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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202318447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318447

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property’s windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat. It has recorded her as having multiple health issues and disabilities that make day to day tasks difficult for her. These include using her hands to hold and open objects, which the resident has confirmed.
  2. In November 2022, the resident requested that the landlord repair her property’s window latches, as their corroded mechanism meant these got stuck. It therefore attended an appointment for her windows in December 2022. However, the resident then told the landlord this job had been closed without any action being taken apart from it photographing the windows. She considered this unacceptable, as the latches were difficult to open, even for people without her disabilities, so these were unfit for purpose. The resident therefore asked for her windows to be repaired, or a written explanation with reasons if the landlord refused this. The landlord subsequently booked a job for its sub-contractor to attend the resident’s windows again in December 2022.
  3. The sub-contractor nevertheless cancelled this, instead inspecting the windows and sending a quote for parts to be approved in January 2023. However, a new job for this was then raised with a different sub-contractor in January 2023. The landlord noted the new contractor cancelled the job twice, as they could not reach the resident, but she disputed this. She therefore made a stage 1 complaint in March 2023 about outstanding repairs, cancelled appointments, and a lack of communication. The resident added the original sub-contractor had to re-raise the job in March 2023 due to the landlord’s actions. Its subsequent stage 1 response in March 2023 described repairing her window latches so these opened and closed correctly in December 2022.
  4. The landlord said it then arranged the above further jobs after the resident contacted it and it awaited an update from its new sub-contractor to send her. It therefore partially upheld her complaint and gave her contact details for the contractor overseeing the outstanding works. The landlord also apologised for sub-standard service and offered £20 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience from chasing the matter and £50 for its delay. The resident subsequently asked the contractor to chase her window repair and confirm the previous quote for this would not be re-assessed in March 2023. She also disputed the landlord’s stage 1 response’s accuracy and asked for a final stage escalation in March 2023.
  5. The resident then chased the landlord’s contractor for an update again in April 2023, as she explained that the outstanding window repair was an unacceptable health hazard. She was nevertheless told the original sub-contractor awaited approval for their quote for parts to order these, which was approved in May 2023. The landlord subsequently sent the resident 2 further stage 1 responses in May 2023 before escalating her final stage complaint. These apologised for its delays, incorrect information, and her inconvenience. The landlord also aimed to repair the windows by June 2023 and increased its compensation offer to £300 and then £350. It additionally recommended better internal and resident communication and updates.
  6. This was to prevent the landlord’s incorrect information about a new sub-contractor repairing the resident’s windows. Its contractor then apologised to her for the continuing delay and lack of communication in June 2023 while the sub-contractor awaited parts. They therefore offered the resident an air cooler while she waited, due to the heat from her being unable to open windows. However, she twice chased repair updates in June 2023 and was told parts were due later that month, when she would be contacted for repairs. The resident was then informed the parts would be delivered in July 2023. In the meantime, the landlord’s June 2023 final stage response apologised for its delays due to poor job management and internal communication.
  7. The landlord added its sub-contractor rescheduled some appointments and some were due to the resident’s availability, with her window works due by August 2023. It also confirmed she received an air cooler and increased its compensation offer to £650 for its communication and at its discretion. This was because the landlord upheld the complaint and reminded its contractors of the good service, resident and internal communication, and effective job management expected. The sub-contractor subsequently offered the resident a July 2023 repair appointment after their engineer checked that parts were correct. The sub-contactor nevertheless then cancelled her window repair in July 2023 and referred this back to the landlord in August 2023.
  8. This was due to not all necessary parts being received and the windows being unrepairable, needing replacement by the managing agent. The resident considered this unacceptable, lacking functional windows since November 2022 with the air cooler no substitute. She added the landlord delayed instructing the managing agent, which awaited an August 2023 survey, and quoted and approved parts in September 2023. They then offered a September 2023 repair appointment the resident rescheduled to October 2023, when her windows were replaced. The landlord subsequently redecorated her windows in February 2024. However, the resident complained to the Ombudsman for an apology, service improvement, and compensation for stress, time, and effort.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep her property’s structure in good repair, including the window catches and necessary painting and decorating. Its responsive repairs policy requires it to complete standard repairs within 20 working days and planned works within 90 calendar days. The landlord’s complaints policy obliges it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and final stage complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord initially responded to the resident’s 16 November 2022 window latch repair request in line with the tenancy agreement and responsive repairs policy. This is because it attended within the policy’s 20-working-day timescale on 1 December 2022, accepted responsibility for this, and described leaving windows opening and closing. It is therefore concerning the resident reported the windows were only photographed and left not opening on 12 December 2022, particularly due to her disabilities. This meant it was appropriate for the landlord to book another attendance for the windows within the above timescale on 21 December 2022. Its sub-contractor nevertheless then cancelled this, and no reason was given for the cancellation, which was unsuitable.
  3. However, it was reasonable the landlord’s sub-contractor re-attended the windows within 20 working days of the resident’s December 2022 report on 5 January 2023. As they inspected the windows and sent it a quote to approve for parts, it was understandable the repair was not completed at that time. This is because it could have taken longer than the responsive repairs policy’s above timescale to approve, order, deliver, and install new window parts. This permitted the landlord to repair the resident’s windows under the longer 90-calendar-day planned works timescale under the policy. However, as her November 2022 initial report was confirmed unresolved, this would have been appropriate to repair 90 calendar days later by 14 February 2023.
