A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202110737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110737

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 August 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire protection works.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The lease started in 2004. The property is a flat in a purpose-built block.
Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that a fire risk assessment is carried out to identify and remove any fire risks and hazards, or to reduce these as far as possible. Landlords are also responsible for ensuring that the properties meet fire safety standards. Regional fire and rescue authorities (such as local fire brigades) are responsible for enforcing the “Fire Safety Order” (the fire safety legislation in England) in non-domestic buildings. This includes the communal areas of residential blocks, but not the inside of residential properties. As fire safety authorities, they can enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations in the building.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. It said that the landlord would acknowledge the complaint within two working days. The complaint procedure provided (which was in place at the time the complaint was made) gave no timescales in which to provide a response at either stage.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord subsequently amended its complaints procedures with effect from 5 October 2020 to align with the Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord is committed to providing an efficient and responsive service to its residents and leaseholders; where the service delivery does not meet the service standard, it will consider compensation for the affected residents. The policy says that, when assessing discretionary financial compensation, the compensation matrix should be used as guidance to ensure consistency. The following factors help ensure that the amount is appropriate and reasonable, including:
1. The passage of time, including response times by the landlord.
2. The amount of time expended by the complainant.
3. The difficulty experienced by the complainant in dealing with the landlord.
For leaseholders, the compensation matrix says that where there has been distress/inconvenience for service failure, payments of between £50 to £150 can be made. The matrix says that for time and trouble, payments of between £25 and £240 can be made. The compensation policy says that a high level of delay is one that no one should be expected to tolerate. This will usually involve the customer having to chase several departments, or in cases where they have not chased, had to wait for over six months for the issues to be resolved.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about his fire safety concerns about the building. He said, since the works were completed, he had been reporting problems to the landlord but they remained unresolved. He attached an email dated 30 November 2018 which outlined the outstanding issues. The resident said he wanted to know:
1. What had gone wrong and what could be done differently to avoid these service delivery problems in the future.
2. Did the landlord inspect the work after completion for quality assurance purposes.
3. When would the contractor attend and remedy the problems.
4. How seriously did the landlord take its responsibility to address fire safety concerns.
5. When will the local fire brigade be invited to come inspect the fire protection works in relation to the notice served the previous year.
To remedy the complaint the resident wanted answers to the above questions; an on–site meeting with the landlord and the contractor to discuss and agree remedial works; a letter to all residents to advise of the outstanding works and when they would be put right as well as an apology and compensation.
On 14 January 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint and said it aimed to respond within 28 working days.
On 25 February 2019 the resident chased up his complaint response and asked for an update.
On 28 February 2019 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not been able to respond to him and said it would call him that day. There is no evidence that call took place.
On 28 March 2019 the landlord said it had not completed its investigation of the resident’s complaint and said it hoped to respond within twenty working days.
On 14 May 2019 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two as he had lodged a complaint four months ago and had not had a response. On the same day the landlord acknowledged this request and confirmed it would escalate to stage two. It acknowledged this request again on 4 June 2019.
On 24 October 2019 the landlord apologised to the resident about the slow progress of its stage two complaint response. It explained it was waiting for its fire contractor manager to carry out an inspection and would provide him with an update as soon as it could.
On 30 October 2019 the landlord told the resident that the fire contract manager would look into the issues raised and would feed this into the stage two response.
On 24 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord when it would fit a new fire door and frame to his flat. On the same day the landlord told him that the contractor would be on site that day to address all compartmentation and riser cupboard issues (but it was waiting for the contractor to confirm); and it would have an answer that day about the fire door for his flat.
On 27 February 2020 the resident asked the landlord if all compartmentation and riser cupboard issues had been addressed.
On 2 March 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident. Following that call the resident emailed the landlord noting that the fire safety works were incomplete and enquired about thresholds to cupboards.
On 11 April 2020 the landlord told the resident it would chase the overdue stage two complaint response.
On 16 April 2020 the resident asked the landlord if the fire safety works had now been completed. He also asked for an update on his complaint.
On 22 May 2020 the resident sought an update from the landlord about the works to resolve his complaint. On the same day the landlord responded saying it would check with its contractors and respond the middle of the following week.
On 4 July and 11 August 2020, the resident raised with the landlord concerns about missing intumescent strips and smoke seals to fire doors. In the email of 11 August 2020, the resident noted the landlord had confirmed that all the fire safety improvement works were now complete.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord apologised to the resident for its delayed response. It explained that its contract manager had confirmed that all cupboard openings (on to the means of escape) that contain a means of ignition, or electrical fixture were fully compliant with the appropriate intumescent strips and cold smoke seals. It noted further that, where needed, threshold strips had also been added and some risers that residents had no reason to go into and contained no fire risk, for example those housing only water pipes, did not require that protection. The landlord also said that the contractor had walked all the floors and re–checked the doors that had thirty-minute barriers against the spread of fire where required to do so. The landlord added that the resident’s complaint was being review in full and that he should receive a final response on or before 28 September 2020.
On 23 October and 3 November 2020, the resident chased up the landlord for the stage two complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the later correspondence the following day.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. The delays in completing the fire safety works were a result of poor contractor performance and it was taking contractual measures to help with that.
