Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202303578)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303578

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 March 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of communal lift repairs.
  2. This service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. She resides in a 6th floor apartment with her partner. The resident reports that both herself and her partner suffer with chronic pain and injuries.
  2. The 6th floor of the apartment block is serviced by one communal lift, which both parties have confirmed has a history of being unreliable. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair and renewal of machinery within the common parts of the building. The resident pays a service charge which covers the monthly servicing costs.
  3. On 18 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the lift was out of service again, this was logged as a complaint and the resident requested that it be repaired as soon as possible.
  4. On 1 February 2023 the lift was taken out of operation by the landlord in order for major works to be carried out. The landlord did not notify the resident in advance. The lift was out of use for a total of 28 days.
  5. In its stage one response on 10 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that all lifts within the block were turned off for modernisation works to be carried out, this was likely to take 5 weeks. The landlord said that it did not receive a programme of works and therefore was unable to warn the resident in advance, it apologised for the lack of communication and inconvenience. In recognition of the residents’ personal circumstances, she was provided with a single point of contact who could provide assistance. The landlord offered £50 compensation and said that it would contact the resident again post works to discuss further compensation.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and the offer of compensation. She requested an escalation of her complaint on the grounds that she was unable to stay at the property without a working lift and had to rent temporary accommodation. Furthermore, she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and response times to emails and complaints. She felt that leaseholders had a right to be notified of any major works in advance and that assistance should be provided in such circumstances.
  7. The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 May 2023. It explained that due to the frequent repairs and unreliability of the lift it took the decision to replace key components to improve the performance. It said that measures were being put in place to ensure this communication issue does not happen in future. As a result, it introduced an onsite intensive housing support team, which included a portering service to help residents with bags. The landlord offered compensation totalling £275:
    1. £50 for its failure to respond to the stage one complaint in time.
    2. £150 for the inconvenience caused.
    3. £75 for the delay in escalating the stage two complaint.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response; she had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, so it appropriately signposted to the Ombudsman. Around this time, in June 2023, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £425, adding a further £150 for inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the communal lift repairs

  1. From the evidence provided by both parties it is not disputed that the communal lift had a history of breakdowns and was out of use for significant periods during 2022. The landlord’s decision to carry out major works was therefore a proactive approach to improve the future reliability. However, the landlord’s failure to notify the resident in advance had a significant impact upon her as she was unable to come and go as she pleased.
  2. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must carry out a section 20 consultation with residents prior to commencing any major works, if the leaseholder is required to pay towards the associated costs and that contribution exceeds £250. In this case we have seen no evidence that the resident was consulted. The landlord has confirmed that it does not intend to charge for the modernisation works, therefore a section 20 notice would not have been required. However, given the inconvenience that such works would inevitably have upon the resident it would have been expected that the landlord provide advance warning. The landlord’s failure to provide this notice demonstrates poor project management and internal communication
  3. Following the landlord’s failure to notify the resident it did take positive steps to try and reduce the inconvenience. It provided the resident with a single point of contact who was able to assist with carrying items up and down from the 6th floor. There is also evidence that it made reasonable adjustments such as meeting the resident outside of normal working hours, at 7am on one occasion. In addition, it retrospectively introduced an enhanced onsite service including portering. Although these measures demonstrated learning and a desire to put things right, it still resulted in the resident having to expend time and trouble making such arrangements.
  4. In addition to the landlord’s initial lack of communication surrounding the substantive issue, the resident was also unhappy with its response times to emails. The landlord acknowledged that it had fallen short in this area, it apologised and provided reassurances that it had made positive changes including the introduction of an intensive housing team. This commitment to improve has also been outlined in the landlord’s new corporate strategy, published in July 2023, which makes a specific reference to communication regarding lifts. It says that it has put in place new processes to ensure it communicates more quickly and clearly when a lift breaks down. This includes using text messages and noticeboard signs to keep residents informed.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says that when communal lifts fail for at least 7 days, residents will be compensated £1 for each day thereafter where the lift remains out of service. In addition, it states that discretionary compensation may be awarded when there is no practical action which would provide a full and appropriate remedy or where the complainant has sustained financial loss, suffered stress or inconvenience.
  6. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed its offer of compensation after the resident brought her complaint to this Service. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation at stage 2, in addition the offer made did not reasonably reflect the detriment caused to the resident. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord made contact with the resident to discuss additional compensation post works, as it said it would in its stage one response.
  7. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident notified the landlord of her intention to temporarily move out prior to doing so, therefore we are unable to speculate on how it would have responded. However, after renting alternative accommodation the resident asked the landlord for compensation on several occasions during text message conversations. While the landlord has no legal obligations to decant the resident under the lease, there is no evidence that it responded to her request or asked the resident for any further information. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it does not allow any new information on the complaint to be added at Stage 2, however, it was unreasonable of the landlord to not respond to this request or investigate as a new complaint.
  8. In summary, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to notify the resident in advance of the lift being taken out of operation and made some attempt to put things right. However, these measures and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the detriment and inconvenience caused to the resident. The lift was out of use for 28 days and the resident was unable to appropriately prepare for this, resulting in her having to temporarily move out.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. At both stages the landlord failed to respond within the prescribed times. The landlord did however acknowledge its failure to issue the responses in accordance with its policy. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £50 for the stage one delay and £75 for the stage two delay. This amount is in line with its policy and is therefore considered to be reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the lift repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £625 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The amount is comprised of:
    1.  £125 it offered for poor complaint handling , if not already paid.
    2. £300 it offered for the inconvenience caused while the list was out of service, if not already paid.
    3. A further £200 in recognition of the distress caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to notify her in advance of the lift upgrade.
  2. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to formally respond to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to the temporary accommodation, giving due regard to its stance on discretionary payments within its compensation policy. If the resident remains dissatisfied she must raise a new complaint with the landlord.