A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202309203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309203

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 October 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 concerns about the garden shed.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the patio doors.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records.
The resident reported the patio door handle was loose on 25 July 2022. She told the landlord on 1 August 2022 that there was a crack in the garden shed wall. Further issues with the patio doors were reported in September 2022, November 2022 and January 2023
The resident raised a complaint on 9 February 2023. She said a surveyor had confirmed the garden shed was unsafe and as a result her children were unable to play in the garden. She also noted the patio doors let in a draught and there was condensation between the double-glazed patio door windows.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023 and said:
1. The outstanding work would be completed on 28 April 2023.
2. It would offer the resident £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused, £75 compensation for the lack of communication and £150 compensation for the delays in completing the work.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 18 April 2023. She said the work was outstanding and her complaint had not been taken seriously. She also noted the landlord had failed to return her telephone calls and its communication with her had been poor.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 May 2023 and said:
1. There was no immediate risk the garden shed would collapse and the resident’s children could play in the garden.
2. A wooden garden shed was erected on 24 April 2023.
3. A site visit was carried out on 11 May 2023 to agree a plan of action to safely demolish the existing brick shed.
4. Its contractor would contact the resident by 19 May 2023 to agree a date for removing the shed roof. It would start to demolish the rest of the shed on 12 June 2023.
5. The patio door windows had not been replaced due to appointments having to be rearranged several times. The work was due to be completed on 12 May 2023.
6. It had failed to keep the resident updated and it would increase its offer of compensation from £300 to £475.

Post complaint events.

The double-glazed patio windows were replaced on 26 July 2023 and the garden shed demolished at the end of July 2023.
The resident told this Service on 16 October 2024 that there were still issues with the patio doors. She said there was still a draft and she had difficulty locking them because there was no lintel. She also noted the patio that was laid on the shed foundations had sunk and caused the garden to flood.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden shed.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine what works were ordered and when.
The housing records confirm the resident raised concerns about the garden shed on 1 August 2022. She said there was a huge crack in the brick work and there could be an issue with the foundations. There is no evidence the landlord carried out an inspection at this point to assess whether the building was safe. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s prioritisation policy which says it will attend to dangerous structures within 24 hours. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action would be taken by the landlord or whether the building was safe.
While the resident said a surveyor visited on 7 September 2022 and confirmed the shed was unsafe, the landlord did not provide this Service with any information regarding the inspection. This was a failure. A survey was requested on 16 September 2022, but there is no evidence this was actioned. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The housing records confirm a recommendation was made on 21 September 2022 to engage a structural surveyor. It said this was because 7 recommendations had been made about the garden shed, although it is unclear from the information provided to this Service what these recommendations were or on what basis they were made. Again, this demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
There is no evidence the resident was provided with an update or given any assurances at this point as to whether the garden shed was safe. This was a failure. The job was subsequently cancelled, although no information was provided to this Service of the reason for this.
While the landlord told the resident on 17 April 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that all of the outstanding work would be completed on 28 April 2023, there is no evidence any works were done. This was a further failure and meant the resident had to escalate her complaint.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for an update on 20 April 2023 or 2 May 2023. This was a failure and meant the resident remained unclear if the shed was unsafe or what action was going to be taken by the landlord.
The landlord did not tell the resident the garden shed did not pose an immediate risk of collapsing until it issued its final complaint response on 12 May 2023; some 9 months after she raised concerns. It confirmed a wooden shed was erected on 24 April 2023 but did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case. The landlord also said a site visit was undertaken on 11 May 2023 and a plan of action was drawn up to demolish the garden shed, but again no information about the visit was shared with this Service. This was a further failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its contractor would contact the resident by 19 May 2023 to make arrangements to remove the shed roof and to start demolishing the rest of the building on 12 June 2023. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. While the landlord increased its offer of compensation from £300 to £475, it did not specify how much of this related to the garden shed. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed that 50% of the amount (excluding the £50 compensation awarded for the poor complaints handling) relates to the garden shed. This equates to £212.50 compensation.
The offer of compensation was not fair or proportionate in the circumstances given it took the landlord over 11 months to demolish the shed. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She had to chase the landlord up on a number of occasions and was concerned about her children’s safety and as a result, was unable to use the garden.
In summary, there were delays in carrying out the work and the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. It also failed to offer her any assurances about the safety of the building until May 2023. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on a number of occasions she was concerned about the building and would not let her children play in the garden as a result. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden shed, for which it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. on top of that which has already been offered.
This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reviews following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight review on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations in the KIM report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations in the spotlight review unless it can provide evidence it has already completed a self-assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the patio doors.

