A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202415634)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415634

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 March 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 the resident’s:

1. Request for balcony repairs.
2. Request for rehousing.

2.             We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom sixth-floor flat and had 6 children at the time of her complaint. The resident has confirmed she has recently given birth to her seventh child. The landlord is aware that the resident suffers from anxiety and depression and that one of her children has autism and ADHD.

4.             The landlord does not own the freehold of the building and has stated that it is not responsible for the building’s structure, which includes the balcony.

5.             On 27 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord, stating that she had submitted supporting letters concerning the unsuitability of her property. She was worried that her son had tried to climb over the balcony and reported that the wood on the balcony was broken, posing a health and safety risk.

6.             On 16 May 2024 the resident reiterated the issues mentioned in her earlier email from March 2024. On 20 May 2024 the landlord inquired about the extent of the balcony damage and requested photographs. The landlord also asked whether the door was broken to allow the resident’s son access to the balcony.

7.             On 19 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She explained that she was unhappy being severely overcrowded and that despite reporting repairs to the balcony, the repair was outstanding. 

8.             The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 2 July 2024 and said:

1. as it was not the freeholder, it was not responsible for maintaining and repairing the balcony. The repair was passed to the freeholder’s managing agent to contact the resident
2. when the resident moved in 2010, she had one child. It was noted that she had outgrown her property and had concerns about living on the sixth floor. The resident was asked to provide information for a management transfer
3. it acknowledged that the resident had to make repeated repair requests and apologised. It offered £125 to recognise this, which was broken down as £75 for the distress and inconvenience and £50 for the poor communication regarding the balcony repair

9.             The resident remained dissatisfied with the response, as the balcony repair had not been completed and reiterated her concerns with her overcrowded situation.

10.        The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. It reiterated that the repair had been referred to the freeholder’s managing agent and apologised for not confirming a repair date in its stage 1 response. It said it would continue to expedite the repair.

11.        On 18 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed that the works had not been completed. The landlord responded on 23 July 2024 and confirmed the freeholder’s managing agent would contact her regarding the balcony.

12.        The resident brought her complaint to us in December 2024. She stated that although the landlord had offered compensation, she needed the balcony repaired. She said that she was not made aware from the outset that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to do the repairs. Additionally, she needed to move as she was severely overcrowded.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

13.        The landlord has failed to supply comprehensive records of repairs, inspection reports, or communication with the resident and the managing agent. This lack of information hinders our ability to confirm a timeline of events. We requested additional details about the repair to the balcony, but the landlord could not give any further records beyond what has already been provided.

14.        The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repair complaints emphasises the importance of landlords maintaining clear, accurate, and accessible records. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights that without accurate information recording, landlords may fail to act promptly, miss chances to recognise issues, and suffer from poor communication and resolutions.

15.        The landlord’s lack of comprehensive records has hindered its repair management, undermining its capacity to address the main issue raised in the complaint. As a result, the complaints process was not used effectively, making it harder for the landlord to address the issues. This led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.

16.        Our assessment has identified record keeping failings, which have been highlighted in the assessment of the substantive issue.  As a result of these failings, we have found a service failing in the landlord’s record keeping. An order has been made below for the landlord to improve its record keeping practices.

Response to the resident’s request for repairs to the balcony

17.        The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord (referred to as the ‘association’) is responsible for maintaining the premises’ structure and exterior, including balconies and access points.

18.        The landlord informed the resident that the freeholder’s managing agent was responsible for maintaining and repairing the building’s structure. However, we have not seen a copy of the agreement between the landlord and the freeholder to confirm the repair arrangements. Consequently, the resident reasonably believed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the balcony.

19.        Our Spotlight report on managing agents highlights the importance for landlords to demonstrate effective engagement with the freeholder or managing agent. Landlords should take proactive steps to ensure there is a clear understanding of responsibilities and that this understanding is communicated effectively to all parties involved.

20.        The Spotlight report notes that confusion regarding responsibilities is common not only for residents but also for landlords and third-party managing agents or freeholders. This misunderstanding can be worsened by poor communication, which was highlighted in this case. 

21.        The resident reported the balcony repair on 27 March 2024, although she stated it was originally reported in 2023. We requested earlier records from the landlord, which were not provided, limiting our ability to verify the resident’s account.

22.        The evidence we have indicates that the resident was not informed that the landlord was not responsible for the repair prior to the stage 1 response issued in July 2024, which came 4 months after her report. This lack of communication was unreasonable and added to the confusion regarding who was responsible for the repair.

23.        The resident expressed her concerns about the safety of the balcony in correspondence with the landlord on 27 March 2024, 16 May 2024, and 14 June 2024, prior to submitting her complaint on 19 June 2024. She reiterated that she had a vulnerable child who could access the balcony, highlighting the health and safety risks posed by broken wood and protruding nails while living on the sixth floor. Additionally, she said that living in a top-floor flat made the heat unbearable, necessitating the balcony door to remain open during the summer.

