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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202321005)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321005

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

19 August 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:
    1. Repairs to a balcony door.
    2. Reports of a silverfish infestation.
    3. The complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. She lives there with her children.
  2. On 12 June 2023 the resident reported an issue with her balcony door which meant it would not close. On 27 June 2023 the landlord treated a silverfish infestation.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 23 August 2023. She stated that her balcony door remained broken and that she was unable to close it. She advised that this was causing flooding in her property when it rained. She also advised that she had a silverfish problem. The resident stated that the landlord had cancelled appointments, and that she had asked for a manager call back but had not received this.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. It advised that it had come out to look at the door, but it was established that it could not be repaired and needed replacing. It advised its technical team were attempting to source parts. The landlord offered £370 compensation.
  5. The landlord initially advised the resident to disregard the stage 1 response as it was incomplete. On the 6 October 2023 it sent the resident a copy of the stage 1 response and said that it had revised the compensation offer. The Ombudsman has only seen 1 stage 1 response in the evidence provided by the landlord.
  6. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 8 November 2023. Her door was not fixed, and she advised she had been asking for a manager call back which she had not received.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 December 2023. It advised it was still attempting to get the repair parts for the balcony door. It acknowledged it had not provided enough updates to the resident. It confirmed that it had visited on 11 December 2023. It found that the door had been closed on a ventilation latch and that it showed the resident how to close the door to reduce draughts. It increased the total compensation offer to £520.
  8. The resident challenged the stage 2 response on the same day that she received it. She stated that she had been told to ignore the stage 1 response. She was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed the silverfish infestation. She also stated that when the landlord showed her how to close the door, it had been slammed so hard she was concerned the glass would shatter.
  9. The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 10 January 2024. It confirmed that the door could be shut with force. It advised that the silverfish infestation had been treated and a visit on 3 January 2024 showed no further silverfish. It advised it would conduct a further visit regarding the silverfish, once the balcony door had been fixed. The landlord offered a further £200 in compensation. The resident had also referenced a call from a repairs officer which she overheard that she said was unprofessional. The landlord advised it had opened an investigation but that the call had not been in response to the resident’s case.
  10. The resident remains unhappy as the balcony doors have not been fixed and she has been given no timescales as to when this will be completed. She would like the door to be fixed, and a timescale agreed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a balcony door

