A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202216329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216329

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. The condition of the property when let.
2. Repairs to the balcony door and glass.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom sixth floor flat. The tenancy started in August 2021.
The resident lives with his wife and children.

Summary of events

A void inspection took place between the landlord and the resident on 15 August 2021. It said that the balcony door was broken and referred back to its repair team to see if it can be repaired during the void period. The landlord raised a routine repair the same day however, the repair records are unclear what, if any action, was taken.
The landlord’s repair records state it raised a further repair on 7 July 2022 for the balcony door and window. The records state that a joint visit was required with its glass contractors. The records do not confirm what action was taken. The next records states that an inspection took place on 2 September 2022 but the records do not state what the outcome was.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 11 September 2022. The resident complained that:
1. Repairs were still outstanding to the balcony door and glass.
2. He was still waiting for replacement freezer trays and shelves to have a functioning freezer,
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 September 2022. The landlord did not provide a timescale of providing its stage 1 complaint response.
On 29 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the balcony door handle was broken.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. It raised a repair for the resident’s balcony door and its operative attended and assessed the repair. This found that replacement glass was needed and the door was damaged. The landlord referred this to its glass contractor. However, since its referral another glass contractor took the job. The newest contractor said it reviewed the photo of the damaged door and found it could straighten the door. Additionally, replace the overhead stay (used so doors close smoothly) as a temporary measure. The landlord confirmed it allocated the request for glass panes to a commercial company due to the size as it would not be able to fit in the lift. Also, it could not be handled up the stairs manually.
2. It aimed to complete outstanding works by 23 December 2022 due to sourcing and awaiting materials.
3. It apologised that the resident did not receive an update about works. Also, due to the poor level of service it delivered as the resident had not had any contact since its initial inspection 2 September 2022. It confirmed that it had delivered feedback to its contractors to ensure it keeps residents informed of progress of repairs.
4. The landlord offered the resident £105 in compensation. This consisted of:
  1. £55 to cover the time taken to complete the repair.
  2. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022 about its stage 1 response. The resident said:
1. The landlord did not acknowledge that the balcony glass also needed replacing. Additionally, that the landlord said the repairs were in progress when he initially viewed the property.
2. Requested a refund of rent paid as he says he should not pay full rent for a damaged property.
3. The property should not have been rented in the condition it is in.
4. As the balcony door does not fully close it was causing heat to escape. As such, this was impacting on his energy bills.
5. Due to the gap in the balcony door, mice were entering the property. The resident said this was causing him mental distress and was unhygienic.
6. He was concerned that the glass could shatter therefore, was causing a safety issue.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 November 2022. It confirmed its repair contractor had changed but it aimed to complete works still by 23 December 2022. The landlord provided the new contractors contact details.
On 4 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He said that despite the landlord saying works will be completed by 23 December 2022 he has had no contact from the landlord. The resident said as a consequence, he has mice everywhere.
The landlord and its contractors attended the resident’s property on 7 February 2023. At this time, it closed the balcony door and put masking tape on the gaps to stop air coming through.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2023. He said the landlord’s contractor attended his property on 20 January 2023 and it noted the impact the opening in the door was having on the family. The resident said the landlord’s contractor came the following week and forced the door to close. Additionally, it taped up the gaps in the door to stop air coming in. The resident said he was not satisfied with this as tape does not hold.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 February 2023. The resident said:
1. The landlord was aware that the balcony door was broken when he moved in and it promised to complete repairs.
2. Due to the gap in the balcony door his flat is a playground for rats, his family frequent the NHS, his energy bill has increased and he was isolated to his bedroom when cold.
3. He was seeking compensation and repairs to be completed.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and provided an update. The landlord apologised the delay in contact and explained it had contacted its repair team who confirmed it had ordered the balcony door. However, the manufacturer is known for long delivery dates. The landlord said that its pest control would be directly contacting the resident in the next 7 days.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It did not advise when it would provide its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s pest control attended the resident’s property on 6 March 2023. The pest control said:
1. Due to the resident’s balcony door not closing, rats and mice were entering the property through the 4 inch open gap.
2. It placed traps by the way of sachets near the door.
3. It referred back to the landlord as the door needed to be repaired as pest control treatment would fail.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It provided the resident with details of its contractors on 1 March 2023. The landlord advised the resident to contact its contractors to arrange an appointment to view the balcony door.
2. It apologised for the level of service it delivered and offered the resident £325 in compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 March 2023 to request that it progresses the complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
1. When he moved into the property it was not rentable as the landlord was aware that it was never able to fix the door. As such, it knew that any resident living in the property would do so in a compromised way due to the unhygienic conditions. Additionally, it led to higher energy bills. The resident said he was unhappy that he had been charged full rent since moving in.
2. The landlord did not complete works by 2 February 2022 and since this date he had been stuck in a vicious circle of chasing the landlord for updates.
3. His earlier complaint was not progressed despite his request on 17 October 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint request on 17 March 2023. It said it aimed to provide its response by 17 April 2023.
The landlord’s pest control attended the resident’s property on 20 March 2023. It said no bait had been taken and there was no evidence of any pest droppings.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 May 2023. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
2. It looked at its void records and it did note that there was an issue with the balcony door. The records said that whilst the door was still functioning it was suggested that it needed replacing in the long term.
3. It apologised for the level of service it delivered regarding the resident having to chase updates on works.
4. It had contacted its contractor to establish if other residents were having similar issues. However, due to the urgency of the resident’s matters if other residents do not respond by 12 May it would proceed to order replacement windows and balcony doors for the resident. The landlord confirmed at the latest it would order them by 19 May 2023. It advised that it would then be up to its manufacturer to make and deliver the products.
5. It apologised that the resident was not previously updated on his earlier complaint regarding its progress. The landlord agreed this was a failure in its communication. As a consequence, it spoke with its caseworker regarding the importance of keeping residents up to date on its complaint handling.
6. It also confirmed it had spoken with its contractors to reinforce its service levels. This included contractors communicating with residents about raised works. Additionally, it had spoken to its void team and recommended the need for more diligence in carrying out checks before properties are on the market.
7. It offered a further £715 compensation on top of what it previously offered. This included:
  1. £150 for any inconvenience caused.
  2. £240 for the length of time to carry out works.
  3. £150 for the poor communication from it and its contractors
  4. £25 for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 review
  5. £150 for the quality of works done on the balcony door during the void period.
8. Regarding the resident’s request for a refund of half of the rent paid in the previous 6 months, the landlord said this was not reasonable. It said the compensation it had offered was adequate for the service failures it identified.

