A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202229927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229927

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

10 September 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a reoccurring roof leak and associated damage to the internal decorations within the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s record keeping and information management.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a flat, which is located on the top floor of the building.
It is understood that the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 October 2022, about the landlord’s handling of a reoccurring roof leak. The resident raised further dissatisfaction on 16 January 2023, about the landlord’s handling of roof leaks, associated repairs to internal decorations, poor communications, and failing to give adequate notice for inspections or works.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to both complaints on 28 February 2023, after considering them to be duplicate complaints. The landlord accepted there had been delays resolving the roof leak. It confirmed that the roof repair had been completed on 18 February 2023. It said it would arrange to complete repairs to the internal decorations now the repair to the roof had been addressed. It apologised for delays, poor communications, missed appointments, and any inconvenience caused. The landlord offered £380 compensation, in recognition of its failings.
The resident told the landlord on 28 February 2023, that she was insulted by the landlord’s offer of compensation. She reminded the landlord that she originally reported the roof leak in December 2019. She explained that she had experienced significant inconvenience over the last 3 years due to reoccurring leaks and the landlord’s poor communications. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 6 March 2023, as a stage 2 complaint.
The resident set out her case in an email to the landlord on 10 March 2023, why the landlord should enhance its offer of compensation. The resident said the landlord’s offer of compensation should be in the region of £2,980. The resident said this took into account delays, poor service, missed appointments, poor communications, loss of amenity of the living room, inconvenience, distress, and the impact upon health over the last 3 years.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 21 May 2023, after intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord told the resident that there was no evidence of a roof leak being reported prior to October 2022. It committed to looking into this if the resident was able to provide more information. The landlord did not change the original decision but revised the offer of compensation to £480. This compensation was broken down as follows:
1. £150 for time and trouble.
2. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
3. £100 for poor communication.
4. £80 for missed appointments (4 appointments).
5. £50 for complaint handling delay at stage 2.
On 22 May 2023, the resident provided the landlord with emails dating back to 2019, as evidence of reoccurring issues with the roof. It is understood that the landlord did not revise its offer.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2023 because the leak had returned, repairs to the internal decorations remained outstanding, the landlord’s communications had not improved, and she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 3 September 2024, that the landlord had completed repairs to the roof within the last month. The resident said she had lived for over 4 years, without the full enjoyment of her living room and in constant worry about her flooring and furniture being damaged. The resident said the landlord should complete repairs to the internal decorations in a timely manner and pay compensation in recognition of the detriment caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the tenancy agreement. But according to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the landlord had responsibility to maintain the external and internal structure of its properties. The policy stated:
1. The landlord will aim to complete standard repairs in 20 working days and planned or packaged repairs in 90 days.
2. Wherever possible it will ensure, at the earliest opportunity, that residents are advised of any changes or delays to their appointment.
The landlord had a compensation policy which set out the landlord’s approach to awarding compensation. The landlord could award between £50 and £150 for stress and inconvenience, between £25 to £240 for time and trouble, and between £20 and £30 for a missed appointment.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
This investigation will focus on the landlord’s action between 7 October 2021 and 21 May 2023. This being 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. This report may reference events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint. However, any events referenced prior to October 2021 may be included for context but will not be assessed.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter of complaint impacted her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation was likely to have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a reoccurring roof leak and associated damage to the internal decorations within the property

Prior to October 2021

There had been historical issues with roof leaks at the property since at least 2014. There were no new reports of any further roof leaks until December 2019. The roof was repaired in March 2020.
The resident reported more water ingress from the roof in November 2020, which had caused damage to the newly decorated living room ceiling. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the quality of the previous repair carried out on the roof, for the landlord’s poor communications, and about the inconvenience caused by its contractor missing a scheduled repairs appointment. The landlord accepted that its service had fallen below expected levels and offered compensation. The resident did not further escalate the complaint. The landlord identified upon inspection that extensive repairs were required to the roof and instructed its specialist roofing contractor. It is unclear if the leak was a continuation from the previous repair. The roof was repaired in April 2021.
After the roof was repaired, the landlord began making arrangements to complete repairs to the internal decorations. The works were initially delayed at the request of the resident and then there was an issue with access due to the landlord’s contractor not giving the resident prior notice of its attendance. It is unclear why the internal works were not progressed.

