A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202013653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013653

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 September 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request about a driveway adaptation.
2. The handling of the complaint at stage two.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord in respect of the property which is the subject of this complaint.
The tenancy states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including means of access to the property (walkways, steps and paths).
The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. Stage one complaints are to be responded to within 10 working days. If the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one then it must be progressed to stage two of the complaint process. Stage two complaints are to be responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so, in which case, the landlord must offer a detailed explanation to the resident setting out the reason why the matter is not suitable for the complaint process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman (Complaint Handling Code).
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy service standards are to respond to initial enquiries within 10 working days, refer to onward agencies (where needed) within 10 working days, and complete minor adaptation works at an appointment convenient for the resident.
The resident and her daughter both suffer from medical vulnerabilities including a degree of mobility issues as per an Occupational Therapist report of 2015. The landlord and resident’s contact during the timeframe of the complaint in 2020 disclosed that the resident and daughter used a wheelchair.
Around approximately June 2020 there were discussions between the resident and landlord about adapting the driveway to make this more accessible for the resident and her daughter. This did not take place.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord’s neighbourhood officer contacted the contractor and said that it had received an ‘aids an adaptations from the local authority’ to have the driveway smoothed, as both the resident and her daughter were wheelchair users.
On 3 September 2020 the contractor told the landlord that it was waiting for a quote for relaying the front driveway and it would forward this to the landlord.
On 7 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the drive and when this would be carried out.
On 8 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she tried to contact it. The landlord emailed back on 13 October 2020 and the resident asked the landlord to call her.
The resident complained that the request made for a new drive had not been installed five months after it was approved and wanted to raise a complaint (undated record).
The stage one complaint response issued on 20 November 2020 said:
1. The complaint was about the resident’s request for aids and adaptations 5 months ago for a new drive to be installed. The resident sought confirmation of when this would be completed.
2. The resident’s query was with the neighbourhood officer who said that she needed recommendations from contractors.
3. The landlord referred this back to the neighbourhood officer to discuss with the resident. She would oversee the remaining work to make sure it was completed to a good standard and within the timeframe.
4. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and offered £40 compensation.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord’s neighbourhood officer contacted the contractor to chase the work, as this was outstanding.
On 30 November 2020 the contractor told the landlord that it had finished the works. The landlord responded on the same day and told the contractor that no works had been carried out to the driveway and referred to the contractor’s previous communication of September 2020 in which it said it was waiting for quotes for the driveway.
On 2 December 2020 the contractor disputed that it was to carry out the work as another team was carrying out work (putting in ramps and carrying out external work).
On 6 January 2021 the landlord highlighted the contractor’s previous contact to it once more. On the same day, the contractor told the landlord that it had been advised that it would not be undertaking this work to the driveway as the resident had laid their own path and so it was their responsibility to maintain. It said it could arrange a quotation if the landlord wanted to proceed. The landlord told the contractor to proceed and get a quote, as the driveway was dangerous for the resident and her daughter.
The landlord’s complaint chronology which it provided to the Ombudsman said that:
1. In January 2021 the landlord’s housing officer contacted contractors to ask them to lay the driveway as soon as possible due to concern about the resident and her daughter.
2. Due to the pandemic it was difficult to get materials and operatives, which caused delays.
3. In February 2021 the resident completed the work herself and the landlord also offered her another property. It was unaware that she had worked on the driveway herself.
4. As the resident had moved out of the property, the action (driveway) was closed and there was no further contact about it until March 2021 via the Ombudsman.
On 1 March 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to highlight the resident’s complaint to it about the driveway and the difficulty in escalating the complaint. On 9 March 2021 the landlord noted that the resident wanted the complaint raised to stage two.
On 29 March 2021 the resident reported that the landlord had not responded.
On 1 April 2021 the Ombudsman chased a response from the landlord.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord emailed the Ombudsman and said that it understood that the resident had closed the complaint since moving from the property on 25 February 2021 and that the substantive complaint had been about an aids and adaptations request for a new driveway in the property. The landlord said that the resident had been moved to a more suitable property.
On 12 April 2021 the resident asked the Ombudsman for an update and she explained that she had not closed her complaint.
On 12 April 2021 the Ombudsman told the landlord that the resident had not closed the complaint and said that she paid for the adaptation of the drive so that it was suitable for her disability and she had invoices for the repairs. The Ombudsman explained that the resident was still waiting for a complaint response and requested for this to be issued within 5 working days.
The landlord’s complaint chronology which it provided to the Ombudsman said that:
1. The landlord became aware that the complaint had changed, as the resident had completed the work herself, and now sought reimbursement for this.
2. The landlord contacted the resident about this (May 2021) and heard back from the resident on 11 June 2021.
3. The resident said on 30 June 2021 that she only sought reimbursement of the costs, and the landlord had suggested to the Ombudsman that the resident did not look to escalate this issue to stage two but she did have separate issues which she was looking to have the landlord engage with (this is not in the scope of this complaint).
On 16 June 2021 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to request that the resident be given a response within 5 working days (citing the Complaint Handling Code).
On 29 June 2021 the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order asking the landlord to offer a final response to the resident.
On 30 June 2021 the resident called the Ombudsman and explained that the landlord had called her about the complaint and said that there were no records to show what had gone on with the driveway or that the complaint had been escalated. The landlord felt that there had been a miscommunication and asked the resident if she would be happy for a stage one investigation. The resident said that she wanted to understand the delays and an explanation in the stage two response. The resident said that the landlord had told her that there was a process failure which would inform its wider learning.
The stage two (final) response issued on 5 July 2021 said:
1. The resident had not raised a stage two complaint, she was waiting for reimbursement for the driveway once she was able to provide the landlord with an invoice. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a formal stage two response.
2. It understood that the driveway work was approved but took longer to be carried out, so the resident replaced the driveway herself in February 2021.
3. There was some confusion when the resident moved out of the property in February 2021.
4. The landlord did not know the resident had replaced the driveway.
5. The landlord asked the resident for invoice for the works in May 2021. The resident provided this on 11 June 2021 and they spoke on 30 June 2021. The landlord now arranged for the reimbursement of funds. The exact amount is not known by the Ombudsman.
6. There was a higher demand for repair services during the pandemic and it was difficult to source sub-contractors for work such as the driveway. It should have managed the resident’s expectations better.
7. It apologised for the substandard service that the resident received and made a discretionary offer of £150 compensation in recognition of time and trouble and also £100 for stress and inconvenience (total £250).
8. It would carry out staff training on assessing responsive repair timelines correctly so that it does not ‘over promise and under deliver’ and staff on complaints were reminded of the importance of contacting customers when complaints were closed, to ensure the completion of outstanding works.
On 8 July 2021 the Ombudsman asked the resident to confirm that she was happy with the outcome of the complaint and it would close this or confirm why she remained dissatisfied and the outcome she sought.
On 20 July 2021 the resident called the Ombudsman and outlined her outstanding complaint concerns.
1. She needed adaptations when she moved in as the drive was broken and this caused £1000 damage to her car; she was unable to get a wheelchair over this. It is unclear if the resident presented this issue to the landlord as part of the complaint.
2. The landlord had said she needed an OT assessment but she already had approval for the works and the landlord had carried out some of the adaptations in the property already.
3. The contractor did not have the correct brief; they thought that the landlord had chased them about the kitchen but actually the resident was discussing the driveway. The resident then complained and was told that the housing officer would monitor the works (at stage one).
4. Then, the resident experienced a ‘bad accident’ and she requested that her complaint be escalated and she was going to pay to resolve the driveway herself as she was going to need to be able to use a wheelchair over it. The contractor said that the job had been closed for 8 months.
5. The resident said she had also been trying to move for 7 years and the OT recommended that she be moved to a more suitable property; two months later a new property was available and the landlord had said that there was no point in escalating the complaint as she was moving.
6. The resident sought the following outcome: to see a change in the complaint handling. The Ombudsman signposted the resident to the complaint handling code.
The Ombudsman attempted contact with the parties in September 2022 to clarify contact details.

