A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202328263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328263

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 November 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould and related outstanding repairs.
2. Complaint.
This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. She is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived at the property since August 2016.
On 15 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report damp in her property from the outside walls, which was causing mould to form inside. It attended the property on 28 September 2022 and then arranged to visit again on 6 October 2022 to assess what works needed to be done. It was decided that the external render would first be replaced to allow for completion of internal works. The landlord booked a repairs appointment for 25 January 2023 but cancelled this due to “staff absence”. It is unclear what further action it took following this.
On 21 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She stated that:
1. She contacted the landlord in September 2022 to report cracks in her external walls that were causing damp in her property.
2. Several weeks later, an operative attended the property and started preparing the walls for the repair. However, he did not finish the job and left the wall with deeper cracks than before. As a result, the damp and mould in the property had become even worse.
3. Whenever she tried to book an appointment with the contractor, nobody turned up. The contractor would then claim she was not at home when it visited.
4. She had booked “so many days off” to allow access and ended up wasting her time waiting for operatives.
5. The damp and mould was affecting her family’s health and damaging the property.
6. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs as soon as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2023. It called her on 12 April 2023 to discuss her concerns, and then issued its stage 1 response on the same day. It stated that it:
1. Was committed to completing outstanding repairs to her bathroom by 26 May 2023.
2. Had booked works to:
  1. Fill cracks to the external wall, which it would then dry out and paint.
  2. Change the kitchen fan socket, which was sinking into the wall and getting wet.
  3. Remove the kitchen base and carry out a full mould wash to the walls behind.
3. Had appointed a single point of contact (SPOC) who would oversee the remaining works and ensure they were “completed to a good standard and within the timeframe”.
4. Wanted to apologise for its “sub-standard service”. It acknowledged the “clear delay” in responding to her complaint and its poor communication, which it had addressed with the relevant staff.
5. Had provided further training and reminded staff of the importance of keeping clear, accurate and up to date records.
6. Had also spoken to its contractor about the missed appointments and the level of service it expected it to provide.
7. Wanted to offer £225 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
On 3 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She reiterated her concerns that were raised at stage 1 about the condition of the property deteriorating, the impact on her family’s health and the time she had spent off work. The resident also added that she wanted the landlord to compensate her for her higher energy bills and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 May 2023 to assure her that works were due to start. It added that it had asked its contractor to contact her and confirm when the repairs would take place. It is unclear from the records if the contractor had contacted the resident or if the landlord had taken any further action following this.
On 20 January 2024, the resident contacted the Service to say that the landlord had not responded to her escalation request. She stated that it had failed to complete the repair she had reported in September 2022. She stated that the water ingress, damp and mould had damaged her property, and she was having to spend more money heating her home as a result. In addition, she had taken days off work and spent time waiting for operatives who never arrived.
The Service contacted the landlord on 20 February 2024 and asked it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response by 28 February 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2024 to acknowledge her escalation request and advise her it would provide a response by 8 March 2024. On 8 March 2024, it issued its stage 2 response. It explained that, following her stage 1 complaint on 23 February 2023, “there were several further attempts to raise repairs, and rendering to the external walls was completed”. However, as a result of “significant failings” by its contractor and delays in setting up its new repair service, it had a large backlog of works to address. It added that it:
1. Was sorry for the delay in “actioning” the resident’s escalation request.
2. Acknowledged that it had not provided “the level of service” it “would want” for its residents.
3. Acknowledged that the delays the resident had experienced were “completely unacceptable” and apologised for the impact this had had on the enjoyment of her home.
4. Had completed a survey of the property on 1 February 2024 and appointed an external contractor to complete the repairs.
5. Had started the works following an asbestos survey on 19 February 2024. Once it completed all the rendering works, it would move onto the kitchen repairs and any internal decorative works.
6. Expected all repairs to be completed within 6 weeks and planned to inspect the property on 13 March 2024 to ensure everything had been done.
7. Advised the resident to claim for any damage to personal belongings either through her own home contents insurance or through the landlord’s insurer.
8. Asked her to provide copies of her utility bills from 2022 to 2024 so it could review them and determine whether they reflected an increase in energy use. If so, it would reimburse her for any additional costs.
9. Wanted to offer her £1,075 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £325 for delays responding to her complaints.
  2. £450 for the delays in completing all the works from when she reported them.
  3. £100 for poor communication.
  4. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. £100 for poor repair management.
10. Had reminded its contractor on its expected levels of service to its residents.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it had completed all the repairs by the time the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the impact of damp and mould in her property has negatively impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Legal and policy framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure of the property in good repair including inside and outside walls, floors, ceilings, doors and door frames. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that it aims to:
1. Undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp, including managing and controlling condensation.
2. Ensure that residents have access to and/or are provided with comprehensive advice and guidance on managing and controlling damp and condensation.
3. Ensure that the fabric of our properties are protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp and condensation.
The same policy states that, once reported, the landlord will investigate to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation and carry out remedial repairs and actions in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It will respond to a report of damp and condensation and complete any remedial works or measures within a reasonable timescale. This will depend on the urgency of the problem and complexity of works that are needed.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy outlines 3 responsive repair categories, under which it assigns jobs depending on priority. Emergency repairs are attended to within 4 hours to make safe and completed within 24 hours of when they are first reported. Standard repairs are completed within 20 working days, and “planned and packaged” repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s complaint policy outlines a 2 stage process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 30 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the amount of compensation it offers will depend on the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. It awards £50 to £100 for minor disruption and resident effort, £100 to £350 for moderate disruption and up to £750 and above for “extensive disruption”. For poor complaint handling it will pay £150 and above for extensive failure to follow the complaint policy causing significant impact on the resident.

Damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs

It is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on the extent of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
The records show that it took the landlord 9 working days to first attend the property after the resident reported water ingress. It then took a further 7 working days to carry out an inspection to assess the scope of works. The resident has stated that the landlord started the works after this but it is unclear what date the operative attended. Its initial response was therefore timely and appropriate. However, following this, the landlord cancelled an appointment due for 25 January 2023 and there is no evidence any further work took place after this. Furthermore, the records show the cracks the resident had reported were made deeper by the preparation work. It is likely that this would have allowed even more water to enter the property. There is no evidence the landlord had considered any temporary measures to stop water entering the property in the meantime, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
There is no indication the landlord had an effective repairs tracking system in place to properly monitor the repairs. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. In its stage 1 complaint, it told the resident it was committed to completing outstanding repairs to her bathroom by 26 May 2023. Due to its poor record keeping, it is unclear whether it completed those works by that date. It should have kept a record of its actions and correspondence leading up to the repairs it had committed to carry out. This would have demonstrated it was tracking and monitoring the works, and keeping an audit trail of its actions. Any delays could then have been reasonably managed.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it carried out further rendering work to the external walls following the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, it has not provided any record to show what date this took place. Furthermore, it is evident it had still not completed the external work at that stage. It took the landlord around 4 months to rebook the repair appointment after cancelling it in January 2023. This was a failing. Furthermore, the resident should not have needed to make a complaint for the landlord to meet its repair obligations and take further action.
At the time the resident escalated her complaint on 3 May 2023, it is evident the works identified on 6 October 2022 remained outstanding. This means they had still not been completed over 7 months after the resident had first reported the issue. However, it was not until 13 March 2024, nearly 18 months after the resident first reported damp and mould, that the landlord estimated the works would be complete. Furthermore, it was not until 19 March 2024 that the landlord carried out electrical works on the property. The inspection had found water damage to a socket and isolator switch in the kitchen and “severe water damage” to the extractor “fan outlet cabling”. It is suggested this was as a result of the ongoing water ingress.
This left the resident with ongoing water ingress and resulting mould for an unnecessarily lengthy period of time, along with potential health risks from water damage to electrics. The landlord’s lack of urgency in dealing with this was a significant failing.
The ongoing situation is likely to have resulted in distress, inconvenience and avoidable damage to the property. The landlord has not evidenced that it made sufficient efforts to resolve the water ingress within a reasonable amount of time or to take steps to keep the resident updated. This was a failure. It was also a significant departure from its repairs policy.
The landlord has not provided evidence of any updates to the resident during this time, or any records to show it had corresponded with its contractor about the repair. It is also unclear whether the resident had chased this up with the landlord during the 4 month period prior to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord has therefore been unable to demonstrate that it communicated appropriately with the resident about the repair.
Despite reporting damp and mould, there is no evidence the landlord provided any advice on how to deal with this in the interim, or that it sent the resident any written information about mould or condensation management. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a failing in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when it receives such reports.
There is no evidence the landlord had considered whether it was appropriate to provide the resident with dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp within the property, while repairs were pending. It is important landlords are proactive in discussing any support they could provide to residents who report damp and mould. Landlords should also ensure they properly take account of any vulnerable residents, including young children, and whether it would be reasonable in the circumstances to offer appropriate support.
Furthermore, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident could claim for damage to personal belongings through its insurer. However, there is no indication it gave her the details of its insurer or specific details on how she could make a claim. To have done so would have demonstrated it was being customer focused. The Ombudsman will make an order that, if it has not done so already, it provides her with information on how she can make a claim on the landlord’s insurance, along with details of its insurer.
The spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. It states that this will reduce over reliance on residents to report issues, help landlords identify hidden issues before a complaint or disrepair claim is made. The landlord has not provided any records to show it had assessed the severity of the damp and mould or that it had considered undertaking any kind of risk assessment. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed any possible risks shortly after receiving the resident’s initial report.
There is evidence that there were occasions when contractors had cancelled pre-arranged appointments. This would have resulted in distress, inconvenience and disruption to the resident who had to arrange appointments around her work commitments. There are no records to show either the contractor or landlord had given her an explanation of why operatives were unable to attend. It is noted that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had spoken to its contractor about the service levels it expected. This was appropriate. However, it should continue to monitor its contractor for any further instances where it fails to attend appointments, and ensure appropriate action is taken and residents are compensated accordingly.
The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, there is no evidence of any effective contract or repair monitoring by the landlord to ensure they were providing a service that was in line with the repairs policy of completing repairs within either 20 or 90 working days.
The landlord has provided no records to show it made adequate contact with its contractors to monitor the repairs or take any steps to ensure they were going ahead as planned. It told the resident in its stage 2 complaint that it had to change its main repairs contractor during the period covered by the complaint. It explained that it had experienced “significant failings” in the service provided by the previous one.
Although this is noted, the landlord should always take all necessary steps to ensure that it has adequate provisions in place so that services provided to residents are not negatively impacted. It has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to minimise any disruption. Its lack of any effective repair management and failure to put any contingency planning in place meant it failed to take reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing repairs and for its poor service in this regard. It also offered £1,075, which included £450 in recognition of the delays, and £300 for poor communication, poor repair management and distress and inconvenience. It also set out in both responses its learning from the complaint and actions it had taken as a result, including the provision of staff training.
The landlord’s attempts to put things right are noted. Furthermore, its offer of redress is in line with what we would award for distress and inconvenience for similar failings. For this reason the Ombudsman will not order that the landlord pays any additional compensation. However, in view of the time it took to carry out the repairs and its significant lack of communication during that period, the landlord’s failings left the household to live in a property that suffered from the effects of damp and mould for longer than was necessary. Due to the level of impact these failings were likely to have had on the household, the Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration.

