A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202410443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410443

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

23 January 2025

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:
1. handling of concerns about a balcony.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom second-floor flat within a block with a pedestrian footway directly below. The resident occupies the property with her child. The landlord advised it is not the freeholder of the block.
On 28 June 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her balcony glass was unsafe. The landlord’s contractor inspected the balcony on 29 July 2022. Following further contact from the resident on 22 August 2022 the contractor inspected the balcony again on 21 and 22 September 2022. It recommended that ‘urgent’ scaffolding be placed around the balcony to stop the glass from falling out and said the situation was an emergency. Subsequently, in October 2022, they advised the landlord that they could not repair the balcony. They explained that the glass in the balconies had moved to some degree across the whole block and was a structural issue that needed to be treated as a latent defect.
On 5 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports. She said she had contacted the landlord multiple times for an update, but it had failed to respond. She added that there were gaps in the glass and felt the situation was a health and safety risk. She was concerned that nothing had been done to resolve the issue and asked for the balcony to be assessed.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. It upheld the complaint and, said:
1. It apologised that its communication had not met its expected standards.
2. It referred the matter to the original builder (OB) in November 2022 but they did not respond. It continued to chase them throughout December 2022 and January 2023.
3. The OB responded in February 2023 and advised that the matter was with the managing agent (MA), with whom it had discussions at that time.
4. In September 2023, it was informed that a different managing agent (DMA) had been appointed. Subsequently, it contacted them but did not receive an update.
5. It had formally written to the DMA for an update and would instruct its legal team to contact them and the freeholder if they did not provide a satisfactory update.
6. It would contact the resident again by 9 February 2024 with an update.
On 19 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had not received an update as promised and was concerned about the lack of progress. She added that she had made around 30 calls to the landlord and spent her time constantly chasing. She explained that the glass panels were unsecured, the gaps had increased, and she felt it was only a matter of time before they fell out. She felt her balcony was unsafe and there was a lack of urgency in resolving the matter.
On 8 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
1. On 5 February 2024 it wrote to the DMA advising them that it would withhold future payments if it did not receive a response.
2. Although the DMA responded to subsequent emails, they did not provide any information on what action they had taken.
3. It wrote to the DMA again in February and March 2024 and if they did not respond by 12 March 2024 it would request a formal meeting with them.
4. It apologised for not updating the resident as it said it would and offered £100 compensation for its lack of communication.
5. It would update the resident by 15 March 2024.
In her referral to this Service the resident said that her balcony was very unsafe and caused her anxiety. She said the landlord had not kept her updated nor communicated with her properly and she was unhappy with its handling of her complaint. She felt the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and added that despite the landlord acknowledging its failings it had done nothing to resolve things. Further, she added that that this matter was still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Handling of concerns about a balcony

