A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202308011)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308011

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

9 April 2025

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:
1. Reports of a gas leak.
2. Pest control and a contaminated water tank.
3. Repairs to the roof and electrical wiring.
4. The formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health conditions.
Between 3 March 2023 and 6 April 2023 the landlord inspected the property, completed ‘void’ or empty property works, and then post inspected the works. The resident’s tenancy started on 7 April 2023. She reported on 3 May 2023 to the national gas emergency organisation that she could smell gas, and it attended to cap the gas. She told the landlord, which attended on 6 May 2023, completed works and said it did not find a leak. The same day the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service to report her electrics were tripping. It attended, made safe, and said rodents may have chewed through cables in the loft. It raised a follow-on repair but there was a no access on 24 May 2023. On 27 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed a Landlord Gas Safety Register (LGSR) check, and it passed.
The resident reported to the landlord on 30 May 2023 that there was a foul smell coming from her water. She suspected that her water tank in the loft might have been contaminated. She said she was not able to drink the water, and her and her children had moved out to stay with a relative. On the same day she raised a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. Having had a gas leak, and that the engineer who attended said she might have contaminated water because of a foul smell.
2. She had noticed the smell since she moved in. Her youngest child was ill, and she would not return to the property until it was deemed habitable.
3. Multiple issues she had experience with her water, gas, and electrics.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord raised a job for pest control and said there was no access that day. It acknowledged the complaint on 6 June 2023 and called the resident to discuss it that day. She told it on 12 June 2023 that she wanted a new water tank, as there was a dead rat in hers. The following day there was a no access for pest control. The landlord called the resident to provide its stage 1 response and then emailed it to her on 15 June 2023, in which it:
1. Said it would attend for pest control and following this to repair the wiring, roof and wash down the water tank.
2. Apologised for its “sub-standard service” and offered £350 compensation for this and for poor communication. It also said it had carried out more staff training.
3. Said how she could escalate the complaint but noted she already asked to.
The landlord’s pest control contractor removed a dead rat from the water tank on 22 June 2022. They quoted for further repairs in the loft and to clean and flush the water tank and system. They baited the loft on 5 July 2023, and completed works as per their quote on 10 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 July 2023. It called the resident on 25 July 2023 to book an appointment for roofing works, which it completed during the appointment on 3 August 2023. It also inspected the property on 9 August 2023 and produced a schedule of other repairs. It provided its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023, in which it:
1. Apologised for the issues the resident had faced.
2. Said the delay in removing the dead rat was caused by an internal admin error, for which it apologised.
3. Explained its delay in completing roofing repairs was due to it needing pest control works to be completed first.
4. Apologised for a gas leak and said it had repaired this on 27 May 2023.
5. Said it had booked in the additional repairs it had identified. It also was looking for a contractor which could perform a water test as the resident had requested.
6. Offered revised compensation of £585 for inconvenience, delays and poor communication.
On 23 August 2023 the landlord inspected the roof and said no further repairs were needed. On an unknown date it completed rewiring works. Its contractor issued an electrical safety certificate confirming the property met current standards on 5 September 2023. The resident told the landlord on 11 September 2023 that she no longer had any pest infestations.
The resident has told the Ombudsman the property should not have been let to her in its condition, with a gas leak and a rat in the water tank. She said she had been telling it there was an issue with the water, and it had ignored her. She also said she paid for a private water test on 28 June 2023. She said she had to throw away items she had bought (bedding, washing machine, cooker, air fryer) as they were contaminated by the water. The resident said her children are now afraid of the water taps and the whole experience was traumatising.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised within her complaint to the landlord that her child’s health has been negatively affected by contaminated water in the property. While this Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a gas leak

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair of the installations for space and water heating, including the gas supply. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its gas safety policy sets out its responsibilities for maintaining gas fittings in line with relevant legislation.
Prior to letting the property, on 14 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor completed a Landlord Gas Safety Record (LGSR) inspection, and confirmed the installations passed. This was in line with its gas safety policy. When the resident said she smelt gas she correctly called the national gas emergency organisation, in line with guidance within the landlord’s policy. Almost a month had passed since the tenancy start date and the resident reporting a suspected gas leak. There is no evidence there had been an ongoing leak prior to the resident reporting one.
The landlord attended 3 days later, carried out works for a cooker installation point, and said it did not find a gas leak. However, it then said it had repaired a leak within its stage 2 response. The landlord’s policy does not give a timeframe for attendance for a gas repair. Its repairs policy categorises urgent and standard repairs. As the national gas emergency organisation had capped the gas, it was not an urgent or emergency repair. In addition, as it was not during winter, it was reasonable for the landlord to have attended within 3 days. It also completed a further LGSR 3 weeks later which passed.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to say whether a gas leak did or did not take place. In the absence of any evidence of an ongoing leak, the landlord attended promptly following the gas having been capped, and restored services. It followed its policies and there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of pest control and a contaminated water tank

