A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202200884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200884

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

10 November 2023

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 was about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports about repairs to his balcony, repairs to the waste storage area and communication.
2. The resident’s reports of other cyclical repairs, the guttering, his request for a missing key, concerns following a fire risk assessment, and his request for information including a subject access request (SAR) and information about his service charges.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The landlord occupied a one-bedroom first-floor flat under a shared ownership lease in a three-story block.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to repair service installations and all other parts of the building and estate, and common parts. The resident had an obligation to provide access to the landlord, surveyors or agent to enter so it could inspect and make good any defects.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure, under which it should respond within 10 and 20 working days respectively.

Chronology

A survey dated 17 August 2020 for works due to be carried out included works in progress relating to decoration, balustrading, clearing gutters and drains:
On 28 June 2021, a repair to the bin storage door was carried out.
On 23 July 2021, the resident chased the landlord in relation to outstanding snagging works.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident that the contractors had provided provisional dates for early August 2021 to attend to issues with the resident’s balcony. The resident reported to the landlord on 11 August 2021 that no one had attended.
On 6 October 2021, the resident requested an agreement that he rectify the “shoddy workmanship” by its sub-contractors and charge the landlord. He also requested a breakdown of the service charges.
According to an email of 15 October 2021 from the contractor to the landlord, it had tried to contact the resident to reschedule the works to the balcony but had been unable to contact the resident. The railings had been addressed in the meantime.
A further email of 11 November 2021 noted that snagging works had taken place in January 2021 but it would inspect the internal decorations noted by the resident.
According to an internal email of 16 November 2021, the landlord set out its plan of action following an inspection undertaken on 12 November 2021, in response to a complaint by the resident about the standard of decorations, as follows:
1. It agreed to repaint the balcony on 19 November 2021, weather permitting. Internally, it noted that the decoration was “not great”.
2. It identified “slight damage“ to his front door. While it could not identify the cause, the landlord offered to repaint it. The resident refused and said he would get someone to carry out the works and would charge the landlord for the works.
3. It noted there was some unpainted timber in the bin store. While “not great” the repairs were “functional” as they should stop any further damage being caused to the frame.
The resident wrote on 16 November 2021 chasing a call back and requesting an outcome to the inspection. He had chased a replacement key fob. He had had difficulties in getting through to the landlord and getting call backs. He asked to escalate the complaint.
According to an internal email of 16 November 2021, a job had been raised in September 2021 to address a report of an ill-fitting door frame in the bin room. The landlord fitted a bolt to the door and, in February 2021 fitted a special lock and hinge.
Works to repair a leak were carried out in November 2021.
According to an internal email of 23 November 2021, it could not get access to the resident’s flat on 19 November 2021 in order to redress the balcony.
According to an internal email of 7 December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor sought to arrange to complete works to the balcony and the remaining works to the communal hallway wall and communal fire door.
On 7 December 2021, the resident wrote that he had been unable to get through to the complaints team and had not received a response to his request to escalate the complaint. He added further complaints as follows:
1. Substandard repairs to the door in the waste storage area. The frame was cracked.
2. Works following a Fire Risk Assessment ( FRA) had not been followed through from 12 months previously. The landlord was to provide feedback on the “BWF” level and intumescent strips, but he had not heard anything further since 9 February 2021.
3. There was a failure of communication by the landlord following his report of a leak, so that the operative did not have the correct equipment when he re-attended.
4. He queried the service charges on the basis that no communal repairs or cleaning had been carried out, that the removal of the bulk refuse had been necessitated by the landlord not securing the bin storage. No works had been carried out in relation to fire safety. He felt there had been no management of the block. There was no necessity for the TV and satellite charges.
There followed an internal investigation with different teams by the landlord which was reflected in its stage responses and it organised calls with the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 January 2022 as follows:
1. It explained that previous works on the balconies had not required access to individual properties, as the contractors had used a cherry picker for access. That was the reason it required access from the resident. It offered removing the cost of these works from the resident’s service charges as an alternative to carrying out the works. It offered to meet the resident in person.
2. It would provide the procurement document (“OJUE”) if possible and, if not, provide an explanation why not.
3. The contractor was to address the waste storage and gutter. The manager was to call him the following day. The contractor had provided a direct contact number.
4. It provided the FRA and proposed actions.
5. It provided a separate email address for the landlord to discuss the service charges.
6. The relevant teams would contact him directly in order to progress the issues.
According to the landlord’s records, an inspection of the bin store doors took place on 26 January 2022. It had identified a “small split” in the door frame The guttering was fixed and secure. In reply, the resident wrote that the FRA had not identified a lockable door. There was “still” no information on two health and safety items.
According to an extract of the landlord’s repair records, a job was raised on 28 January 2022 to repair the door frame to the bin store, and on 2 February 2022, it renewed part of the timber frame. A roof tile repair was carried out on 18 February 2022. On 22 March 2022, a job was raised to paint the bin storage where it had been repaired.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It had passed on the resident’s feedback about the quality of the contractor’s work, which it would discuss with the contractor concerned to ensure standards were met.