October 2021 to May 2023

Communications between the resident and the landlord suggest that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 1 February 2022, following another report about water ingress from the roof. It has not been possible to verify the severity of the leak from the evidence seen. The landlord’s contractor told the resident that it would need to erect scaffolding, so it could investigate the roof further. The scaffolding was installed 13 weeks later. It is unclear why this was not progressed in a timelier manner.
The landlord told the resident on 12 May 2022, that its roofing contractor believed it had identified the cause of the roof leak and committed to completing the works as quickly as possible. The roof repair was completed on 20 June 2022 according to communications between the parties. It has not been possible to verify the target timescale the landlord had assigned for the roof repair from the evidence seen. But it is likely that the landlord would have categorised the repair as planned works and assigned a 90-day target, since the job was likely to be more complex than a standard repair. The time taken to complete identified repairs, including the time taken to diagnose the issue, is a concern.
It was unfortunate that 9 days later, the resident reported another leak from the roof. The landlord promptly arranged an inspection. It is noted that the date offered was a weekend. This shows that the landlord was trying to minimise unnecessary inconvenience to the resident. It was unfortunate that the resident was unable to keep the appointment on the day. It is unclear if the landlord completed the inspection in the resident’s absence, if any repairs were identified, or if any repairs were carried out. The landlord’s record keeping limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions and timescales for completing any identified repairs.
It is accepted from the landlord’s final complaint response, that the resident raised a new report about water ingress in October 2022, although this cannot be verified from the evidence seen. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 9 December 2022. The resident said the leak had worsened and she had received no communication from its roofing contractor. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord, as a minimum, to have tried to reinspect the property. This would have allowed it to establish the severity of the water ingress and consider if interim measures were required to protect the property from further damage. There is no evidence to show if or how the landlord responded. This was unreasonable and would have left the resident uncertain as to the landlord’s intentions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 December 2022, confirming that its roofing contractor had now been in contact and had arranged a further inspection for 6 January 2023. The resident reminded the landlord that the matter had been ongoing since December 2019 without a satisfactory resolution. She expressed concern that the landlord’s communications had remained poor. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and that a resolution had not yet been achieved. It committed to updating the resident following the inspection. It clarified that the inspection was actually scheduled for 5 January 2023. This was encouraging and suggests that the landlord was taking responsibility for its failings.
However, the resident did not provide access to the landlord’s contractor on 5 January 2023, due to work commitments. The resident emailed the landlord the same day, expressing a clear loss of confidence in the landlord and its contractor. She pointed out that she had never agreed to provide access on 5 January 2023, she was reluctant to keep booking annual leave to resolve an issue which had been ongoing since 2019, it had not confirmed when the scaffolding would be erected, and in her opinion neither the landlord nor its contractors knew what they were doing. It was unhelpful that the resident did not provide access on 5 January 2023, given that the landlord had clarified the date of the inspection in writing. The landlord ought to have rearranged the inspection in a timely manner after access was not achieved, due to the confusion around the inspection date. It is unclear if this happened, which is a concern.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 14 January 2023. She provided the landlord with photographs of her ceiling as evidence that the water ingress had become worse. She expressed concern that the landlord had still not clarified when the scaffolding would be erected. She suggested that the landlord ought to put preventative measures in place to prevent further damage to the property. There is no evidence that the landlord responded, which was unreasonable and led to further resident dissatisfaction.
In the resident’s complaint on 16 January 2023, the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction with the level of communication from the landlord’s repairs contractor. She said the landlord’s operatives repeatedly attended the property without prior notice. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the tenancy agreement. But it would be usual for landlords to give residents reasonable notice of their attendance unless there was an emergency. Since the resident was in full time employment, there was little merit in the landlord’s contractors attending the property without an appointment.
The landlord confirmed in the stage 1 response, that its contractor had carried out a post inspection on 18 February 2023. It said its contractor was satisfied that the roofing repairs had been completed. However, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord ought to have repaired the roof within 90 days. It is troubling that the time taken to complete identified repairs to the roof significantly exceeded this timescale.
In the Ombudsman’s view, given the reoccurring nature of the water ingress, the landlord ought to have arranged for its own surveyor to post inspect the roof. This was a missed opportunity to check the quality of the repair. It was encouraging that the landlord purposely left the scaffolding in place for a short while after completing the work. This would have enabled the landlord to act promptly in the event that repairs had been unsuccessful. But the Ombudsman suggests that greater reassurance may have been afforded, had it tested the effectiveness of the repair under controlled conditions with a leak detection dye.
It was positive that the landlord proactively contacted the resident on 9 March 2023 following a spell of rain, to check that the repair had held. The resident responded to the landlord the following day, confirming that she had not noticed any more leaks. The landlord arranged a timely appointment for 15 March 2023, to progress the repairs to the internal decorations. This was encouraging.
It is understood that the appointment on 15 March 2023 was cancelled by the landlord’s contractor at short notice because its plasterer was ill. The resident expressed frustration about the late cancellation as she had taken time off work. She suggested that any outstanding works would need to be completed at a weekend and at her own convenience. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the inconvenience this caused, the landlord could not have foreseen its plaster would fall ill. It is understandable that it may not have been able to arrange a different plasterer to attend at short notice. It is understood that the landlord rescheduled the internal works for 15 April 2023, which was a Saturday. This shows that the landlord had taken into consideration the resident’s representations.
But before the internal works could begin, the resident reported that the leak had returned. The resident told the landlord on 12 April 2023, that it must repair the roof immediately and put the internal works on hold until the roof was repaired. The resident suggested that the landlord should consider replacing the whole roof, as its repeated attempts to patch repair the roof had been unsuccessful. The landlord said it was sorry that it had not been able to locate the defect and resolve it. It said it had escalated the case to managers for further direction. Again, this was encouraging.
The landlord agreed on 20 April 2023, that its management of the case had been inadequate and its communications had been poor. The landlord conceded that it was struggling to identify the cause of the defect. It explained that its surveyor and a competent tradesperson would attend the property on 27 April 2023, to trace and rectify the leak. The resident told the landlord that she was “tired and stressed” by the situation. She said the landlord would need to attend after 5pm or at a weekend, as she was unable to take any more annual leave. It is unclear from the evidence seen, if the inspection proceeded on 27 April 2023 as planned or at a later date. It is understood that sometime after this, the landlord arranged for scaffolding to be erected.