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the installations for the supply of water. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s environmental policy, say that residents are responsible for pest control within their properties. However, under its lettable standards policy the landlord will inspect the property prior to letting and will treat any pest infestations found.
The landlord inspected the property in March 2023 and detailed all repairs it needed to complete. It certified the property met its lettable standard the day before the resident’s tenancy started. There were no records or notes regarding evidence of a pest infestation at that time.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she noticed a foul smell from the water and had been reporting this to the landlord, but it has not provided any records of this. She also said the gas engineer who attended on 3 May 2023 suggested the smell could be due to contamination. When the landlord attended 3 days later for the electric repair (considered below), it said it suspected pest activity in the loft. There was an unexplained delay of a month following this before the landlord raised pest control. However, it was positive that it did so, as this was not its policy position and was solution focused as the resident had reported the contaminated water tank by this time.
There was confusion within the landlord on which contractor could remove the rat from the water tank, which led to delay. It took 23 days for it to remove the rat which was an unreasonable delay. The resident had told the landlord that she was staying away from the property, and its delay prolonged that period and associated inconvenience. The landlord promptly approved its contractor’s quote for remedial repairs and cleaning which was positive. The landlord’s policies do not include a timeframe for pest control works, repairs, or cleaning of water tanks. It took 42 days from the resident reporting the issue to its resolution. This was not within a reasonable timeframe, based on the seriousness of the issue of the property being without usable water, and the resident living elsewhere until it was resolved.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it had delayed and apologised for this. It offered compensation of £580 for its failings. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is not clear when the pest infestation in the loft started, or when the rat entered the water tank. Equally, the Ombudsman does not know whether the landlord inspected the loft during the pre-letting period or not, as it says it will under its lettable standards policy. Its inspection forms do not ask questions about the loft or provide space for comment. What is clear is that once the resident reported the issue of contaminated water, the landlord did not act quickly enough to resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has thrown away possessions which she said were contaminated but there is no evidence this was necessary, or that those items could not be cleaned. While the Ombudsman recognises the distress caused to the resident, the landlord accepted its failings within its complaints process. It apologised and offered compensation which is in line with our guidance on remedies. It demonstrated the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and so there was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and electrical wiring

Under the tenancy agreement, and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof and electrical wiring. As part of its pre-letting works it tested the electrics and produced an electrical safety certificate, in line with its lettable standards policy.
When the resident reported a repair for her electrics the landlord attended as an urgent repair the same day. This was in line with its repairs policy. It made the electrics safe and booked a follow-on appointment, which was a no access. Within its stage 1 response the landlord’s plan to reattend to repair the electrical wiring after pest control had treated for rats was reasonable. The landlord had made the electrics safe and had an obligation to ensure a safe working environment for its contractor to be able to complete repairs. It would have been helpful to know when it completed rewiring, but it did this, and issued a certificate to confirm the electrics met the relevant standards.
It is not clear from the evidence when the damage to the roof was caused. There is no evidence the landlord was aware of the damage when it let the property. It had notice of the repairs when it inspected the loft for pest control and the water tank issue. It was reasonable for it to delay repairs until it had treated for the rats. It completed repairs when it said it would, and later post inspected to confirm. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response after 12 working days, slightly outside of its 10-working day timeframe. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It correctly accepted its failings, said how it would put things right, and offered compensation.
The resident had already asked to escalate her complaint by the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response. In line with the Code, it correctly issued a stage 1 response before doing so and advised how she could then escalate the complaint. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident confirmed she wanted to move to stage 2 of its process. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether it provided it stage 2 response within its policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code.
Due to its stage 1 delay there was service failure, which caused the resident to ask to escalate before she had her stage 1 response. This caused the resident additional time and trouble. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of pest control and a contaminated water tank.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a gas leak.
2. Repairs to the roof and electrical wiring.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failure detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £75 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its failing.
3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay directly to the resident the £580 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
2. Consider amending its void inspection and handover paperwork to include questions or comments about the condition of lofts, for properties which have one.
3. Assist the resident in finding and/or applying to hardship funds or support schemes to help with the cost of replacing possessions she disposed of.