The housing records confirm the resident reported the patio door handle was loose on 25 July 2022. She also said the sealant around the door had come off. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had a duty to meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including doors. It was appropriate for the landlord to order a repair on the same day and book an appointment for 5 August 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy says ‘‘standard repairs’’ are completed within 20 working days.
The appointment time was brought forward to 2 August 2022 with the agreement of the resident. The landlord attended at the appointment time and fitted a new lock and ‘‘overhauled’’ the patio doors. It is unclear from the housing records, however, whether the landlord checked or replaced the seal around the patio doors. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 September 2022 and said there were gaps around the patio doors. It was appropriate for a job to be raised on the same day, but this was subsequently cancelled. The reason for cancelling the repair is unknown. Again, this demonstrates poor record keeping.
A further repair was raised on 22 September 2022 to seal the patio doors, with an appointment booked for 10 October 2022. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord attended on the appointed day and resealed the doors.
The resident told the landlord on 7 November 2022 that there was condensation between the window panels in the patio doors. An appointment was booked for 16 November 2022 in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
It was identified during the visit on 16 November 2022 that new double-glazed window panels were required and the windows were measured. The quotation for the work was approved on 23 November 2022 and an appointment made to replace the window panels on 13 January 2023. The job was, however, subsequently cancelled by the landlord. It said this was because the windows did not need to be replaced. While the resident was provided with an update, the landlord’s decision to cancel the job caused confusion and contradicted the previous decision made.
The resident told the landlord on 30 January 2023 that there was still condensation between the patio door window panels. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a further job on the same day and book an appointment for 7 February 2023. The landlord attended on the appointment day and agreed the glass panels needed to be replaced.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 16 February 2023 but was unable to complete the work as the resident had to go out. A further appointment was arranged for 21 February 2023 and the patio door windows were measured up again. The window panels were ordered on 22 February 2023 and an estimated delivery date given for 8 March 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an appointment with the resident for 9 March 2023.
The landlord said it contacted the resident on 6 March 2023 and agreed with her that the appointment could be brought forward to that day. It is unclear from the housing records whether the appointment was arranged for the morning or afternoon.
The resident told the landlord on 9 March 2023 that she was not happy that the appointment had been moved to an afternoon appointment without her knowledge. She said she had been waiting in all morning. The landlord’s failure to attend caused the resident inconvenience. A further appointment was arranged on 16 March 2023 for 25 April 2023 but did not go ahead at the resident’s request.
While the landlord told the resident on 17 April 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that all of the outstanding work would be completed on 28 April 2023, there is no evidence any works were done. This was a failure, caused the resident further inconvenience and meant she had to escalate her complaint. The offer of £300 compensation was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord arranged a new appointment on 11 May 2023 to complete the work on the following day. The work was not completed, however, as the wrong sized glass panels were ordered. This was a failure and caused the resident inconvenience. The resident was updated and a further appointment was booked for 13 June 2023, although this was later rearranged to 26 July 2023. The reason for this is unclear from the housing records.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology for the delays in its final complaint response on 12 May 2023. It also confirmed it had spoken to its contractor about the level of service provided and identified it needed to improve its internal communication. This demonstrated it learnt from the complaint and wanted to put things right for the resident. This was in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, which encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery. While the landlord increased its offer of compensation from £300 to £475, it did not specify how much of this related to the patio doors. For the purpose of this investigation we have assumed that 50% of the amount (excluding the £50 compensation awarded for the poor complaints handling) relates to the patio doors. This equates to £212.50 compensation.
The offer of compensation was not fair or proportionate in the circumstances given it took the landlord over 1 year to fix the patio doors and the resident continued to report problems after the landlord issued its final complaint response. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She had to chase the landlord up on a number of occasions and was concerned about security and drafts despite repairs being completed.
In summary, the landlord attended to some of the repairs to the patio doors in a timely manner. Its decision to cancel the job to replace the window panels, however, caused confusion and led to delays. The repair was subsequently reraised, but the wrong size of glass was ordered and this led to further delays. The landlord apologised for the delays and increased its offer of compensation. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the patio doors, for which it is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, on top of what has already been offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 9 February 2023. She said her garden shed had been deemed unsafe and there were problems with the patio doors. She also said the repairs had not been completed despite numerous visits by the landlord and it had failed to return her telephone calls.
The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 17 February 2023. This was outside the 5 working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. While the landlord confirmed the nature of the complaint, there is no evidence it sought to understand the outcomes the resident was seeking. This was not in accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code (the Code).
The landlord said it would provide a response within 10-20 working days. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. This says landlords should provide a response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023. This was outside the target timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. It also failed to identify any learning from the complaint and stated an incorrect compensation amount of £100, when it was offering £300 compensation. This caused confusion.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 18 April 2023. This was acknowledged on 20 April 2023 in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not confirm the nature of the complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was a failure. It said it would issue its final complaint response by 22 May 2023.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 May 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm the nature of the complaint and the outcomes she was seeking. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case, the landlord apologised for the delays, set out the learning it had gained from the complaint and increased its offer of compensation. This included £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for her.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing the stage 1 complaint response, which included an incorrect compensation amount and no evidence of any learning from the complaint. It did, however, set out the learning it had identified in its final complaint response and increased its offer of compensation from £300 to £475. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden shed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the patio doors.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £625compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £100compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her concerns about the garden shed.
2. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her requests for repairs to the patio doors
3. £425 compensation already offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and arrange for the newly laid patio to be inspected. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the inspection in writing and set out a plan of action to complete any identified remedial works, including timescales. A copy of the plan must be shared with the resident and this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and arrange for the patio doors to be inspected. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the inspection in writing and set out a plan of action to complete any identified remedial works, including timescales. A copy of the plan must be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord pay the resident the £50 compensation previously offered for its poor complaints handling, if not already paid.