A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202226770)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226770

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 April 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that he was at risk in his property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a recurring leak at the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant, including his request to remain in decant accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After careful consideration, the following parts of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that he was at risk in his property.
The incidents of ASB that the resident has complained about occurred between 2020 and September 2021. This included attempted arson and allegations about antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving neighbours. The resident made his complaint in November 2022.
Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
As the resident raised this complaint more than 12 months after the incidents complained of occurred, the Ombudsman is not able to investigate this aspect of the complaint. This investigation will therefore focus on:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a recurring leak at the property.
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant, including its response to his request to remain in decant accommodation.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. He lives with his wife and two children in a two bed ground floor flat. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the household. The landlord is a housing association.
On 17 September 2021, there was a leak at the property which caused a flood. The landlord moved the resident and his family out of the property into decant accommodation while it took steps to undertake works to fix the leak. The resident and his family moved back into the property on 12 November 2021. The resident signed a disclaimer at this time to confirm that he was aware of the location, operation and reason for the stopcock tap in the property.
In or around February 2022 there was another leak at the property, which flooded the kitchen and other rooms and damaged the flooring. The resident believes that this was caused by a fault in his boiler. The landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted from the property again into hotel accommodation.
The resident asked the landlord in May 2022 if he could be rehoused permanently. The landlord said that this would not be possible and that he would be expected to move back into his property as soon as the works were completed.
The resident was decanted to a 2 bed house in October 2022. He asked the landlord if it would let him stay in the decant property as it was more suitable for his needs. The landlord said that when he signed the licence agreement for the decant property, he agreed that it would be a temporary move while works were taking place at his permanent address. The landlord put the resident’s request to its lettings panel. However, the panel rejected his application.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 25 November 2022. He said that he was unhappy that he had been decanted on more than one occasion due to leaks at the property. He said that the repairs had not been completed properly following his last decant. This had led to another flood. He said he wanted to stay in the decant property.
The landlord responded on 9 December 2022. It said that it did not uphold his complaint as it had considered the resident’s request for a permanent decant through its lettings processes, but his application had been rejected. It accepted that being decanted was disruptive, but as soon as the works were complete, the resident could move back into his permanent property.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord issued its response on 1 February 2023. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint about the number of times he had been decanted from the property and offered the resident £100 in compensation for his distress and inconvenience.

Post complaint

The resident attended a post inspection of the property on 25 May 2023 with the surveyor. The resident signed the post-inspection form confirming that he was satisfied with the works undertaken in the property.
The resident moved back into the property in June 2023. The resident has said that since his move back, he has reported some minor leaks in the property, but there have been no more major leaks. However, he has said that he is not satisfied that the landlord had taken action to ensure that there were no further problems with the boiler. He also reported issues with damp and mould in the property. A surveyor attended at the end of March 2024 to undertake a damp inspection. The landlord has told the resident that he will receive a copy of the surveyor’s report once it is available.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service notes that the resident has raised that he has been decanted from the property on several occasions following a leak or flood. This investigation has focussed primarily on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2022. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to enable to landlord to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has said that his belongings were damaged while he was decanted from the property. The landlord moved all his furniture into one locked room in his flat where the resident says they were damaged by mould caused by the damp conditions in the property. He believes that the landlord should have paid for storage where his belongings would be kept dry and secure. The resident has also raised that there have been issues with damp and mould in the property since the complaint.
These two issues have not been raised by the resident as part of his complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s record keeping

This investigation has been impacted by the lack of repair records provided by the landlord. It has not provided copies of any reports or its repairs logs. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It also enables repairs to be monitored and managed, to prevent recurrence.
The landlord’s record keeping is likely to have contributed to the delays in resolving the issues and in dealing appropriately with the complaint. It is also likely to have contributed to the distress, frustration and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord should take steps to improve its record keeping so that it can give assurances that it is fulfilling its obligations to its residents.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping and an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation and review its record keeping practices.

