A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202221806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221806

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 January 2024

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home, including the related insurance claim.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. They live in a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident has told us they have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
3. The landlord attended the resident’s home on 7 February 2022 to remove some insulation from a cavity wall. This was to replace the insulation. The resident first reported a damp problem on 22 February 2022, before the new insulation was installed. The landlord attended and took a photo of a damp spot in the resident’s front room. It sent a surveyor to the property on 5 March 2022 which recommended a series of works, including damp-proofing, replastering, and ventilation.
4. The new insulation was installed on 17 March 2022. However, shortly after this the resident raised a complaint as the damp led to mould growth on the carpet. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2022. The landlord said that the resident raised the repair request at the same time as the complaint and therefore it had not made an error. It also asked the resident to fill in an insurance form in respect of damaged items. The resident queried that response and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident also completed the insurance form. In their email on 27 March 2022 the resident provided a summary of events as well as some clarification on the perceived causes of the mould. The resident also told the landlord that the mould was affecting their illness.
5. On 8 July 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident in respect of the insurance claim. The claim was rejected on the basis that the landlord “was only informed of the issue on the date the damp survey was undertaken”. There is no evidence of the landlord moving forward with the recommended works until July 2022. The landlord noted internally that funding for the works were “finally” approved on 22 July 2022. There is no evidence as to why the funding, or the works, were delayed for so long. The landlord made 2 efforts to arrange to complete the repairs in August and September 2022. However, the resident was unable to move furniture to allow the works to be completed and so the landlord rearranged each time.
6. The resident chased stage 2 of their complaint on 5 October 2022 stating they had not heard from the insurance team. The landlord arranged a new appointment to complete the works in November 2022. Some works were done in November, and an appointment to complete decoration works was arranged for December 2022. The works were fully completed on 8 December 2022. The landlord then sent a final response to the resident on 13 December 2022. It said:
   1. It apologised for the delay in completing the required works.
   2. It apologised for the delay in escalating and responding to the stage 2 complaint.
   3. There were internal communication errors.
   4. The insurance team would need to determine if the landlord was liable for damage to furniture and other belongings.
   5. It offered £375 compensation for the failures.
7. The resident raised the complaint to us in January 2023. They said that they have still not heard from the insurance and are asking the landlord to cover the cost of the damage caused to the furniture and carpets. The landlord followed up with the resident in March and April 2023 to ensure that the completed works were successful and the damp had not returned. The landlord said it has not heard from the resident since then.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

8. The landlord has provided its repairs policy. Generally, it has 2 classifications of repair, urgent and standard. Urgent repairs are classed as needing a response within 24 hours. Standard repairs are resolved by appointment with the resident. No other timescales are provided. We would agree that the resident’s damp and mould issue would be classed as a standard repair.
9. The Ombudsman released a spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021. This set out our expectations for landlords dealing with complaint regarding damp and mould. This included recommendations for landlords, such as:
   1. Consider whether a damp and mould framework is required, covering diagnosis, intervention, and aftercare.
   2. Ensuring potential damp and mould is identified at the earliest opportunity.
   3. Robust record-keeping practices to ensure repeat or persistent problems are identified.
   4. The landlord has also provided its self-assessment against our spotlight report, showing it has developed a working group to comply with our recommendations. This group is continuing its work on the actions required.
10. The landlord has provided its insurance claims procedure and compensation policy. This demonstrates how the landlord identifies various claims which would fall under insurance matters. It also highlights where insurance matters should be separated from compensation. The documents provide differing accounts of how a claim should be made. For example, the compensation policy says:
    1. In cases of allegations that the landlord is responsible:
       1. “Residents should not be asked to claim on their home contents insurance unless there was no way A2D could have prevented the damage from occurring.”
       2. If the “contractor caused damaged whilst carrying out a repair or the repair was inadequate. This is the contractor’s fault and usually an issue for contractor’s insurers.”
    2. “Typically, insurers have 21 days to respond to a claim and a further 90 days to establish whether the Group is liable. Following that there is no timescale in which to decide on a payment and depending on the nature of the claim this can take months or even years.”

The insurance handbook (and liability claim form) states:

3. “If your claim is for loss or damage to personal items, we recommend that you claim off your own insurance (buildings, contents, motor, etc.) in the first instance.” And “We … strongly advise you to claim off your own insurance.”
4. The insurance handbook says that claims must be reported immediately in the case of public liability insurance.
5. “If the damage caused was as a result of A2Dominion or its contractors then a claim can be submitted to insurers provided the resident has completed a liability claim form.”