2. Its cyclical surveyor confirmed that the damage to the fire door and bin store door had been resolved. It would also inspect the painting of the walls in the communal area.
3. The intumescent strips would be covered by the next FRA.
4. The resident had refused works to his front door and that aspect of this complaint was concluded.
5. He did not want further remedial works to the balcony and the costs would be removed from the service charge.
6. It set out the procurement methodology and the steps it had taken. The framework used previously was consulted on with its residents. It explained its approach in its assessment.
7. Although the original key fob was tracked and shown as delivered and signed with the resident’s name, a replacement key was sent on the 26 January 2022 which was also signed for on 27 January 2022. It had sent a third and final, further replacement on 17 March, which had also been signed for. It attached proofs of delivery and provided the tracking codes.
8. It had, and did again, apologise for its lack of responses to the resident’s calls. It had fed this back to management to review and would ensure any supporting training was acted on.
9. The contractor had contacted him and resolved the crack in the bin store door which would be painted.
10. As a three-storey building with no cladding, the building was deemed to be of “very low risk”. All FRA actions were worked through in priority order. Fire doors were included in the programme for that year. It noted the point about a lockable door, and the relevant person would contact him “directly”. It was arranging for a new FRA to be completed.
11. The guttering was completed on 19 January 2022 and it provided the details. The problem related to rainfall that could not be identified on inspection. The resident would contact the contractor when this occurred so it could arrange an urgent inspection.
12. It would ensure that the service charge issue would be followed up by the relevant manager who was already dealing with it.
13. It had sent the resident the SAR documents on 11 March 2022 and was providing a further documents.
14. It had partially upheld his complaint.
15. It made an offer of £120 compensation in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint and £100 for the communication issues.
16. The complaint would be closed on satisfactory completion of the promised works/actions.
On 5 April 2022, the resident requested the complaint be escalated as follows:
1. The discretionary offer of £220 for his “wasted” 18 months to date seemed “semi reasonable”.
2. He requested compensation for substandard works and materials.
3. He had requested a formal meeting with the Director for operations.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord provided its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It considered that the landlord had provided a comprehensive response in relation to the standards of works and OJEU.
2. The Stage 1 response evidenced that three key fobs had been sent.
3. The landlord had apologised for the lack of response and the poor response. He should have been informed that there was a Leasehold Property Manager. It apologised if it had not done so.
4. The Leasehold Team had a target to respond to all e–mail correspondence within 5 days and to return phone calls within 24 hours. There has been a failure between the teams to make contact with him easy. It was reviewing this. His feedback was “valuable” in providing evidence where it needed to improve.
5. Stage 1 set out reasonable actions regarding the bin store and gutter. The Stage 1 response was also reasonable and proportionate regarding the FRA.
6. The service charge dispute had been referred to the manager of the relevant team. It was not dealt with in a formal complaint. The dispute itself does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service as the ultimate resolution of service charge disputes lay with the FTT. The manager would provide a comprehensive response.
7. This complaint has been dealt with by two directors at Stage 1 and Stage 2.
8. It considered that the original compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate to the service failings he had experienced, and it upheld the original decision to award a total of £220.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord wrote with its response to the resident’s service charge queries as follows:
1. The communal repairs were in relation to streetlights.
2. The cleaning costs relate to the cleaning carried out in 2020-2021.
3. A credit for the missed cleaning would be included in the 2021-2 accounts, due to be sent.
4. The majority of the costs was to remove bulk waste reported in June 2020. There were additional jobs raised to remove items being stored within the riser cupboards across the blocks. It agreed to remove the cost of removal of waste outside the bin store in his block.
5. It provided a list of the communal repairs with costs and works carried out.
6. It was seeking follow–up information from its repairs/fire team.
7. It offered to meet the resident to discuss the management fees and it provided alternative dates for meeting on site.
8. There was a communal satellite dish that served the building. The cost were the maintenance costs for the aerial, including call outs.
A FRA was carried out in April 2022.
On 8 June 2022, the landlord carried out a post inspection. On that day, an operative changed the keypad lock to the bin store. As the bin door was catching on the ground, a hinge was adjusted. It was left in good working order.
On, or around, 10 June 2022, the landlord provided the following update, following the resident’s conversation with the operations director as follows:
1. All work to the bin door had been completed in February 2022 including a surveyor inspection. An issue was reported with the frame which was repaired. It attended on 8 June 2022 and found wear to the lock which had been replaced.
2. The landlord had arranged for the resident to meet with the FRA (fire risk) assessor and they walked about the building together. The resident had had direct contact with the relevant staff and was aware it would not be a “quick fix”.
3. The service charge team manager met with the resident on 11 April 2022. Adjustments to the service would be applied to the block residents in relation to lighting and the bulk refuse removal.
4. A £250 credit was to be applied relating to the standard of works carried out to the balcony.
5. The issue of the fire safety costs was outstanding.
6. It had provided a further SAR disclosure on 28 March 2022. No further enquiries had been received.
The resident wrote on 10 June 2022 denying actions had been taken but was not specific.
On 15 June 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had not detailed what was outstanding in his view and invited him to do so. If he wished to dispute the service charges, he would have to apply to the FTT.
The landlord wrote on 24 June 2022. It had arranged to visit and review any issues with the bin store and the service charges. The frame and lock had been attended to. It was following up on the FRA actions and would confirm progress but was ongoing work. It referred the resident to this Service, the Information Commission (for the SAR) or the First Tier Tribunal (for service charges).