24.        Our Spotlight report on managing agents revealed that inadequate agreements and their enforcement can impact vital aspects such as risk management and health and safety compliance. The evidence indicates that the landlord failed to recognise the issue as a health and safety concern, asserting it was not a health and safety issue if ‘the resident kept the balcony door closed.’ This was unreasonable, and the resident’s worries were overlooked, as well as the potential health and safety of a vulnerable child.

25.        We would have expected to see evidence that the landlord:

1. acted promptly to escalate the issue
2. maintained communication with the managing agent and the resident
3. ensured the necessary repair was carried out within a reasonable timeframe

26.        The landlord has failed to provide evidence of communication between itself and the managing agent. Therefore, we cannot confirm that it reported the matter promptly or took reasonable steps to ensure the repair was completed.

27.        If the managing agent was uncooperative in completing the repair, the landlord can, in accordance with section 2.3 of the repairs policy, complete the repair themselves and recover the costs if a health and safety issue arises. There is no evidence that this option was considered.

28.        The landlord acknowledged the repair delays, which caused distress and inconvenience. However, it failed to take a proactive approach to ensure that the repair was completed, which remains outstanding at the time of our investigation, 8 months after the complaints process concluded. 

29.        We have considered that the landlord offered £125 compensation for the delays, distress, and inconvenience. However, as the matter remains unresolved, the resident’s enjoyment of her limited outside space in a sixth floor flat has been restricted for a prolonged period, with no definitive date for the repair. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the balcony repair.

30.        For cases of maladministration with no permanent impact, our remedies guidance suggests compensation ranging from £100 to £600. We have considered that the resident was able to lock the balcony door to mitigate any potential risk; however, we understand this limited her access to outside space while living in a sixth floor flat. Consequently, her enjoyment of that space was compromised for a prolonged period. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 in compensation, in addition to the £125 the landlord offered at stage 2.

31.        Due to a discrepancy in the terms of the tenancy agreement that appears to contradict the landlord’s position on balcony repair responsibilities, we have advised the landlord to seek legal advice for clarification.

Request for rehousing

32.        The landlord uses a choice-based lettings system to allocate properties. Applicants are categorised into bands A to F based on their housing needs:

1. Band A – There is an emergency need to move, such as being in immediate danger or having a serious medical issue due to current housing.
2. Band B – There is an urgent need to move, such as a property no longer being suitable or serious medical issues arising from current housing.
3. Band C – Identified need to move.
4. Band D – No housing need; applicants do not qualify for bands A to C.

33.        The landlord uses an independent medical advisory service to ascertain how medical factors might affect an applicant’s housing needs.

34.        It is not disputed that the resident is living in a severely overcrowded property. Evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that the resident was originally housed according to her needs; however, over time, there was a significant change in her household composition, leading to overcrowding at the property. 

35.        In June 2023, the resident complained about overcrowding. The landlord investigated the matter and confirmed that the resident was registered with its choice–based letting system and was awarded a band B priority status for her overcrowding. This was in accordance with its allocations policy.

36.        Following its allocation policy, the landlord used an independent medical assessor to assess the medical conditions of the resident’s children. Consequently, the resident received a band C medical priority; however, her status remained unchanged since she had already been granted a band B priority. The landlord offered the resident the option to bid on a 3-bedroom, even though she required a 4-bedroom property. Although this was smaller than the residents’ housing need, it would be larger than their current property and could alleviate some overcrowding.

37.        While the resident’s situation was clearly distressing and frustrating, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by making her aware of the limited housing stock and that the demand for secure and affordable housing outweighed the supply. It further explained that it was required by a nomination agreement to give a high percentage of its units back to the local authority for allocation, which made securing a move more challenging.

38.        The resident was asked to provide information to support a management transfer application. However, the landlord has confirmed that it is awaiting evidence from the resident for this to be considered.

39.        The landlord also took reasonable steps to offer alternative housing options to facilitate a move to alleviate overcrowding. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing.

Determination

40.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for balcony repairs.

41.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

42.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failing in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

43.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. apologise for the failings identified in its handling of the balcony repair
2. pay the resident £400 for the loss of enjoyment of her balcony while the repair remained outstanding
3. this is in addition to the £125 offered at stage 2. If it has not already been paid, it should be added to the total amount
4. this money should be paid directly to the resident
5. seek legal advice to clarify the resident’s tenancy agreement and any other agreements held with the freeholder or managing agent concerning repair responsibilities. The landlord should confirm the position to us and the resident
6. provide the resident with an update on the balcony repair and continue to provide us and the resident with an update (fortnightly) until the repair is completed

44.        Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. review its procedures concerning repairs carried out by managing agents or third parties for this property. The landlord should identify the steps it will take or has already taken to improve the management of these repairs and its record-keeping practices, ensuring that similar failings and delays are mitigated in the future