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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202002279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002279

A2 Domination Housing Limited

19 September 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. The quality of cleaning to the windows at the property.
    2. The contractor’s conduct and use of PPE.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association. The resident is a vulnerable tenant and suffers from severe asthma.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord will provide a written response within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response they can request a review of the decision and the landlord aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. Under the lease agreement the resident has an obligation to pay the landlord any outgoings incurred by the landlord at a fair and proper proportion attributed to the premises determined by the landlord which includes paying for a service charge.
  4. Under Section 5 of the lease agreement, and subject to the payment of the service charge, the landlord shall procure the maintenance, repair, redecoration, improvement and renewal of the external parts of the window forming the flat including window frames. Under the service agreement the windows at the property are cleaned biannually with the resident covering the cost as part of their service charge.
  5. The landlord’s website outlines its guidelines for its contractors wearing PPE when working in and around resident’s homes. It states that if working inside a mask should be worn by its contractors if social distancing cannot be observed. It advised that before it visits a resident’s home if the resident is self-isolating or shielding it should let the landlord know through an online form or contact the landlord directly to rearrange the works.

Summary of events

  1. On 18 June 2020, the landlord sent a notice to all residents that advised that windows at the property would be cleaned between 22 and 25 June 2020.
  2. On 22 June 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the inefficient cleaning of the windows at the property. She advised that she had been working from home and had witnessed the clean and was unhappy with the result. She advised that she was not prepared to pay for a service that did not happen or was done poorly.
  3. On 10 July 2020, contractors reattended the resident’s property to review the work performed on 22 July 2020. The operatives observed that there was a small amount of dust on the outside of the window but given that the clean took place two weeks ago that was normal. It advised that the dirt was on the inside of the window at the property and demonstrated using a tissue.
  4.  On 11 July 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to a number of issues that occurred at the property, these included:
    1. That she was not satisfied with the quality of works performed by the window cleaners at the property. She asked to speak with the managing director but he left the property without talking to her.
    2. That the contractor used saliva to indicate how clean the window was on the inside of her property after the resident had explained that she and her toddler were shielding.
    3. The contractors use of PPE – she advised that her and her toddler were shielding due to pre existing medical conditions and the contractors that attended the property were not wearing appropriate PPE. When asked, the contractor pulled up his jumper over his nose and mouth.
  5. On 15 July 2020, the landlord contacted the cleaners about the issues and was advised that at no time were they informed that the resident’s were shielding and claimed that the resident was aggressive towards its staff. It advised that social distancing was maintained during the cleaning. It advised that the contractor had used a tissue to demonstrate to the resident that there was dirt on the inside of the window. It stated that if the operative did use spit to prove the theory, then it should not have taken place and that its workers had been informed not to use this technique going forward and offered an apology. It advised that the resident was the only one in the whole building who complained about the work.
  6. On 27 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following issues:
    1. Cleaning of the windows – It spoke with its Environmental Team and it confirmed that not all windows at the property were included in the service. It advised that some windows could be swivelled and cleaned from the inside which residents were supposed to do themselves. It advised that going forward a member of staff would be present during the long weekend clean and once the clean had finished resident’s would be given 24hrs to raise any issues so they could be resolved immediately.
    2. The use of PPE – The operatives that attended the resident’s property were unaware that anyone was shielding. It had been informed that the operative pulled a jumper over his face to compensate for his lack of mask and that two metre social distancing measures were being observed. It advised that the Law did not state that a surgical mask needed to be worn.
    3. The contractor’s conduct – the landlord spoke with the contractor who disputed the resident’s claims and stated that he just used a tissue to perform the test. It advised that if the operative used spit on the tissue to show the dirt on the window, then it should not have been done and that operatives had been advised not to use this technique. It offered the resident an apology and said that as a good will gesture the contractors would return to reclean the windows at the resident’s flat.
  7. On 27 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and advised that she was still not happy with the work performed by the contractors and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She advised that the cleaners had turned up without prior notice and that the job was not done to her satisfaction.
  8. On 4 August 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage two of its complaints procedure and advised that it would provide a written response by 9 September 2020.
  9. On 31 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response and addressed the following issues:
    1. Lack of PPE – It apologised for any inconvenience that the resident may have experienced. It advised that the matter had been raised with its contractors and they advised that there was no mention of shielding when they requested access. It said that social distancing was observed however it accepted they should have also worn PPE and this would be part of its lessons learnt.
    2. Its complaints handling – the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was not escalated in line with its complaints policy due to an administrative error. It said that this was unacceptable and acknowledged that the delay caused the resident further frustration. It advised that it had recently recruited and trained several new caseworkers to deal with some of the issues caused by its recent system upgrade. The landlord offered the resident £225 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to communicate with the resident and its delay in providing its stage two response. It also stated that this case was also raised as part of lessons learnt, and it would make every effort to streamline the service delivery in such situations.
  10. On 2 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that upon receiving her HOS complaint it had undertaken a review of the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the level of customer service experienced by the resident and provided a new compensation offer which included £120 for the resident’s time and trouble and £150 for the ‘stress and inconvenience caused’ for the delay in providing its complaint response totalling £270.