Following issue of the stage 2 final response

It was unfortunate that the scaffolding was stolen off the building around mid-June 2023. This was likely to have further delayed progress of repairs. Although the landlord told the resident on 27 June 2023, that it would reinstall scaffolding on 29 June 2023, this did not happen. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 June 2023, asking why the scaffolding had not been installed and when the repairs would be completed. It is understood that the landlord reinstalled the scaffolding on 4 July 2023 without giving the resident prior notice. It is understood that the resident was unhappy about this because she was not given the opportunity to move her car before the scaffolding was erected. The landlord should have kept the resident informed as and when changes or delays arose to scheduled appointments, in line with its repairs policy.
It is understood that the landlord carried out some repairs to the roof on 10 July 2023. However, the landlord was unable to complete all of the roof repairs due to weather conditions. It committed to returning to complete the repairs on 17 July 2023 and 18 July 2023.
The resident email the landlord on 18 July 2023 and 31 July 2023, asking if the work had been completed. The resident was left unclear about the status of the repair until 14 August 2023, when the landlord confirmed there was more work to be done. The landlord explained that its surveyor had post inspected the roofing works on 9 August 2023. It expressed its opinion that previous works completed were “somewhat substandard” and were “of a temporary nature”. The landlord set out an extensive list of defects to be addressed, which it said its contractor would methodically work through. It committed to updating the resident in due course. It is not possible to determine with certainty that the reoccurring leaks were preventable. But it is of concern that the landlord did not identify an issue with the quality of the repairs at an earlier stage.
It is understood that the roof repairs were eventually completed in August 2024. It is unclear from the evidence seen, why there was such a delay. At the time of this report, repairs to the internal decorations remained outstanding.

Overall

The landlord would have had a cyclical programme for maintaining components of the building, such as the roof. Since the landlord was unlikely to have had finite resources, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete more localised repairs or replace individual components of the roof between programmes.
It is also accepted that it can be difficult to identify the cause of leaks at the outset and that in some cases, repeated efforts may be needed before leaks are fully resolved. This alone would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, there were significant delays in the landlord completing repairs to the roof after each new report of water ingress. The landlord has accepted that there were delays in its handling of repairs to the roof.
It is evident from the evidence seen that the resident was caused continued inconvenience by the reoccurring leaks. The resident described to the Ombudsman that she had been living in a state of constant worry in case it rained. The reoccurring leaks led to delays in the landlord being able to progress repairs to the internal decorations. The resident has lived with disrepair to the ceiling for several years, which is likely to have resulted in some loss of enjoyment of the living room.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the frequency of the leaks, the landlord ought to have considered if there was an issue with the quality of the repairs at an earlier stage. It might have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if the roof was fit for purpose and whether the life expectancy of the roof had been reached. The landlord may wish to explore this further if the latest repair does not hold.
As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s communications fell short. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident adequately informed, led to her having to persistently chase the landlord for updates. This caused inconvenience and resulted in increased time and trouble for the resident.
To manage expectations, the landlord should have provided the resident with a clear and decisive action plan, setting out the timescales for completing works. It should have updated the resident in a timely manner about delays or changes to appointments. This is not disputed by the landlord. But it is of concern to the Ombudsman, that there was no significant improvement in the landlord’s communications. The landlord ought to have done more to apply learnings from the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord has acknowledged there were failings in its handling of repairs to the roof. It has attempted to put things right by committing to complete repairs and offering compensation. However, repairs to the roof were not completed in a timely manner following issue of the landlord’s final complaint response. Repairs to the internal decorations remain outstanding. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation and the detriment caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a reoccurring roof leak and associated damage to the internal decorations within the property.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord must endeavour to complete repairs to the internal decorations within 2 months of the date of this report. The Ombudsman also makes an order for compensation which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and in consideration of the landlord’s own compensation policy.

