but not been given access on both occasions. The resident disputed this and asked for proof of the visits, which the landlord provided. The landlord asked her to confirm her availability for the asbestos survey on 12 April 2022. The resident said that the landlord had attended on 6 January 2022 and given her advice about using the booster switch. She said the out of hours operatives could not fix the issue but no one else had attended.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 1 April 2022 and told the resident it would respond by 29 April 2022.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the first complaint. It said it had attended for the hot water issue twice, but the resident did not give access on either occasion. The jobs were raised as urgent and it expected residents to be home for the following 24 hours as the operative could attend any time within this timeframe. It had been trying to arrange an asbestos survey at her property but she had not agreed with the dates proposed and this was causing delays to the works to the door. It had taken appropriate action when she had reported repairs but could not complete the works because she was not giving access.
Later that month, the landlord arranged an appointment to complete the hot water repair on 20 April 2022 and notified the resident of this. This did not go ahead due to staff sickness and the landlord rebooked to attend the following month.
The resident made her second complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2022. She said that repairs to her hot water system had been delayed for 4 months. It had arranged to attend 2 days ago, but had not as the operative was off sick. This had been rebooked, but she was not happy about this. The landlord had said she was cancelling the job and not giving access, but this was not true. She asked for compensation, an apology and confirmation of when the works would be completed.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord provided the stage 1 response to the second complaint. It said the appointment on 20 April 2022, had been cancelled because an operative was unwell. It apologised that it could not get another operative to attend to carry out the works and that this had led to a delay in completing the job. It apologised for the breakdown in communication and confirmed that the repair would be carried out on 10 May 2022. It offered her £179 compensation for the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter and distress and inconvenience. From the records provided, it is not clear whether the landlord attended on 10 May 2022 and if so, what the outcome of this was.
On 29 April 2022, the resident reported she had no hot water at the property. The landlord raised a routine works order and noted that it attended on 23 May 2022. It completed some works, but follow on works were required to replace the immersion heater.
The landlord noted it attended in mid-June regarding the hot water repair but no access was given.
On 21 June 2022, the resident reported that the repairs to the hot water and front door were still outstanding. She said there had been an appointment a few days ago but she had not been told about this.
The landlord replied the following day that it had tried to carry out the repairs but she had not allowed access or refused to confirm appointments. The resident disputed this and said that she wanted her complaints dealt with and for the landlord to stop ignoring her.
The next day, the landlord advised the hot water repair had been rebooked for 27 June 2022. It subsequently noted that it attended on this date, but no access was given.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord advised it would book the asbestos survey and confirm the date with her. Following the no access appointment the previous day, it had rebooked the hot water repair for 18 July 2022. Around 2 weeks later, the resident contacted the landlord to rebook this, which it did for 29 July 2022. The landlord noted it attended on this date, but no access was given.
The same day the resident asked when it would attend to complete the hot water repair. The landlord replied that it had attended many times but not been given access. It rebooked the repair for 16 August 2022 and sent a text message to the resident confirming this. The landlord noted it attended on this date, but no access was given.
On 4 November 2022, the resident reported no hot water at the property. The landlord raised a routine works order and booked to attend on 2 December 2022.
On at least 2 occasions in November 2022, the resident asked when the landlord would complete repairs to the hot water system and front door.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord sent a text message to the resident informing her of the appointment the following day. The landlord noted it attended on 2 December 2022, but no access was given. It recorded that it tried calling the resident that day and 4 days later, but received no response so the repair was closed.
The resident reported no hot water at the property on 6 December 2022. The landlord raised an urgent works order and noted it attended the following day. It identified that follow on works were required and showed the resident how to use the boost option.
Seven days later, the resident asked when the outstanding repairs would be completed.
The landlord attended on 14 December 2022 regarding the hot water repair. It noted the resident was reluctant to allow access and the job was rebooked for 28 December 2022. The landlord noted it attended on this date but could not get the materials required, so the repair did not go ahead. The resident reported this the same day and asked when the repair would be completed.
On 2 January 2023, the resident reported that she had been without hot water for a year. The next day, the landlord booked an appointment for the hot water repair to be completed on 7 February 2023, and sent a text message to the resident confirming this.
Later that month, the landlord asked the resident to provide further details about the outstanding repair issues. The resident replied that she had reported the issues repeatedly and so it knew what the issues were.
The resident made her third complaint to the landlord on 20 January 2023. She said that the hot water and front door repairs had been outstanding for years. She had been ignored and this had negatively affected her mental health.
Six days later, the landlord told the resident that she had cancelled repairs for the front door and hot water in October and December 2022. She disputed this and said that the landlord had attended but did not have the parts to complete the job.
At the end of January 2023, the resident asked when the outstanding repairs would be completed and said she had been ignored. Three days later, the landlord acknowledged the third complaint and apologised for the delay in doing so. It said this was due to a high volume of complaints being received and it aimed to respond within 10 to 20 working days.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it would attend the following day to complete the hot water repair.
The landlord attended on 7 February 2023 and noted no access was given.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions in February 2023, regarding the hot water and front door repairs.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord provided the stage 1 response to the third complaint, which said:
1. It had attempted to carry out repairs but access had been an issue. At one stage, the repair was closed as it had difficulty arranging for the works to be done. Going forward all contact would be with a named contact to resolve any issues relating to access. An appointment had been arranged for 10 March 2023 to complete the hot water repair.
2. It was following up with its contractor regarding the door and would come back to her with a date for an inspection to identify the repair.
3. It partially upheld the complaint as the hot water repair should have been completed sooner. It apologised and identified learning. It offered £135 compensation, made up of £85 for the delay, and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
The same day, the resident reported that her front door did not close properly. The landlord raised a routine works order and noted it attended the following month, but no access was given.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord attended to complete the hot water repair. It noted that access was given but the works could not go ahead as the resident was uncooperative. The same day, the resident reported that the operatives who had attended had been rude and left without completing the repair.
Eleven days later, the landlord advised it had contacted the operatives regarding the visit on 10 March 2023, and confirmed the outcome of this. It told her it had rebooked the repair to be completed on 19 April 2023.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord reminded the resident about the upcoming appointment. The resident replied that she had moved out of the property and asked for the compensation to be paid.