  4. It was therefore unsuitable the landlord did not repair the resident’s windows within the above timescale, or approve, order, or obtain parts for these. It instead accepted it was responsible for poor job management and internal communication that meant it gave her incorrect information about this. This was when the landlord described a different sub-contractor’s new job on 23 January 2023 being cancelled twice as they could not reach the resident. This meant she experienced unnecessary additional time and trouble in chasing it to progress her window works, which was unreasonable. The resident did so by asking the original sub-contractor to re-send their quote on 1 March 2023 and complaining on 15 March 2023.
  5. The resident subsequently told the landlord there had still been no further action taken for her windows on 20 March 2023. She complained again on 31 March 2023 and chased it and its contractor and sub-contractor for updates on that and the following dates. These were 11, 12, and 24 April, 4 May, 15 and 22 June, 11, 12 and 26 July, and 1 August 2023. The landlord nevertheless did not arrange for the resident’s windows to be repaired during that period, which was inappropriate. Its contractor instead confirmed the above quote was only approved on 4 May 2023, 119 calendar days after this was originally provided in January 2023. This unsuitably lengthy delay also held up the sub-contractor’s 2 August 2023 finding that the windows needed replacing.
  6. The sub-contractor therefore referred the resident’s window works to the landlord for a new survey for replacement works its managing agent was responsible for. However, she had to chase them for updates on 21 and 23 August and 5 September 2023 to be offered a 27 September 2023 appointment. The resident was unavailable and had to rearrange the window replacement to October 2023, which she confirmed was completed on 29 October 2023. The landlord was therefore not responsible for this final delay, but its managing agent only offered works 315 calendar days after her November 2022 report. This was an unacceptably excessive delay that caused the resident further unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  7. This is especially because the resident explained to the landlord and its contractors that she was unable to open her windows in hot weather. While they acknowledged this and offered an air cooler on 14 June 2023 they then supplied, she confirmed this was no substitute for functioning windows. It is therefore of concern that the landlord did not arrange this or the window works sooner, particularly given the resident’s health issues and disabilities. It is nevertheless noted that it and its contractors were not fully responsible for their suppliers’ parts taking from March to September 2023 to arrive. However, while these were chased, there is no evidence alternative arrangements were made to complete the works sooner, despite being suggested on 14 June 2023.
  8. Moreover, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange regular window works updates to the resident until completion so she chased these. It was therefore appropriate for its complaint responses to apologise for delays, incorrect information, and inconvenience, and offer £650 compensation to put things right. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to do so. Our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy also recommend this level of compensation for extensive disruption and effort significantly impacting the resident. This is additionally within the compensation range recommended by the guidance and policy for extensive failures to follow the complaints policy delaying getting matters resolved.
  9. Therefore, while not all the landlord’s complaint responses followed its complaints policy’s timescales, its above compensation offer was proportionate to put this right. The resident’s 15 March 2023 stage 1 complaint was responded to within the policy’s 10-working-day response timescale on 28 March 2023. However, her 31 March 2023 final stage complaint’s response was after 50 working days on 16 June 2023 instead of the policy’s 20-working-day response timescale. This was unsuitable and so was the fact the landlord issued 2 further stage 1 responses in the meantime on 11 and 12 May 2023. This was contrary to its obligation under the policy to issue only a final response and could have delayed the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
  10. This meant it was reasonable that the landlord’s compensation offer was also proportionate to recognise its above complaint handling failures. It additionally sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. The landlord did so by recommending better internal and resident communication and updates. Moreover, it reminded its contractors of the good service, resident and internal communication, and effective job management expected of them. The landlord’s above actions nevertheless did not address its further 103 calendar days from June to September 2023 to offer window works. Moreover, after the resident confirmed works were completed in October 2023, it took 117 calendar days to redecorate on 23 February 2024.
  11. The landlord’s above additional delays contrary to its responsive repairs policy were neither acknowledged nor remedied by it. This and the further delays also occurring after its above recommendations and reminders showed it did not fully put things right or learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy permit compensation from £1,000 for failures, extensive disruption, and effort accumulated over a significant time period. It has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident this, broken down into its £650 previous offer and another £350 for its further delays. The landlord has also been ordered to apologise to the resident for the further failings identified by this investigation.
  12. The landlord has additionally been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s window repair case. This is to identify exactly why its failures in handling her reports happened, and to outline how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include its staff’s and contractors’ training needs on the application of its responsive repairs policy. This is to ensure prompt and effective works and updates that consider residents’ vulnerabilities in every repairs case. However, the landlord’s complaints self-assessment, performance and improvement report, and action plan since the resident’s case show its learning from her complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property’s windows.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £650 it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
      2. £350 additional compensation for its further delays in replacing her windows after its previous compensation offer and in redecorating.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation in its handling of her window repair reports, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on her.
    3. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s window repair case. This is to identify exactly why its failures in handling her reports happened, and to outline how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs on the application of its responsive repairs policy.

This is to ensure prompt and effective works and updates that consider residents’ vulnerabilities in every repairs case.

  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.