A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202111916)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111916

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 January 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct from its staff and contractors.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three-bedroom house. She is a single mother of two children who had special needs.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s complaint policy set out was a two-stage procedure. It would respond within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

Chronology

The resident has made a number of complaints to the landlord, including:
1. A complaint in 2019 and one in 2020 which were partially upheld.
2. A complaint in in January 2021, three complaints in May 2021 and an undated complaint which were upheld. The landlord offered compensation of between £50 and £95 per complaint.
3. A complaint about a damaged bench. At stage one, the landlord arranged to remove the bench, provided an insurance claim form and offered compensation of £150 for inconvenience, £20 for a missed appointment, and £75 for a communication failure from the complaints team. While there was no evidence of that complaint having been escalated, the resident followed this up with three further connected complaints against the landlord set out below.
On 24 May 2021, a surveyor, whom the resident had instructed in a legal claim for disrepair, provided an inspection report including in relation to a leaking toilet and radiators. The resident’s solicitors issued proceedings on a date sometime between May and August 2021 as evidenced by an offer of settlement in August 2021 and a further application in October 2021 in those proceedings.
On or around 22 June 2021, the resident made a complaint regarding a delayed repair to a leaking toilet which was not repaired within 24 hours in accordance with the landlord’s repair standards. She later clarified that the job in relation to the toilet leak had been raised three times, on 21 and 22 June 2021 and that it had taken four days to complete the repair. When she contacted the contractor, she felt she was made fun of. She had raised two complaints on 22 June 2021 which the landlord treated as a single or the same complaint, although she disputedthey were about the same issue. The landlord offered £50 compensation and closed the complaint on 2 July 2021.
The resident made a complaint on or around 7 July 2021 that her complaint about the toilet was closed without prior explanation and she had not been given the opportunity to request escalation of the complaint.
The resident made approximately a further eight complaints that were either logged or closed in July 2021, three of which were referred to its contractors. The complaints were all upheld except one. The landlord offered compensation of £50 and £75 and, in other cases, upheld the complaints and apologised.
Those complaints included as follows:
1. A complaint logged on 6 July 2021 that the resident was kept on hold on the telephonefor 24 minutesand the resulting complaint was not logged. The landlord apologised and accepted the resident’s points in its first stage response, although itdid not explicitly uphold the complaint.
2. A complaint logged on 7 July 2021 regarding the resident not receiving a call back from the landlord and having to chase three times in a day and email several times on 5, 6 and 7 July 2021.
On 14 July 2021, the contractor wrote to the resident. It apologised for its delay in responding and for the issues the resident had experienced. It had received her CCTV evidence which demonstrated that an operative had asked her to give false information about the time the work carried out took and of him shouting at the resident.
The resident replied to the contractor on 15 July 2021, adding to her complaint as follows:
1. The landlord had provided her with different job numbers for the toilet repair on 21 and 22 June 2021 respectively. She reported that she was put through to the contractor and she “was made fun of and laughed at”.
2. She had raised two complaints on 22 June 2021. The landlord closed one as it considered it was a duplicate, which the resident disputed. One complaint was in relation to her report that the same operative attended her property despite her request for him not to.
3. She had to wait four days to get her toilet fixed properly which only took about an hour all in not four, as previously informed.
4. She was unhappy at the continued lack of communication.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on the same day regarding her complaint that she framed as a staff complaint about the complaint handling of her complaint about the toilet repair. She felt that the caseworker “A” was not interested in the complaint.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord wrote with its stage one response to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had closed her complaint about the toilet repair as follows:
1. It summarised her complaint as the landlord closing instead of escalating her complaint regarding the toilet and not addressing the contractor’s conduct.
2. The landlord had upheld in full her complaint regarding the toilet. It had apologised and had offered her compensation for the inconvenience that she was caused by the delay in repairing the toilet flush. It had explained it would deal with the behaviour of A separately as a staff complaint.
3. It considered that the compensation that was offered at stage 1 was appropriate and as the complaint was upheld in full, it was not appropriate to take this complaint to the next level of its complaint process.
4. The landlord had acted appropriately, provided her with an appropriate response, reviewed the information on its systems, listened to what she told him it, and responded to the complaint properly.
5. It did not uphold the complaint. However, the resident was entitled to escalate it.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint regarding A and the landlord’s complaint handling of her complaints regarding the toilet repair and the contractor’s conduct that he had asked the resident falsify information on a job sheet. She had also reported that he had shouted at her.
On 30 July 2021, the resident made a complaint framed as an escalation of her complaint about the bench about delays to the insurance claim, and a lack of information and communication by staff member C. On 30 July 2021, the landlord declined to escalate the complaint, as its insurance team liaised with an external insurer who carried out the necessary investigations.
The contractor, a company owned by the landlord, wrote to the resident on 30 July 2021 regarding the resident’s complaint on or before 14 July 2021 about the conduct of the operative. It upheld her complaint and apologised. The contractor had been unable to share the outcome of how they dealt with the operative as it was confidential to the operative. It also wrote upholding three complaints as follows:
1. The contractor should have advised that a call back from a manager can take up to 48 hours. Its resulting discussions with the staff member concerned would be confidential.
2. That the contractor did not return her calls on 6 and 7 July 2021.
3. That the contractor contacted twice by telephone to check the Covid-19 status of her household in relation to an electrical check, even though she had informed the landlord that there was Covid-19 present in her property.
The resident wrote to the contractor on 4 August 2021 requesting escalation of her complaints as follows:
1. She requested the times and dates of the calls it said it had made to her on 6 and 8 July 2021.