Post complaint process

The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 March 2024. The contractor found works required to complete repairs to the door and window.
On 11 May 2024 the landlord attended the resident’s property and completed repairs to the balcony door and window.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the condition of the property when let

The landlord’s lettable standards states:
1. When a property is let for a new tenancy, it will be in a clean and safe condition, that meets government standards.
2. Windows to be free from internal damage and cracked glass, all opening casements are to be operational. In the event they are not, repairs are to be undertaken.
3. All external doors should open freely and easily without sticking on the frame. Doors should be free from damage that would compromise the security of the door in the event of an attempted burglary, a suitable lock to be fitted with a turn bolt.
The evidence provided by the landlord by way of its void report on 15 August 2021 shows that it found that the balcony door was broken. Whilst there is reference to the landlord raising this as a routine repair, there are no records that showed the landlord tried to schedule any repairs when the resident signed for the tenancy. In its stage 2 response dated 9 May 2023 the landlord said during the void period the balcony door was functioning and needed replacing in the long term. There is a clear contrast between what is stated within its void records and what the landlord said in its stage 2 response. This could have caused the resident confusion and undermine the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord should have provided clear advice and guidance to the resident when signing for the tenancy. This should have included that it aimed to complete repairs prior to the resident moving in. Alternatively, at the least that the landlord confirmed when the repairs would take place. As this was not the case, this left the resident in a position of uncertainty. This was not reasonable as the landlord should have been proactive and provided reassurance to the resident that it was taking matters seriously.
During the complaint process the landlord acknowledged its failures during the void period and apologised. The landlord took action to resolve the matter and agreed to provide staff training. The landlord also made an offer of compensation to the resident of £150 for the quality of works in the void period.
The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door and glass