  1. On receiving notification that the balcony door did not close, the landlord should have considered what was necessary to repair it. Given that the door could not close, this meant that the property was not secure. The landlord should have considered what actions it could have taken to ensure the resident could secure her property, while the repairs were being organised. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
  2. On 18 August 2023 the landlord noted that the balcony door did not close, and this caused cold air and water to get in. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident resides in the property with her children. The landlord should have been considering what actions it could have taken to support the resident and her family until the repairs could be completed. There is no evidence that it did this.
  3. On 9 and 10 September 2023 the resident reported the door again. She advised it had become jammed and she could not secure her property. She advised she had spoken to a supervisor who stated that he had other priorities. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this call and is unable to confirm what happened during it. On 13 September 2023 a repairs note stated there was a hole under the balcony door and that due to the door not closing, there was a security issue. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action at this time to address the concerns, or that it updated the resident on what actions it intended to take.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 September 2023. She was frustrated as she had not had received a complaint response. She stated that no one had repaired the door and that she had repeatedly asked for call backs which she had not received. The landlord should have been regularly updating the resident to confirm what actions it was taking to complete the repairs. There is no evidence that it was doing this, which was understandably frustrating for the resident.
  5. The stage 1 complaint response advised that the door needed specific parts which were not easy to source. The Ombudsman appreciates that it can be difficult if door parts are hard to source. However, we consider that the landlord should have been taking action to escalate the matter internally. We have seen no evidence of the landlord’s attempts to source the parts. We would also consider it reasonable that after a certain period of time, if the parts could not be sourced, the landlord should have considered other options, such as looking at alternative doors that were more accessible to the landlord. There is no evidence to support it did this. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it was doing everything it could to complete the repair.
  6. The resident continued to chase the works, and on 11 October 2023 the resident raised concerns that due to the weather change her property was now cold and damp. The landlord should have considered the repair a priority. It also should have been considering what other actions it could take to support the resident given the colder months.
  7. The landlord did not appear to attend until 11 December 2023. We have not seen a record of this visit, although it was referenced in the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord stated it had demonstrated how the door could be closed. In its revised stage 2 response, it confirmed that the door needed to be closed with force. The resident had concerns that the glass would shatter and that it was causing more damage. The resident did not consider this to be a suitable resolution.
  8. The Ombudsman is aware the balcony doors contain glass. We are unable to comment on how robust the doors are, or whether using force would potentially cause damage. However, in receiving the resident’s concerns the landlord should have considered whether there was any risk of the glass shattering and provided advice to the resident. This was of particular importance, given the children in the property. Internal emails dated 19 December 2023 show that the landlord opened an internal investigation, as to whether the door had been slammed during the contractors visit. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that this investigation was completed, or what the outcome of this was.
  9. On 3 January 2024 the landlord noted that it had obtained a quote for the works and the parts would be ready in 5 days. The landlord stated it had accepted this quote. The Ombudsman has seen no further evidence in relation to this quote and the door was not repaired. The Ombudsman was provided information from the landlord, in response to our evidence request, that it was let down by its contractors. However, the landlord was not specific at which point this occurred, nor is it apparent from the evidence. It is concerning that the landlord noted a possible solution but did not act on it or provide evidence as to why it was unable to move forward with the potential solution.
  10. In the revised stage 2 response the landlord stated that someone would complete an interim repair on 22 January 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen details of this repair, or what the outcome of this was. In the evidence file submitted by the landlord, it advised that an interim repair was completed, but that further parts were needed. The Ombudsman is unable to comment whether the interim repair addressed the resident’s concerns, most notably with cold air getting in, water ingress, silverfish, and being able to secure her property.
  11. On 29 April 2024 there was an email between the contractor and the landlord attempting to arrange an appointment to complete the repairs. The landlord stated that due to the resident needing 1 weeks’ notice, it had not been able to arrange an appointment. While the Ombudsman considers that the resident should be providing access to the landlord, we do not consider that asking for a weeks’ notice is unreasonable. The resident advised this was so she could arrange time off work. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to arrange an appointment with given notice.
  12. The landlord has informed us that the repair remains outstanding. On 6 July 2024 it emailed to say that a further assessment was required on 31 May 2024 and that a new contractor was appointed. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord provided this update 2 months after the assessment should have been completed but did not give any details of the outcome of this assessment, or any information on what actions the landlord had been taking since this time.
  13. There is limited evidence to show what actions the landlord has taken in order to complete the repairs. While the Ombudsman accepts that some delay would have been likely, due to the difficulty in sourcing parts, we consider 12 months to be an unreasonable delay. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it was treating the repair with urgency, despite the landlord being aware there were security risks as well as cold air and water coming into the home. The Ombudsman acknowledges that interim repairs were attempted in December 2023, however the resident raised concerns about this, and the landlord failed to respond to these concerns. We also note that the landlord has advised of an interim repair in January 2024 although we do not have any details regarding this, and we cannot confirm if this has resolved any impact on the resident. In both instances, the Ombudsman considers that the interim repairs were delayed unreasonably.
  14. There was little communication with the resident throughout the complaint, and the landlord acknowledged that this was a failing. However, it has failed to demonstrate that it has made any improvement on this since the stage 2 complaint response, which is disappointing.
  15. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has offered compensation. Due to the landlord issuing 2 stage 1 responses, and 2 stage 2 responses, it is difficult to comment on how the landlord calculated its compensation. The Ombudsman understands the total offer, as noted in the revised stage 2 response was £720. The landlord noted that £150 of this was for complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers that the remaining £570 was awarded in respect to failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door. We consider this to be a reasonable offer of compensation at the time of issuing the stage 2 complaint, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  16. Although we consider the financial offer reasonable, the Ombudsman is concerned that the matter remains unresolved. We also consider that the landlord has failed to improve on its communication. Due to the repair still being outstanding, and due to the landlord failing to improve despite acknowledging failures in its complaint response, the Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs of a balcony door.
  17. The Ombudsman will not order further compensation. Our orders will instead focus on ensuring the resident’s repairs are completed.