Assessment and findings

In November 2020 the resident said that the driveway had not been carried out despite being agreed to 5 months prior (June 2020). The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and assigned this to someone to oversee. The evidence shows that the landlord’s neighbourhood officer contacted the contractors several times from September 2020 through to January 2021 to direct it to carry out the works. It acknowledged in the complaint response that there was confusion over the works; it then became apparent in February 2021 that the resident had carried out works herself (seemingly in January 2021, according to the contractor’s emails).
There was an evident failure by the landlord’s response times in carrying out the adaptations. The landlord did not dispute the adaptations or that there had been a failure. It took reasonable steps to explain the situation to the resident and it was transparent about the failures which had happened. However, it has not shown how it intends to monitor urgent adaptations, which would have been a reasonable learning outcome from this complaint.
The landlord took reasonable steps to put things right by reimbursing the resident for the cost of the works which she carried out. It also acknowledged the impact on her in both time and trouble, and stress and inconvenience, by way of redress. However, its offer of £250 is not proportional to the overall detriment to the resident.
The resident experienced seven/eight months in which the adaptations were outstanding and she and her daughter were left without safe access to the property despite their known vulnerabilities (both wheelchair users). There was a significant impact on the resident. Although the landlord acknowledged a failure in its service, it has not addressed the resident’s vulnerabilities and how she was affected by the delay in is adaptations. As a result, it did not offer proportional redress. Therefore, there has been maladministration.
The landlord has not demonstrated an acknowledgement of the complaint handling failure which occurred; the resident experienced time and trouble having to use the Ombudsman’s intervention to escalate her complaint to stage two. Contrary to the landlord’s persistent position that the resident had not escalated the complaint, the resident explained that she had not closed the complaint and she remained dissatisfied with the delays and sought for a change in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord only provided a stage two complaint on 5 July 2021 four months after the Ombudsman contacted it in March 2021. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the expected service standards.
The landlord attributed the escalation to the Ombudsman rather than recognise the resident’s voice. This reluctance to accept a stage two complaint impedes resident access to further dispute resolution (eg the Ombudsman) and it prevents the resident from having a clear understanding of the processes which they have expected to engage in. This causes time and trouble.
The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint handling failure such as the delay and it did not accept that the resident had wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident experienced time and trouble. There has been maladministration in the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the complaint about the driveway adaptation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the handling of the complaint at stage two.

Reasons

The landlord did not offer proportional redress for the overall impact of the delays in carrying out the adaptations which left the resident and her daughter without safe access to the property for seven/eight months. The landlord did not show its learning from the complaint, such as the steps it has taken to prevent delays in urgent adaptations or how it intends to monitor such works.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale despite the Ombudsman’s intervention and requests; the landlord issued a final response several months after this should have been carried out. It did not demonstrate learning from the failure nor did it offer redress. The resident experienced time and trouble.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience, comprised of £450 for the adaptations delay (to be reduced by the amount of compensation already paid) and £150 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
2. Confirm to the Ombudsman the steps it has put into place to monitor urgent adaptation requests with its contractors.
3. Remind its complaint handling staff of the service standards for complaint timescales.