11. The Ombudsman issues regular guidance to landlords on best practice, as well as signposting how we handle various complaint topics. In January 2020 we published guidance for landlords on complaints involving insurance issues. This highlighted to landlords the differing approaches taken in insurance claims as compared to complaints. It also said that landlords should ensure that it treats complainants fairly in such circumstances by:
    1. Not unnecessarily referring insurance claims to insurers.
    2. Assisting residents with insurance claims.
    3. Highlighting what a resident would need to make a claim.
    4. Considering whether it was at fault, irrespective of whether a claim is being made.
    5. Explaining the difference between liability or negligence and maladministration or service failure.
12. The resident is unaware of why the cavity wall insulation was originally removed. The landlord has also not provided any repair logs which provide an explanation. However, it is primarily the damp and mould with which we are concerned. When the damp appeared, the resident reported it to the landlord. The landlord completed a survey a few weeks later which made recommendations. It is not clear what information was made available to the surveyor so it is not possible to say that the temporary absence of insulation was, or was not, responsible. The cavity insulation had been replaced by the time the survey was completed so would not have been obvious to the surveyor. The recommendations however did need to be carried out by the landlord.
13. The original repair was not urgent in nature and was unlikely to become dramatically worse in the time it took to arrange the survey. However, damp and mould is a pervasive problem which can escalate if not treated in a timely manner. We are concerned that the landlord took 4 months to agree to complete the works. It then took another 4 months to start the works. The landlord said they were unable to complete the works because the resident could not provide a “clear working area”. In other words, the resident was unable to move furniture and carpets to provide the landlord access. The resident explained to the landlord that they had COPD and was unable to move the furniture themselves. The landlord should have helped the resident as a reasonable adjustment to its normal process. It ultimately retained a duty to complete the repairs. It was therefore not reasonable to delay the repair until the resident could get help themselves.
14. The landlord provided no explanation for the delay. There is also no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident until 5 months after the repairs were recommended. This lack of communication is concerning. We would expect the landlord to provide a plan to the resident where works are expected to take time to complete. In order for a landlord to demonstrate it has completed repairs within a reasonable timescale it must show that such a delay was unavoidable. There is no evidence in this case that the delay was unavoidable and therefore the landlord is likely to have failed to comply with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has provided an apology and compensation for the delay in completing the repairs. We feel that the severity of the failures warrants additional compensation to that offered.
15. The landlord originally asked the resident to raise an insurance claim to their own insurer before sending the resident a claim form to raise a claim to the landlord. As per the landlord’s insurance handbook, the amount claimed was not enough to warrant a referral to the landlord’s insurer. This meant the landlord considered the claim itself. Generally, this is good practice as it offers a less adversarial process and allows those considering the claim to manage communication and help more effectively. However, the response in this case from the insurance team mirrored the response from the stage 1 complaint. That is, the insurance team said that the claim was raised at the same time a repair request was made. As explained in the background, this was not true.
16. The fact that the insurance team issued this response suggests that they did not complete an independent investigation of the circumstances of the claim. However, even if an investigation was completed, the resident continued to raise this matter when they chased the complaint response in October 2022. The landlord did not reference the outcome of the insurance claim when issuing its response to the complaint in December 2022. This was unreasonable, and communication with the resident as part of our investigation has found that the resident never received the insurance claim response.
17. The repairs were not completed until December 2022, and the resident was unaware of the outcome of the insurance claim so could not challenge the decision. The landlord should reconsider the claim under its process, even if would not normally do so. The landlord also failed to consider reasonable adjustments for the resident to enable the works to be completed. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord has provided their complaints policy and procedure. There are no timescales for resolving complaints at stage 1 of their process. At stage 2 the procedure says it will resolve complaints within 30 working days. This is longer than the expectations of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaint policy also conflicts with its insurance handbook. The complaints policy says that insurance claims are outside the scope of complaints. However, the insurance handbook says that residents can complain about their insurance claim.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows a lack of investigation into the original complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord gathered testimony or reports from the original contractors. This led to an incorrect finding that the resident raised the repair at the same time as the complaint. Although not certain, it is likely that this incorrect response also led to the incorrect response to the insurance claim. This was not corrected in the stage 2 response. While the resident may have needed to wait for repairs to be completed, the complaint was about damage caused by the landlord’s previous repairs. The landlord should have clarified the complaint at both stages prior to responding. This misunderstanding of the complaint would be likely to have led to distress on the part of the resident.
20. As highlighted in the Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance matters above, the landlord should ensure that related complaints and insurance claims are linked. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did not mention that the claim had been responded to. As the resident raised this in their email on 5 October 2022, the landlord should have taken steps to understand the progress of the claim. The resident has confirmed they never received the insurance decision.
21. The landlord recognised the delay in sending its final response to the resident. It offered £175 in total in respect of this delay. We think this amount is a reasonable remedy for the delay alone. However, as highlighted above, there were other failures which have not been acknowledged during the landlord’s complaints process. In particular, the landlord failed to address the incorrect information in the stage 1 and stage 2 letters. It also failed to link the insurance claim to the complaint and provide an update on that claim. For these reasons we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we have found:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and the related insurance claim.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

23. The landlord is hereby ordered to pay £900 to the resident, inclusive of the £375 already offered. This is made up of:
    1. £150 for delays in completing the works – equal to that already offered.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s failure to accommodate the resident’s needs in respect of appointments.
    3. £300 for the landlord’s failure to properly investigate and communicate in respect of the insurance claim.
    4. £175 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
    5. £125 for incorrect and missing information in the complaint responses.
24. The landlord is also ordered to reconsider the insurance claim. This may require the resident to provide up to date information regarding the damage caused to their belongings. The landlord should consider all available options in respect of the insurance claim, including whether it is reasonable to accept or settle the claim without the need for additional information.
25. The landlord should provide this service with its current complaints policy and an evaluation of whether the conflicting information between that policy, the compensation policy, and the insurance handbook has been rectified.
26. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should ensure the complaints team and the insurance team have reviewed the Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance related complaints and take steps to ensure that information is shared between the two teams where appropriate.