Assessment and findings

Hot water repairs

The landlord was responsible for repairs to the hot water system under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. This said that it would keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for water heating.
The landlord raised at least 5 works orders in relation to the hot water repair. As the resident reported that she was without hot water, this should have been treated as an urgent issue, which the landlord’s repairs policy said it would attend within 24 hours.
The works orders raised in January, February and December 2022, were correctly categorised as urgent and attended within the committed timescale. However, works orders raised in April and November 2022, were incorrectly categorised as routine. This meant that the landlord did not attend until 25 and 29 days later. While this was within the committed timescale for routine repairs, this was too long, considering the resident was without hot water.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were access issues in this case, which would have presented challenges for the landlord. It was reasonable that when urgent works orders were raised, the landlord could not tell the resident exactly when it would attend. The landlord explained this to the resident and that she needed to stay in for the following 24 hours to allow access. While inconvenient for her, this was reasonable, to ensure that she could provide access for the urgent issue to be resolved.
For the majority of non-urgent appointments, there is evidence that the landlord did tell the resident about these in advance. The exception to this was on 14 June 2022, when the landlord attended, but this Service has seen no evidence that the resident was given prior warning of this. It was unreasonable of the landlord to expect the resident to give access, when she was unaware of the appointment.
Similarly, it is important that landlord’s give sufficient notice of appointments. In this case, there is evidence that the landlord did so on all but one occasion, in December 2022, when it only told the resident about the appointment the day before.
When the resident disputed that she had failed to give access in January and February 2022, the landlord provided evidence to show this. It is noted that the resident continued to dispute this; however, it was reasonable that the landlord relied on the evidence and feedback from its contractor. The resident said that an operative did attend her property on 6 January 2022, but could not fix the issue and said follow on works were required. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, we have seen no evidence to confirm this.
The landlord had to cancel an appointment in April 2022, due to staff sickness. While frustrating for the resident, this was beyond the landlord’s control. Where landlords have to cancel appointments, they should proactively rebook these, which it did on this occasion.
The landlord attended at the end of December 2022, but was unable to complete the works required, as they could not source the parts. While frustrating for the resident, this was again, beyond the landlord’s control. On this occasion, the landlord did not proactively rebook this and it was only after the resident contacted the landlord on 2 further occasions, that it rebooked this for around 6 weeks later.
In January 2023, the single named point of contact for the resident changed and they contacted her to introduce themselves. As part of this introduction, they asked for details of the outstanding repairs. This was frustrating for the resident as she had repeatedly reported the issues. The new point of contact should have been aware of this via review of the landlord records or handover with the previous named point of contact.
In subsequent communication, the landlord told the resident that she had cancelled the hot water repair in December 2022. While one repair was closed in early December 2022 due to no contact, a further repair had been raised, but works were not completed due to the landlord being unable to source the parts. Therefore, it was unfair of the landlord to blame the resident for the repair not being completed.
Overall, the hot water repairs were delayed. While a large amount of the delay was not attributable to the landlord, there were some failures in its handling of this matter, which contributed to the delay. The landlord acknowledged this within its complaint responses in April 2022 and March 2023. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered a total of £314 compensation, which was reasonable considering the full circumstances of the case, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident, for its handling of hot water repairs. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £314 compensation, if not done so already.