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case the landlord appeared to have referred the issue with the balcony to the freeholder/MA as it assessed that this was a structural issue affecting the whole block. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will not carry out repairs in cases where it manages and owns a property that has a superior landlord who is responsible for some or all of the repair obligations. It adds that in emergency cases it may step in, to address health and safety concerns.
The resident has provided this Service with a timeline of events. This timeline showed the resident first reported this matter to the landlord on 28 June 2022. Although the landlord’s records appear to confirm this it has only provided this Service with limited evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what action was taken in response to the resident’s initial report, which likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
This Service has also identified other record-keeping issues, including a lack of call notes and evidence to support the action the landlord said it took in response to the resident’s concerns. Some of these record-keeping issues have been referred to in this report. However, no orders or recommendations have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman has made record-keeping orders in similar landlord cases.
As such, this Service, where appropriate, has relied on the resident’s timeline of events from 28 June 2022 onwards. This timeline showed that following her initial report the landlord’s contractor inspected the balcony on 29 July 2022 just over a month later. They found there was a ‘very serious’ structural issue. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action following this inspection. This is a failing on the landlord’s part who should have acted promptly to try and resolve the matter.
Its failure to do so, led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update on 22 August 2022. She said that the contractor had looked at the glass panels in the balconies and had advised that they looked dangerous. In response the landlord instructed its contractor to ‘attend fairly quickly’ noting that from photos it had seen it was ‘just a matter of time when the glass would collapse’. However, no further inspection took place until 21 September 2022, 1 month later. Given that the landlord was aware of the potential seriousness of the situation this was inappropriate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking her safety concerns seriously.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged that it was an ‘emergency situation’ and agreed to have scaffolding erected. It noted it would have to ‘swallow the cost’ due to the ‘high risk’. In the circumstances, this was an appropriate initial response. However, it subsequently declined to take any action and removed the scaffolding. On 1 October 2022 the landlord’s internal records stated it was a latent defect and a structural issue that it could not ‘possibly repair’, noting that the glass on the balconies had moved across the whole building. However, there is no evidence that it informed the resident of its findings. Nor did it inform her of the steps it intended to take to resolve the matter. This was despite the resident chasing the landlord for updates on multiple occasions. This would have caused time and trouble and further distress and inconvenience given her anxiety that the balcony was unsafe and unusable.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it referred this matter to the OB in November 2022 and continued to chase them throughout December 2022 and January 2023. However, this Service has seen no evidence to reconcile this. In any case, this was an unreasonable delay considering the recognised safety concerns and the fact the resident had reported this issue in June 2022, around 5 months before. Its stage 1 response also mentioned various other steps it said it had taken to engage with the MA and DMA. However, again, there is no evidence to support this. In any event, it did not inform the resident of these actions at the time. These were failures in communication that would have caused frustration and distress to the resident who was likely unaware of what was happening.
Its stage 1 response also said that it would instruct its legal team to contact both the DMA and freeholder if it did not receive a satisfactory update from them. It added that it would update the resident by 9 February 2024. Yet, it failed to keep to these commitments, and it is unclear why the landlord did not take more comprehensive action or seek legal advice sooner.
This Service recognises that the landlord is not the freeholder of the block and as such it was reasonable for it to refer the matter to the relevant parties. Nonetheless, the landlord failed to adequately ‘step in’, despite acknowledging that this was a potentially serious health and safety issue. It initially took too long to assess the situation and when it did, no action was taken for over 2 months. It missed opportunities to bring the matter to the attention of the relevant parties at the earliest stage and it is unclear if the action it took in this respect was reasonable and proportionate due to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Furthermore, the landlord’s communication with the resident was unacceptable throughout with it regularly failing to respond to update requests or informing her of the steps it was taking to resolve matters.
Although the landlord apologised for its poor communication and offered £100 compensation in recognition, this did not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident nor go far enough in putting things right. In this case, the landlord recognised as early as July 2022 that this issue was a potentially serious safety concern for the household and the general public. As such it should have considered referring the matter to building control given the risk of the balcony glass falling. Furthermore, the distress to the resident is significant as she remains concerned about disturbing the balcony glass and the health and safety risks to her and her child.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £1,000 should be considered where there were serious failings by the landlord. Further, the landlord’s 2024 compensation policy suggests compensation from up to £750 and above should be considered where there has been extensive customer effort to resolve an issue, considering the length of time to put things right. The resident has advised that this matter remains unresolved. In view of this and considering the serious nature of this issue the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration and orders are made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged and logged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 5 April 2023. However, the landlord failed to respond within its policy timescales. Indeed, it issued its stage 1 response on 25 January 2024, over 9 months later. This was a considerable delay, and the resident chased the landlord for a response on several occasions. This would have caused time and trouble for the resident. Furthermore, its formal responses failed to explain or apologise for the delay. This demonstrated a lack of learning on the landlord’s part and would have caused further frustration to the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not act fairly in this respect. It did not acknowledge the delay and failed to put things right or learn from outcomes. This amounts to maladministration and an order of compensation is made below in line with this Services remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of concerns about a balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,150 comprised of:
  1. £100 as offered in the landlord’s final response if it has not already done so.
  2. A further £900 for the detriment caused to the resident due to failings in the landlord’s handling of concerns about a balcony.
  3. £150 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Inspect the balcony and provide an action plan, including timescales to resolve this matter. In doing so it must assess if this is a health and safety issue and whether it must take immediate action and ‘step in’ in line with its policy. It must also consider what further action it can take to progress matters with the managing agent/freeholder, including whether legal action may be necessary and whether it needs to notify any relevant statutory agencies such as building control. It must write to the resident and this Service with a copy of this action plan.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.