Complaint

The records show that although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days, the landlord took 43 working days to issue a response. It sent the resident a holding response on 17 March 2023, which was 19 days after the resident had raised her complaint. However, there is no evidence it had contacted her at any point before that to provide an update, explain the reason for the delay or agree a new timescale. It should have contacted her before the 10 working days had elapsed to alert her that there may be a delay. That it took the landlord 19 working days to send a holding response, and a further 24 days to issue a response was a departure both from its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 May 2023. Although the resident received an automatic reply, there is no evidence the landlord sent her a formal acknowledgement. It was only after intervention by the Service on 22 February 2024 that the landlord acknowledged the escalation request. This means it took the landlord over 6 months to properly respond to the resident’s escalation request.
It is noted that, once we contacted the landlord, it sent the resident its stage 2 response within 12 working days. However, the landlord failed to progress her complaint once it was escalated. This demonstrates a failure in its system for tracking complaints. This would have resulted in avoidable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s excessively protracted complaint handling, lack of response and poor communication of delays amounts to maladministration
The landlord should ensure it has a means by which it is alerted when complaints are likely to get overlooked or are due to be subject to undue delays. This way it can contact residents in good time, agree new timescales and reassure them that their complaints are being properly monitored.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and the impact this would have had on the resident. In addition, as part of the total compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint, it offered her £325 in recognition of the delays in responding to her stage 1 and 2 complaints. This is in line with its compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would award for similar failings. For this reason the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports during the period covered by the complaint. Furthermore, its repair log is unclear as to when it completed repairs and it was only from internal correspondence that this investigation was able to estimate when repairs were carried out. The landlord has provided minimal contemporaneous records of communication between the landlord and resident and none between it and its contractor. The landlord had assigned the resident a SPOC after issuing its stage 1 response. Given this, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to have kept an audit trail of communication between the resident and her SPOC.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s failure in putting together a coherent plan to complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication, poor complaint handling and lack of updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. It is noted however that, in its stage 2 response, it told the resident that it had provided additional training to staff in order to address the record keeping failures it had identified. This was appropriate.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to discuss how best it can advise or support her on the most effective ways of managing condensation within her property.
3. Provide the resident with information on how she can make a claim to its insurer for loss of personal belongings, and to provide the contact details of its insurance provider.
4. The landlord to confirm to the Service that it has done all of the above within the stated timescale.
The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show whether it has carried out all the repairs it had committed to finishing by March 2024. If there are any that remain outstanding, the landlord to contact the resident with a schedule of works and details of when it will complete them. It should provide the Service with a copy of its schedule within 4 weeks of receiving this determination. It should also award additional compensation for any further delays in completing any of those works after 13 March 2024. This was the date it said in its stage 2 response it intended to carry out a post inspection of the repairs.
The landlord to review its existing damp, mould and condensation policy with a view to incorporating risk assessments. The landlord to provide evidence of its review to the Service within 8 weeks of receiving this report.
The landlord to inform the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of receiving this report how it intends to monitor its contractor for any further instances where it fails to attend appointments, and ensure appropriate action is taken and residents are compensated accordingly.
If it has not already done so, and on receipt of the relevant utility bills, the landlord to assess whether the resident has paid higher heating bills due to the condition of her property prior to repairs being completed. If she has, the landlord to offer reasonable reimbursement for any additional energy costs she had incurred. The landlord is to confirm to the Service that it has done this within 8 weeks of receiving this report.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident the £1,075 it offered to her in its stage 2 complaint response. This was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor repairs management, and delays in responding to her complaint.
The landlord should review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord should also consider putting a mechanism in place that alerts it when complaints are likely to get overlooked or are due to be subject to undue delays. This way it can contact residents in good time, agree new timescales and reassure them that their complaints are being properly monitored.