Assessment and findings

The quality of cleaning to the windows at the property.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman in this situation is not to determine if there was a fault with the cleaning of the windows at the property but to assess how the landlord responded to such reports. The landlord had an obligation under the lease agreement to clean and maintain the windows on the outside of the building. Under the service agreement the windows are cleaned biannually and paid for by the resident through the service charge.
  2. The resident raised the issue in relation to the quality of cleaning on 22 June 2020, the landlord took a resolution focused approach and had the contractors re attend the property to inspect the cleaning performed and it was reported that the windows were cleaned in line with its service agreement. Following further complaints from the resident the landlord took a resolution focused approach and advised that the service would re attend the property to perform further cleaning works as a goodwill gesture. The landlord also appropriately advised that going forward a member of staff would be present during window cleanings and upon completion residents would be given 24hrs to raise any issues so they can be resolved immediately which was appropriate and in line with best practice.
  3. Overall, the steps taken by the landlord were appropriate to investigate the resident’s claims in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property. It organised for the contractors to re attend to perform further cleaning as a goodwill gesture in line with its obligations under the lease agreement. It suitably advised that going forward a member of staff would be present to deal with any complaints which was appropriate to address any future concerns.

The contractor’s conduct and use of PPE

  1. The resident made a complaint that the contractors who attended her property on 10 July 2020 did not have appropriate PPE and used spit on the inside of her window whilst she and her child were shielding. It is not for this service to determine if the conduct took place but how the landlord responds to the resident’s reports.
  2. The landlord upon receiving the complaint from the resident appropriately investigated the matter and contacted the contractor in question who advised that he did not use spit but simply a tissue to demonstrate the dirt on the inside of the window. The landlord suitably offered the resident an apology and advised that the contractors had been advised not to use any such technique going forward. Given the conflicting reports the landlord’s actions in investigating the matter, speaking with both parties and providing guidelines going forward was appropriate and sufficient to remedy any such failure.
  3. The resident also raised the issue that the contractors were not wearing masks when they attended the property on 10 July 2020 whilst the resident and her child were shielding. Under the landlord’s Covid-19 guidelines published on its website, masks should be worn by contractors inside the property where social distancing cannot be observed. The resident stated that when she asked the contractor to put on a mask he ‘pulled his shirt over his nose’. This was not approprate given the residents vulnerabilities and the landlord should have taken steps to ensure that its contractors observed its Covid-19 guidelines and wore the appropriate PPE when entering a resident’s homes.
  4. The landlord advised that it spoke with the contractors who said that they were not informed that the resident was shielding, however as they were entering an apartment it is unlikely social distancing could be observed and therefore, they should have been wearing appropriate PPE. Overall, the landlord appropriately investigated the matter however it failed to ensure that its contractors were wearing the appropriate PPE in line with its Covid-19 guidance which caused the resident evident distress.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made her stage one complaint on 10 July 2020 and the landlord provided a stage one response on 27 July 2020, in line with its complaints policy. The resident asked for a review of the decision on 27 July 2020 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two review on 31 December 2020. This represents a four–month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two complaint response which was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy.
  2.  The landlord appropriately offered the resident £270 for the delays experienced at stage two of the complaints process and for the resident’s time and trouble. This amount was sufficient to adequately compensate for the delays and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It fittingly advised that this case was also raised as part of lessons learnt, and it would make every effort to streamline the service delivery going forward.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the contractors conduct and use of PPE.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the quality of cleaning to the windows at the property.

Reasons

  1. The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. The landlord however offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as having adequately redressed all the issues.
  2. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and investigated the resident’s reports in relation to the quality of cleaning at the property in line with best practice. It took a resolution focused approach and had the contractors reattend to further clean the property as a goodwill gesture and advised that going forward it would have a staff member present to deal with any complaints.
  3. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s claims and spoke with the contractors, apologised to the resident and issued guidance going forward in relation to the saliva incident. It however failed to ensure that its contractors used PPE when entering the resident’s flat which caused the resident significant distress.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150  in respect of the distress experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s contractor’s failure to observe its Covid-19 guidance.
  2. This amount is to be paid within four weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the previously offered £270 compensation.