Front door repairs

The landlord was responsible for repairs to the front door under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. This said it would keep in good repair the structure of the property, including outside doors.
The landlord raised 3 works orders in relation to gaps between the front door and the frame. On each occasion, the landlord raised these as routine repairs, which was reasonable, as this issue did not compromise the safety of the property or the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it would attend routine repairs on the next available appointment that was convenient for the resident. It was reasonable that it closed the first job as it had not received a response to 3 attempted contacts. For the other 2 jobs, it attended in 24 and 22 days, which was reasonable.
The landlord raised 2 works orders in relation to the door not opening/ closing properly. On the first occasion, in December 2021, it raised the repair as an emergency, which was appropriate as this presented a health and safety risk to the resident. It attended the same day, which was in line with its committed response time of 24 hours.
On the second occasion, in March 2023, the landlord raised the repair as routine. This was inappropriate, as the resident had reported the door did not close properly and this presented a safety risk. Therefore, the landlord should have raised this as an emergency repair and attended within the 24 hour committed timescale. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
It was reasonable that the landlord needed to complete an asbestos survey of the floor tiles around the front door, before it carried out works to the frame. The landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange this in late 2021 and early 2022.
While the survey did not go ahead in February 2022, this was not the fault of the landlord. It tried to arrange another appointment for this in March and April 2022, but the resident did not confirm the suggested appointments were suitable. No access appointments often incur costs for landlords and so it is sensible, where possible, to ensure any appointments arranged are confirmed by residents. As the resident did not confirm her availability for either of the appointments offered, it was reasonable that the landlord did not go ahead with these.
As the works to the door frame were non-urgent, it was reasonable that the landlord did not proactively follow up to rebook this after the failed attempts to arranged this in March and April 2022.
The landlord committed to rebook the asbestos survey in June 2022, after contact from the resident; however, there is no record that it did. The resident chased this a further 3 times in 2022, but there is no evidence that the landlord progressed this. This made the resident feel ignored and amounts to maladministration.
When the single point of contact changed in January 2023, the landlord should have ensured that an appropriate handover was done, so that the new member of staff was aware of the outstanding issues. That did not happen and this resulted in the landlord asking the resident to provide details of the outstanding issues, including the door repairs, when she had previously provided this on multiple occasions. This was frustrating for the resident.
In January 2023, the landlord told the resident that she had cancelled the front door repair the previous October 2022; however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. It is not clear if there is missing evidence that has not been provided to the Ombudsman or if this is incorrect. Either way, this is a concern and caused the resident to lose trust in the landlord.
In the landlord’s complaint response in March 2023, it said it would arrange for an inspection of the door; however, this had been done 16 months previously, and resulted in the recommendation that an asbestos survey was required. This suggests the complaint investigation was not done thoroughly and was frustrating for the resident, as the matter was not progressing.
Overall, there were delays in completing the front door repairs. While some of this delay was not attributable to the landlord, there were failures in its handling of this matter, which contributed to the overall delays. These failures amount to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of hot water repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of front door repairs.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its handling of front door repairs.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the £314 compensation already offered for its handling of hot water repairs, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendation, within 4 weeks.