The landlord’s record keeping and information management

The landlord provided the Ombudsman with limited evidence to verify its actions. By way of example, the landlord provided no repairs logs and no inspection reports. It provided limited evidence that works orders were raised, or that works were completed. This made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.
The resident repeatedly asked the landlord to provide her with copies of its inspection reports. However, there is no record of this information being sent. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with this information upon request. This would have promoted openness and transparency and may have helped to rebuild the resident’s trust. If the landlord was unable to provide the resident with written reports, it should have explained the reason for this to the resident.
The resident also referenced having multiple telephone conversations with the landlord, which are not reflected within the information provided to the Ombudsman. This again suggests an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord suggested in the stage 2 response, that there was no evidence of the resident reporting any roof leaks prior to October 2022. The resident later provided the landlord email trails, demonstrating that the landlord’s understanding was incorrect. This was troubling.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s record keeping and information management in this case was inadequate. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy set out the landlord’s approach to complaints. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. Thereafter, it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the escalation.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 October 2022, about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs. While the landlord provided the resident with a case reference number, there is no evidence that it issued a formal stage 1 response. This was inappropriate and left the complaint unresolved.
The resident raised further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of roof repairs on 16 January 2023. The landlord sent an acknowledgement 10 working days later. This set out the landlord’s intentions to investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction at stage 1 of its internal complaint process. The landlord’s acknowledgement was not sent within expected timescales under the landlord’s policy. This was inappropriate and delayed resolution for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day, asking if it had forgotten about the complaint she had made in October 2022. The resident suggested that her complaint should not be investigated at stage 1 and ought to be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord told the resident that it considered the resident’s latest complaint to be a duplicate of her previous complaint from October 2022. It confirmed its intention to close down the October 2022 complaint. It then issued a single stage 1 response 21 working days after the complaint acknowledgment. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued outside of expected timescales under the landlord’s policy. Again, this was inappropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the landlord had not already issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint from October 22, it would have been fairer for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s approach delayed the resident from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman for resolution at an earlier stage.
The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2023. However, the landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 56 working days later. Again, this was outside of the landlord’s expected response timescales for complaints. It was positive that the landlord recognised there had been a delay in complaint handling at stage 2, apologised, and offered compensation.
When considered cumulatively, the landlord’s complaint handling fell short and it failed to acknowledge some of its failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation for complaint handling failure was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman does not make any learning orders in relation to this complaint. This is because the landlord published a report in July 2024, committing to making improvements to its repairs handling, communications, record keeping, and complaint handling. This followed a previous wider order issued by the Ombudsman, requiring the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practices.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a reoccurring roof leak and associated damage to the internal decorations within the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping and information management.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £1,640 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £1,160 if the landlord has already paid the compensation previously offered. This has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and in consideration of the landlord’s own compensation policy. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 compensation, in recognition of distress, inconvenience, and increased time and trouble caused to the resident, by reoccurring leaks, and delays in the landlord completing roof repairs.
2. £500 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience and some loss of enjoyment of the living room, arising from continued disrepair to the ceiling.
3. £240 compensation, in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and increased time and trouble caused to the resident, due to failures in the landlord’s communications.
4. £100 compensation of the inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from missed appointments (5 appointments).
5. £200 compensation, in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident, as a result of complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide the resident with copies of the completion report for the latest roof repair. If the landlord is unable to provide the resident with a copy of this report, it must write to the resident clarifying what was wrong with the roof and what works were completed.
The landlord must endeavour to complete repairs to the internal decorations within 2 months of the date of this report. The landlord must write to the resident with an action plan, including expected timescales, for completing these repairs. The action plan must be kept under review by the landlord until such time as the repairs are completed. The landlord must endeavour to notify the resident in a timely manner, where there are changes to the action plan or any agreed appointment dates.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should commit to investigating if the roof has reached its life expectancy, in the event of new reports about water ingress. The landlord should then act accordingly upon its findings.