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes keeping in good repair external and internal doors. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states routine repairs to be completed within 20 days and planned works taking 90 days.
The resident reported long standing issues with the balcony door not closing since moving into the property. Due to the prolonged repairs to the resident’s balcony door further hazards presented by way of pests entering the property. It is also important to note that due to long time frame in the landlord repairing the balcony door, the resident was subject to increased energy costs. This was a result of a gap in the door letting cold air in.
There is no evidence that the landlord took into consideration the resident’s concerns about increased energy bills. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to look at the resident’s bill and compare it to a typical bill range for the property type and household. Also, to complete a comparison of the resident’s energy bill prior to the repairs and the energy consumption after the door was repaired.
The landlord’s diagnosis of the repairs to the balcony door are somewhat confusing. The limited records available are unclear as to whether the door needed repair or replacing. As such, for a substantial time period the resident was under the belief that the balcony door was ordered to eventually be replaced. However, the records do not show that a replacement door had been ordered, although it is suggested. This left the resident in a place of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations and completed a thorough inspection to establish whether the door needed to be replaced or repaired at an earlier time.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited and the repair logs provided did not track its actions or future plans.
In this case, the repair records provided to this Service by the landlord indicate that it attended the resident’s property in July 2022. At this time, the records state that it would arrange a joint visit with its glass contractor. An inspection took place on 2 September 2022 but the records do not say what the outcome was.
The next repair record is not until February 2023, this states that the balcony door needs to be able to open and close. There is no further information provided on what repair works did or did not take place. However, from the evidence provided by the landlord post complaint it only completed repairs in May 2024. This was over 2 years and 9 months after the landlord was aware that the balcony door needed to be repaired. This was not reasonable and exceeded its own repair guidelines to complete routine repairs within 20 days.
The landlord’s internal records contain further information regarding the repairs. This included that there was a delay in obtaining the replacement glass due to a change in contractor. Whilst this can be a mitigating circumstance, in this case, the landlord was aware of the change in contactor in October 2022. Therefore, this is not a justifiable reason for the prolonged delay overall in repairing the balcony door or glass. This was not reasonable as it should have full oversight of the matter, contacting relevant teams on a regular basis to seek a resolution.
There is also reference by way of an email from the resident to the landlord confirming it completed patch repairs on 20 January 2023. The resident reported that this did not last as the door was only closed with tape. This demonstrates that the landlord lacked understanding of the impact the damaged door and window was having on the resident.
This Service recognises that initially the landlord decided that a replacement balcony door was required. Therefore, a replacement door was ordered in February 2023 but this was ordered through a manufacturer who had long delivery dates. Whilst the landlord cannot be criticised for the manufacturers timescale as this is out of its control, this Service would expect the landlord be proactive in providing updates and regularly contacting the manufacturer. As such, the landlord lack of ownership for the repairs featured across its handling of the resident’s reports.
This included a lack of evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date which is a cause of concern to both this Service and the resident. Contact with the resident should have been clearly recorded and accessible. As such, the landlord lacked understanding to the issues the resident faced particularly, as the resident raised health and safety concerns.
It is further implied into the tenancy by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 that a landlord must ensure its dwelling is fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the HHSRS is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
In this case, the presence of rats and mice presented a hazard to the resident and his family. The resident first reported this in October 2022, however, the records show it took the landlord until March 2023 for pest control to attend. A landlord should ensure that a property is fit for human habitation throughout a tenancy.
This Service notes that the landlord’s environmental service policy states that any reports if infestations are in a resident’s own property, it is their responsibility to arrange removal either via the Local Authority or a private contractor unless expressly stated as part of a lease agreement. However, the landlord may take remedial action within homes at our its discretion where there are particular needs, for example arising from its prioritisation work and policy.
Due to the outstanding works to repair or replace the resident’s balcony door, it is likely this met the discretionary terms for it to take remedial action. When a landlord is notified of the presence of rodents in any of its properties it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take timelier action. With this in mind, a delay of 5 months for the landlord to arrange for pest control to attend was not reasonable. The delay meant that the resident and his family were living in conditions which may have presented as health and safety risk and caused further distress to the resident.
As the landlord was aware that the balcony door remained in a state of disrepair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to act promptly. Particularly, as the pests were coming in the property as a consequence of the outstanding repair. The lack of timely responses to the residents reports of pests show that the landlord did not take the matters seriously. This was not reasonable.
Overall, the landlord repeatedly failed to take steps to ensure the habitability of the family’s living conditions and compliance standards within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its complaint response. However, the landlord failed to take into account the impact this was having on the resident and his family. Also, it failed to apologise for the delay in carrying out pest control. Whilst it apologised in its complaint responses, it did not take appropriate steps to address these and put things right. This included that whilst the landlord did offer compensation in its complaint response it did not go far enough. As such, the repairs or replacement balcony door had not progressed much further since it issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord failed to award additional compensation to take this into account.
This Service finds maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay additional compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failings. It is also required to take steps to seek to learn from the issues identified.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice in relation to its internal recording procedures surrounding repairs. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202122336. In addition to this, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practice regarding its practices around pest control. This formed part of a wider order in case 202322232 which cover the same time period the resident complains about. Therefore, we have not made any additional orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of wider orders.

The associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
In this case, the resident initially complained to the landlord on 11 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response a month later on 14 October 2022. This was not reasonable and not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy or the Code.
There was a failure in the landlord not providing a stage 2 response in 2022. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction to its stage 1 on 17 October 2022. However, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at this time and missed an opportunity to speak to the resident regarding matters he remained unhappy with. As such, the landlord prolonged the complaint process as it could have provided its stage 2 earlier to save the resident raising another complaint.
Although, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in 2023 in line with the code, it failed to follow its own policy timescales when responding to both stages of the resident’s complaint. It took 12 working days to respond at stage 1. The delay was minimal as such this would not have had any lasting detriment to the resident. However, the landlord failed to apologise for this delay which was not reasonable. This Service would expect a landlord to apologise for any delays as failure to do so could have caused a detriment to the tenant and landlord relationship. It took just under 2 months to respond at stage 2. These response time exceeded the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident regarding delays in issuing its complaint responses. This is not in line with its complaints policy or the Code to inform residents if there is a delay in issuing its complaint response.
Whilst the landlord took positive steps in recognising its complaint handling delays, apologised and offered compensation. However, this did not go far enough to put things right, as it did not provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its failings. This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings and apologise to the resident for those it previously did not acknowledge.
A finding of maladministration has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and an order for compensation is made in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property when let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the balcony door and glass.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for its handling of the repairs to the balcony door and glass and its complaint handling delays.
2. Pay the resident £950 compensation in addition of what has already been awarded. This comprises of:
  1. £800 to reflects distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door and window. Additionally, distress caused to the resident in its handling of pests in the property.
  2. £150 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to request a copy of his energy bills. The landlord should calculate whether there was an increase in energy consumption over the period of repair. The landlord should compensate the resident for the difference in cost.