The landlord’s response to a silverfish infestation

  1. The landlord treated the silverfish infestation on 27 June 2023. It treated the infestation again on 23 November 2023. In this appointment it noted that whilst it had treated the infestation, it believed that the cause was the broken balcony door, allowing access for the pests into the home. It is positive that the landlord was treating the infestation, however a permanent resolution was reliant on the door being fixed, which has been assessed above.
  2. In the revised stage 2 response the landlord advised that on 3 January 2024, no silverfish were found at the property. It is encouraging that the landlord conducted a visit to check for re-infestation. The landlord also noted that it would complete a visit again once the balcony doors had been fixed. This was a reasonable commitment from the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that the silverfish infestation may not be fully resolved until the balcony door has been fixed. We appreciate that this is difficult for the resident, particularly in light of the delays to the repair. However, we consider this has been fully assessed in the previous section.
  4. As the landlord attempted to treat the silverfish infestation, and has committed to further treatment in the future, the Ombudsman considers there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a silverfish infestation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. There is some ambiguity around when the response was issued. The letter is dated the 26 September 2023. An email from the landlord stated the letter was attached on 6 October 2023, and had a revised compensation offer. The resident was also advised to disregard the stage 1 and then later told that the stage 1 stood. Taking the earliest date noted, the landlord responded to the stage 1 in 24 working days, which was out with its timescales for a stage 1 response. The Ombudsman recognises that the delay was longer due to the confusing communication from the landlord.
  2. The landlord initially stated that the stage 1 was withdrawn as information was missing. However, the Ombudsman cannot see that the information it noted was included in the revised offer. The landlord’s communication appeared to cause confusion for the resident. The landlord should be ensuring that its complaints process is clear, and that it does not cause further issues for residents.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord took 26 working days to issue its response. Although this is out with the landlord’s complaint times, the Ombudsman does not consider the delay to be excessive.
  4. The Ombudsman notes the stage 2 response was also revised. This appears to be due to a dispute on what should be included, notably the silverfish infestation. The resident stated it had been part of her complaint at stage 1. The Ombudsman has read the initial complaint and although the silverfish infestation was noted, this appeared to be an ongoing issue, rather than the source of the complaint. It is understandable why the landlord did not consider this had been raised formally. Despite this, the landlord agreed to revisit and consider this in its stage 2 complaint. While we do not usually encourage landlords to revise a stage 2 complaint, in this case the landlord considered the resident’s position and took an approach which was beneficial to her.
  5. Although there were some delays and confusion during the complaints process, the landlord offered £150 compensation for this. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer and as such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman has commented at several points in this investigation that we have not seen evidence relevant to repairs which have taken place. This has made it difficult for us to assess whether the repairs were sufficient in addressing the resident’s complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord has advised it was trying to source the parts for the door. However, no evidence has been provided.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep sufficient records to ensure that it is clear what actions the landlord was taking and in what time frame. These records should be detailed and accessible to all relevant parties, so that repairs can be followed up. This is also important for the landlord so that it can accurately respond to complaints, should they arise. As the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it has kept up to date and detailed records, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a silverfish infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to issue an apology to the resident. This should include recognition of the length of time the matter has been ongoing, and the lack of regular updates to the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works, which includes the timeframe for completion of the repair. The repairs completion should not exceed 3 months from the date this report is issued. If the landlord cannot source the parts from the original manufacturer, or it is unable to use the current contractor to complete the repair, the landlord has 12 weeks from this report to confirm that it has sourced an alternate solution and confirm a timescale for the repair to be completed, to both the resident and the Ombudsman. This order should be overseen by a senior manager.
  3. The landlord is to pay the resident the £570 it offered in its revised stage 2 offer for the delays in repairing the balcony door, if it has not already. Evidence of compliance should be submitted to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
  4. The landlord is to review its record keeping in this case. It should consider what training is needed to ensure that up to date records are being kept. The landlord should share the outcome of this review within 6 weeks of this report, and any training or policy changes it intends to implement as a result of this.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £150 for complaints handling.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord check that the silverfish have not returned. If they have, it is recommended the landlord carry out further treatment.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss if there have been further issues with damp and mould and make an agreement on how this can be resolved.