Assessment and findings

Scope of the report

In relation to the resident’s complaints about his service charges, the Ombudsman will investigate this complaint insofar as it concerns how the landlord responded to the resident in relation to his requests for information. However, the Ombudsman has not investigated whether the service charges were reasonable or reasonably incurred, as they concern issues, that in the opinion of the Ombudsman, fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as they are better addressed by other bodies.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. Under paragraph 42(d), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
2. Under paragraph 42(f), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
3. Under paragraph 42(j), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Where a subject access request is made under the Data Protection Act 2018, the Ombudsman considers that the handling of such requests falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(j), as that aspect would be for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to review.
The aspects of the resident’s complaints which concern the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), will be a matter of law and for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make determinations that require a legal analysis of principles of law and a forensic study of evidence.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to seek to address an issue without immediately referring a resident to a court or tribunal without having first provided a reasonable explanation of its actions. This aligns with the dispute resolution principles of being fair and proportionate and also with the expectations of a court or tribunal to seek resolution without recourse to litigation.

Repairs to the balcony, repairs to the waste storage area and communication.

It is noted that the resident felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the landlord’s communication was “semi” reasonable but wanted compensation for the standard of works and materials. The Ombudsman will therefore consider whether there was service failure in those aspects and, if there was any service failure, whether the landlord’s actions constituted reasonable redress.
The landlord acknowledged that the work to the resident’s balcony was substandard. It was reasonable that that the landlord agreed to repaint it. There was an unexplained gap following the offer, from July 2021 to October 2021. The delays were otherwise largely due to bad weather and the lack of access. In the circumstances, fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard. It was also reasonable that it offered to either rectify the painting or refund the resident the original costs. It subsequently offered an additional sum in compensation. The Ombudsman considers that constituted reasonable redress.
While it was frustrating that repairs were required to the bin storage, the evidence showed that the landlord dealt with them promptly. The landlord then acted reasonably in crediting the resident with the costs of the bulk storage thereby minimising any impact on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that constituted reasonable redress.