2. The landlord gave an assurance that it was monitoring performance more closely and, should performance not improve, it would seek to take further contractual action and consider alternatives.
3. The landlord did not visit to post-inspect the works. It had acknowledged that the works were not up to the required standard when it had met with the resident.
4. It was currently investigating taking “before” and “after” photos to mitigate the risk of future issues with regards to all communal works.
5. It took its fire safety responsibilities very seriously; the response times to these fire safety concerns had regrettably fallen below its own standards.
6. It clarified that inviting the local fire brigade to inspect the fire safety works was not part of its current fire safety management plan nor was it the way the local fire brigade operated.
7. It gave an assurance that all cupboards opening on to the means of escape that contain anything that contains a means of ignition or electrical fixture were fully compliant with the appropriate intumescent strips and cold smoke seals. It added that, where required, threshold strips had also been added.
8. It had walked all the floors and re–checked the doors to ensure that they acted with a thirty-minute barrier against the spread of fire where required to do so.
9. The landlord noted there had been communication failures and delays in responding to the resident and that must have added to the frustration caused to him. It had addressed this with its team that had dealt with this and recognised that the length of time to provide a response had been too long in the circumstances.
10. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for its failings. It offered compensation of £400 made up of £240 for the resident’s time and for the delays he had experienced during the escalation period of complaint and £160 for the communication issues. It said it was aware it could have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively and had raised this issue as part of lessons learnt and would make every effort to streamline the service delivery in such situations.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that the fire protection issues had been resolved; however, he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint. He explained that he was seeking compensation for his time and trouble with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling which he described as “poor and unprofessional”. The resident said he had not received a stage one complaint response and that progressing the complaint had been “very protracted”.
In terms of the impact on the resident, he explained there had been “lots of chasing; mental anguish and anxiety”. He said there had been an earlier issue with damp in his flat and the local authority had become involved and discovered fire safety breaches. He said he was living with that anxiety and trying to resolve matters informally.
The resident said all the complaint had a toll on his mental health and there had been an intervention in March 2019 and he was moved into residential care by the local authority. He acknowledged that was “not totally attributable” to the landlord or contractor’s actions, but they had made things worse. He described how, despite being in rehab, he had to chase the complaint and the effort to do so “was huge”. He said at that stage he was a vulnerable adult; he had disabilities and mental health problems which the landlord was aware of.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire protection works

In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that its oversight of the fire safety works had fallen below the standards it would expect. It explained that the delays in completing the work was due to “poor contractor performance”; it also noted that the works were not up to the required standard.
While there was the underlying issue of the contractor’s performance (which the landlord remained responsible for) the landlord also gave ten deadlines; these were mainly for the complaint but also to deal with the substantive issue, which it then missed. Therefore there was a significant failure in the accuracy and transparency of the landlord’s communication.
The landlord gave details of the action it might take in the future to mitigate the risk of this happening again. The landlord offered compensation of £160 for its poor communication relating to this matter.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The compensation – while being in line with the landlord’s compensation policy offered – does not reflect the full impact on the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided the time and trouble that the resident experienced in trying to get information about the standard and progress of the works since November 2018. The compensation matrix is guidance and this suggests that the landlord has some discretion when considering such awards. Therefore, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, the sum of £300 better reflects the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because it did not issue a stage one response in line with its guidance. Providing only one complaint response poses a number of risks and is not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Providing only a final response is unfair because it did not allow a sufficient opportunity for the resident to respond to the landlord’s position; this would have been an opportunity for the resident to have given the landlord a full picture of his circumstances at that time and the impact the landlord’s actions had had on him. This would then have allowed the landlord to review the complaint, perhaps at a more senior level, which would have brought a wider perspective and level of expertise to the complaint.
The landlord took 22 months to issue a complaint response. While there were no timescales in the complaints procedure that the landlord provided from that time, this excessive delay is a serious complaints handling failure.
The landlord recognised that this delay would have had an impact on the resident and offered compensation of £240 for his time and trouble but this sum does not reflect the full impact on him – the distress and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint for a response for almost two years. The impact on the resident was aggravated by his circumstances from March 2019 onwards which meant that he had to pursue complaint while in an especially poor state of health. The sum of £500 more adequately reflects the impact on the resident by the landlord’s poor complaint handling and recognises that the vulnerable condition of the resident at that time was not fully attributable to the landlord’s actions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire protection works.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged delays and poor contractor performance in relation to the fire safety works. It offered some compensation which the Ombudsman considered did not reflect the full impact on the resident.
There was an excessive delay by the landlord in responding to the complaint. There were many timescales given to the resident, which the landlord did not adhere to. It offered compensation but this did not reflect the significant detriment caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of such compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. To provide the resident with:
  1. A written assurance from the appropriate manager that the fire safety works have been fully completed and are up to the expected standard.
  2. A written apology from the landlord for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £800 (minus any sums already paid) made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact of the landlord’s failures in handling concerns about the fire protection works.
  2. £500 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.
3. Write to the resident and Ombudsman with the following information:
  1. The learning from this complaint and what solutions the landlord has identified to stop problems arising in relation to its contractors.
  2. An explanation of why the landlord did not issue a stage one complaint response and why there was such an excessive delay in issuing the final complaint response.