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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202404479)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404479

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

24 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Background 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house. She has lived at the property since September 2011. She lives with her adult son.
  2. On 15 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that 2 windows in the living room were drafty and the frames were rotten. She said her bedroom window was leaking. The landlord inspected the windows on 28 December 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 January 2024. Amongst other issues, she said she was unhappy with the time taken to complete repairs to the windows. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 January 2024.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 January 2024. It would not replace the windows. It said there were no outstanding repairs following its inspection in December 2023. It added the windows to its maintenance programme for 2028/29.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 24 January 2024. She highlighted issues with the condition of the windows and wanted the landlord to replace them. The landlord acknowledged this request on 26 January 2024.
  6. The landlord did some repairs to the living room windows on 11 March 2024. It raised a further inspection to decide if it needed to replace the windows because sealant was holding them in.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024. It referred to other complaints raised by the resident in addition to the window repairs. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It agreed to survey the windows on 22 March 2024. It offered £275 compensation, which comprised of:
    1. £150 for delays.
    2. £50 for the quality of works.
    3. £50 for stress and inconvenience.
    4. £25 for the delay to issue its stage 2 response.
  8. The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2024. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bedroom window. She said the landlord had measured the windows several times in March and April 2024 but had not repaired or replaced them. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 May 2024.
  9. The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 14 May 2024. It summarised the repairs. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair and the number of appointments to measure the windows. It planned to replace the window by 10 June 2024. It offered £100 compensation, comprised of £50 for the inconvenience caused and £50 for the delay in completing works.
  10. The resident escalated her second complaint to stage 2 on 15 August 2024. She said one of the windows had come off the wall completely. The landlord’s contractors measured the windows for replacement twice. After she chased the contractor directly, the contractor said they passed works to the landlord for approval. She said contractors had missed appointments and the delays were causing her stress.
  11. The landlord issued its second stage 2 response on 25 September 2024. It apologised for not completing the repair by 10 June 2024. Its contractor was unable to repair the window on 6 August 2024. However, its subcontractor repaired the windows on 20 August 2024. It agreed to survey the windows by 14 October 2024 to decide if it would replace or repair them. It offered additional compensation of £75. This comprised of £50 compensation for the delay and £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  12. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2024. She said that she wants the landlord to replace the windows and does not feel safe in her home because the living room windows are insecure. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the survey from October 2024 to the Ombudsman but said the windows still have a 6 year lifespan.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s complaints in January and April 2024 she raised other matters for the landlord to investigate. When escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman, she has said that the landlord resolved the other issues satisfactorily. Our investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Repairs to the windows in the property

  1. It is reasonable for the landlord to include the replacement of windows as part of cyclical maintenance programmes. However, sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  2. The landlord’s initial response to the reports of leaking windows was appropriate. The timespan from the resident’s report on 15 December 2023 to the inspection on 28 December 2023 was reasonable. However, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the inspection report to the Ombudsman. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. In this case, it was unable to share the reasons for its decision making with the resident. This was likely to cause her uncertainty.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response in January 2024 did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It was reasonable to highlight the cyclical maintenance programme, but it should have been clearer with the outcome of its inspection from December 2023.
  4. In her communication with the landlord, the resident repeatedly said that its contractors recommended replacing the windows. When asking for an update on 20 February 2024, she said contractors who visited the property told her the landlord should replace the windows. The landlord’s records on 11 March 2024 show that its contractor suggested that the landlord may need to replace the windows. The landlord did not fully address these concerns in its stage 2 response in March 2024. However, its offer to survey the windows by 22 March 2024 showed its intention to put things right.
  5. The landlord’s response improved through the subsequent complaint it considered at stage 1 on 14 May 2024. It fairly acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident when booking repeat inspections. It appropriately apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and showed that it wanted to put things right for the resident and committed to replacing the window by 10 June 2024.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation at this point and it made an offer of £100. However, it is important for landlords to maintain the commitments set out in their complaint handling. The landlord had set an expectation for the resident that it would replace the window, which it failed to follow through. Its failure caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  7. When the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 15 August 2024, she said she was unhappy with the number of inspections. She asked the landlord to replace all the windows. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance given to it by specialist contractors. Although there were repeat inspections between June and August 2024, the landlord’s specialist contractor on 22 August 2024 said it repaired the windows.
  8. The landlord sought to put things right for the resident in its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024. It appropriately apologised for failing to meet the commitment to repair the windows by 10 June 2024. It fairly recognised the impact of repeat inspections on the resident. It also sought to allay the resident’s concerns by scheduling a survey of the windows by 14 October 2024.
  9. However, its combined offer of £175 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused. The resident first reported concerns with the windows in December 2023. The landlord had taken around 8 months to complete repairs that the resident believed were ineffective. She chased it for updates each month and the records showed her increasing frustration throughout.
  10. Despite the commitments set out in the landlord’s complaint responses, the resident reports that the windows remain in an unfit condition. The landlord has not provided copies of the window survey or inspection reports to the Ombudsman when asked. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine whether the windows were in a good state of repair during the timeline.
  11. In reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the resident’s request for new windows. This impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident in her pursuit to resolve matters.
  12. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows. Its apology for the distress and inconvenience caused by repeat inspections was reasonable and it showed intention to put things right by scheduling additional surveys.
  13. However, it did not always follow through with the commitments set out in its complaint responses. It set an expectation that it would replace the windows which its contractors echoed. Its records are unclear whether the windows were in a good state of repair and how it reached decisions on whether to renew or not. The compensation awarded by the landlord was insufficient given the period of delay and the impact on the resident. It should pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused (inclusive of the £175 it already offered through the complaints process).
    3. Survey the windows in the property and provide a copy of the report to the resident and Ombudsman. The report should include an assessment of the windows and whether it will renew, repair, or take no action, with its reasons.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should improve its record keeping practices. It should retain copies of its surveys and greater detail of the outcome of its repairs. This would allow it to evidence the actions taken and reduce the number of duplicate appointments.