Other cyclical repairs, the guttering, request for a missing key, concerns following a fire risk assessment, and the resident’s request for information including a subject access request (SAR) and information about his service charges.

The evidence indicated that the landlord sent the resident the key on three occasions. There is no reason to doubt that the landlord sent the keys and it was reasonable of the landlord to send further copies. The Ombudsman does not consider there was a service failure in that regard.
The evidence showed that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of a leak to the gutter and provided direct contact details for the contractors who were to carry out the works. It offered to repaint the front door. It assessed the decoration to the bin store door. It inspected the painting of the walls. This showed that it addressed the resident’s reports. It was also reasonable to ask the resident to report any further issues as he was best placed to do so.
The landlord did not provide to this Service the FRA of prior to 2022 but provided that of 2022. In terms of the concerns raised by the resident, it is noted that the works regarding the intumescent strips were of low priority. The landlord’s explanation that the property was of low priority was reasonable. It is noted that the 2022 FRA made recommendations with a medium priority. It was reasonable of the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and seek to provide reassurance. The Ombudsman would expect those works to have been carried out or to carry them out imminently and will make a recommendation in that regard.
The landlord acted reasonably in providing an explanation of the service charges in the first instance, by seeking to explain its position, offering to meet with the resident and providing a response to the resident’s questions. This resulted in an adjustment of the service charges.
It was reasonable of the landlord to explain its methodology in relation to tis procurement regarding works. It addressed the resident’s queries regarding the FRA, it organised direct contact with the relevant staff, it provided documents in response to the SAR and provided a further copy. There was no evidence that the resident was dissatisfied but if he considered that the SAR response was inadequate, he would need to refer the matter to the ICO. The Ombudsman considered that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request for information.
The landlord accepted that communication had been difficult at times. The resident was put to some time and trouble in following up these matters. The resident described that he had been following up the issues since September 2020 (18 months up to March 2022) Given the overall responsiveness of the landlord and that most of the repairs concerned the exterior of the building, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation constituted reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide this Service with the correspondence the landlord’s initial complaint. The Ombudsman was able to understand the issues, given they were summarised by the resident. It was also clear from the landlord’s internal correspondence that the initial complaint was made in October or November 2021. Nevertheless, while the Ombudsman was able to investigate the complaint, the investigation was hampered by gaps in the landlord’s records.
There was a delay following the resident’s initial complaint that the landlord referred to in November 2021. While the landlord inspected the property in response, it did not respond to the complaint. This was unreasonable. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident asked the landlord to do so. As a result, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint until March 2022.
However, it responded to the resident’s reports, addressed the substantive issues, inspected the property, carried out repairs, investigated the complaint, arranged site visits and telephone calls with contractors, managers and its operations director, and it reasonably accepted the further complaints made during the process. This demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s dissatisfaction seriously.
Nevertheless, given the unreasonable delay and the importance of adhering to its policy timescales, adding to the resident’s frustration, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has made an order for compensation but has taken into account the benefits of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to his balcony, repairs to the waste storage area and communication.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of other cyclical repairs, the guttering, his request for a missing key, concerns following a fire risk assessment, and his request for information including a subject access request (SAR) and information about his service charges.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that the standard of repairs and communication was not up to standard, offered compensation and made consequential adjustments to his service charges.
The landlord responded promptly and carried out repairs and provided the information requested by the resident.
The landlord addressed the issues that the resident had raised and ensured follow up so that, overall, the complaint handling was beneficial to the standard of service provided by the landlord. However, it did not respond in accordance with its timescales in its policy and there was significant delay.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £50 within 4 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure, if it has not already done so, that it carries out the recommendations in the 2022 Fire Risk Assessment that are rated as medium risk within a month of this report, or explain why not, and update the resident in this regard.
2. The landlord should record the points highlighted in this report regarding its provision of documents and ensures that it provides full documents and evidence to the Ombudsman for the purposes of investigation.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.