The landlord’s response to a leak at the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep in repair and good working order the installations in the home for the supply of water, gas and electricity, heating, and hot water. These repair obligations are also included in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
When the resident reported the leak in February 2022, he said that a contractor did not come out to stop the flood for several hours. The resident was unable to turn off the water himself because the handle to the stopcock was broken. The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it will attend to complete emergency repairs within 4 hours of being reported. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that the resident was unable to stop the flood of water, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy. The landlord repaired the stopcock handle as part of the property repairs.
The landlord undertook extensive repairs to the property and the resident attended the post-inspection appointment with the surveyor and signed that he was satisfied with the works that the landlord completed in the property. No further issues with floods have been reported and the resident had confirmed that the landlord has fitted isolation valves in the pipes that would mitigate any risk of flood going forward.
It is unclear from the information provided to this Service the reasons for the frequent floods at the resident’s property. The resident said that the boiler was missing a part, and as a result a pipe burst causing the flood. The landlord has not provided this Service the outcome of its investigation into the leaks. The Ombudsman would also expect this information to be shared with the resident as part of its complaint investigation and response. The landlord should also outline what it would do to prevent such service failures going forward. The landlord upheld the part of the resident’s complaint relating to the ongoing leak and offered £100 in compensation for the family’s distress and inconvenience.
It is positive that the landlord acknowledged that there were failings in its service delivery which contributed to this issue. However, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the detriment that the resident and his family experienced. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there are ‘aggravating factors’ contributing to the impact on a resident, an uplift in compensation can be made. Aggravating factors can include vulnerabilities, health issues or where there are young children in the household. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in relation to this aspect of the complaint and orders that the landlord pays the resident £250 in compensation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100.

The landlord’s handling of the decant

The landlord arranged for the resident to be moved out into emergency accommodation. The resident said that he was unhappy with the length of time the family was in hotel accommodation, and the number of times they had to move between hotels, before more suitable accommodation was identified. As a result, he chose to stay with friends and family in or around May or June 2022 until a more suitable decant property was found. The landlord’s decant policy says that “we will use all available resources including (but not limited) to our own housing stock, hotels, bed and breakfasts, guest houses, caravans, flats, maisonettes and bedsits.” The records provided by the landlord show that the resident’s hotel accommodation had been terminated by the hotel and not the landlord. The landlord therefore needed to arrange hotel accommodation elsewhere. This was outside of the landlord’s control and this Service has not identified a service failing.
The landlord’s decant policy does not say how long the landlord would expect a resident to remain in hotel accommodation or with friends and family. Only that “we will base our decisions as to which resource to use taking account of reasonable costs on market levels and quotes obtained from approved suppliers and the length of time the works will take.” The landlord said that it had not been able to secure a suitable temporary decant property that met the resident’s needs prior to October 2022. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was unhappy that his family were in unsettled emergency accommodation with their baby for a lengthy period, and that this was difficult for them. However, in the absence of any guidance in the policy, the timescales for a resident to be in emergency accommodation will largely depend on the complexity of the works required to his home and the availability of suitable decant housing stock to meet the family’s needs. No finding has therefore been made in relation to the length of time the resident was in emergency accommodation.
The resident asked if he could remain in the decant temporary property that was provided in October 2022. The landlord’s decant policy only refers to permanent decants where properties are being disposed of or redeveloped. The licence agreement provided to the resident when he was decanted says that “the licensee is occupying the property on a temporary basis whilst the Housing Association carries out refurbishment works to the licensee’s Home. The licensee holds an assured tenancy of the licensee’s home, and that tenancy is continuing, and the licensee’s home remains the licensee’s main or principal home during the refurbishment works and the licensee’s occupation of the Property. The licensee acknowledges that he/she and his/her family will be required to vacate the property and return to the licensee’s home immediately upon termination of the licence.” The landlord was not therefore under any obligation to rehouse the resident permanently in its decant accommodation and the resident signed the licence agreement to confirm that he agreed to this.
The landlord did, however, refer this to its lettings panel for consideration. This was an appropriate step and in line with its allocations policy which states that permanent decant decisions will be considered by its lettings panel. The lettings panel rejected the resident’s application, but the resident was told that an application could be resubmitted in April 2023, should he remain in the decant property. The landlord took steps in line with its policy to consider the resident’s request. It also discussed with him other options for rehousing such as a management transfer and applying for housing through the Council. No service failure has therefore been identified regarding its decision not to offer the resident a tenancy of the decant property as the landlord appropriately followed its processes. The resident has since returned to his permanent property.
The landlord also acted in accordance with its policy by covering the resident’s costs when he was in decant accommodation and arranging removals to and from the longer-term decant accommodation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that he was at risk in his property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of a recurring leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s decant, including his request to remain in decant accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation which is made up of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family due to the recurring leak in the property.
  2. £100 for any time and effort he has been put to by reason of the landlord’s ineffective record keeping.
2. Confirm with this Service once payment has been made.
3. This award replaces the landlord’s previous compensation of £100. If the landlord has paid this amount to the resident already, it should pay the resident the remaining balance of £250.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to undertake a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s recommendations in its spotlight report on knowledge and information management. If the landlord has completed a self-assessment within the last 6 months, a copy of the assessment is to be provided by way of compliance with this order.