2. She disputed that calls had been made and that the landlord did not receive an email from her.
3. She was unhappy at the treatment she had received. The contractor did not believe her without corroborative evidence. The landlord would apologise and go on to repeat the same failings.
There followed an exchange about evidence, the number of calls the parties had made to each other, and further issues raised by the resident. Though not part of the complaint, the contractor would address her specific requests.
On a date in August 2021 (the version of the letter provided to this service was misdated 19 June 2021), the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
1. The resident’s complaint was about two calls not handled to her satisfaction: She was put on hold for over 25 minutes on one call and the landlord did not raise a staff complaint as requested.
2. The landlord had listened to the calls of 5 July 2021. It noted that the resident was put on hold four times whilst the agent attempted to deal with her query. The hold time totalled just over 12 minutes. It understood that she was already frustrated that her caseworker had not responded to a complaint on 2 July 2021. The resident had contacted the main number and the call to the caseworker but his phone was switched to voicemail. The resident then asked to speak to a director. She was put through to a member of the complaints team instead. It acknowledged that it did not explain that the director would not be able to assist due to access to the complaints systems. The complaints caseworker should have managed her expectations with caseworker availability.
3. In the second call, the resident raised a staff complaint that she was not put through to the director but was put through to a complaints caseworker instead. In the second call, the landlord tried again to put her through to the director but he was still unavailable. The director had already tried to call the resident and left a voicemail with her. In the second call, the landlord did not raise the complaint but it did promise a call back. The landlord would raise the failure to log this complaint as a training issue. The resident stated if she did not receive a further call from the director, she would raise another complaint.
4. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience and upheld her complaint.
5. It set out her rights to escalate her complaint.
On 16 August 2021, the resident having issued a court claim for disrepair, accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation in the amount of £3,000 and costs. The works were to be completed by 26 October 2021.
The landlord dealt with four further complaints in August including two concerning staff behaviour. Of those complaints, the landlord upheld one and offered £75 in compensation. Two were not upheld.
On 16 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord that she had not received a stage 2 response regarding her complaint about the complaint handling in relation to her toilet repair. The landlord replied that the complaint had not been logged on the system. On 18 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint about being given incorrect information about the complaint. The landlord later referred to its explanation that there had been an issue on the portal which had been rectified.
On or around mid-August (the email provided to this service was undated), the landlord wrote that it would not be escalating any of the complaints made to the contractor as they had been upheld.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord wrote with its response to the resident’s requests for escalation of the contractor complaints to the contractor, her complaints about the landlord’s complaint handling, and its second stage response concerning the complaint about her insurance claim, her complaint about her caseworker for not returning her call and the landlord not providing correct information.
1. The landlord would not review a complaint that had been upheld and set out its relevant policy which stated that “a complaint has been dealt with at a previous stage and upheld in full, it may not be appropriate for the complaint to be taken to the next stage of the complaints procedure. In these circumstances, the complainant will be advised in writing of the reasons why and given the contact details of the Housing Ombudsman Service”.
2. In relation to the complaint was about being contacted twice by telephone about the household’s Covid-19 status, the contractor had apologised. The landlord considered that an apology for this error was sufficient as an outcome and resolution.
3. In relation to the complaint concerning the complaint handing in relation to the toilet repair, it had listened to the relevant telephone calls between the resident and staff member A. It had concluded that A had listened to what the scope of the complaint was. The resident had introduced additional information regarding the operative which was outside the scope of that investigation. He had upheld her complaint and offered £50 compensation which the reviewer considered appropriate. It cited its compensation policy. It did not uphold the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling. It upheld the initial conclusion and there was no service failure by the caseworker during the call.
4. The third complaint was about the timescale and length of time for response to the above complaint, which the resident had stated she had raised in early July and had not receive a response. It explained that the resident had raised the initial staff complaint on 4 July 2021 and the landlord had responded on 16 July 2021.
5. The landlord invited clarification of the resident’s reasons for her requesting escalation of complaints. The landlord noted the resident had raised 10 complaints in the previous six weeks. There had been some confusion with the portal providing incorrect complaint information, which it had rectified.
6. In relation to her staff complaint about being misinformed about response timescales, it set out its complaint policy timescales. It had made clear in its complaint acknowledgements that there could be delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It did not consider that the increased time for the stage 2 response was excessive and it had managed the complaints appropriately.
7. It invited the resident to contact it further but considered that each complaint had been dealt with.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 November 2021 regarding a complaint she had made in relation to delays to fitting her radiators. It offered her £130 in compensation at stage one. The landlord has informed this service that the resident did not ask the landlord to escalate the complaint.
The resident raised a staff complaint on 11 November 2021 that she had not received a response to her complaint of 25 October 2021 within 10 working days.
On 12 January 2022, the landlord wrote with its first stage response about the lack of response from staff member B on 18 October 2021. The landlord had thought it had resolved the complaint in November 2021. B had telephoned on 25 October 2021 and apologised for the late response due to the high demand on the service. She appeared to accept the apology. It should have contacted her again as promised. It had addressed the issue with the staff member, noted as part of its learning, it understood it was frustrating and apologised. While it considered that the response of an apology was appropriate, it upheld the complaint.
On the same day, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. The landlord requested clarification of her reasons as the complaint had been upheld. The resident replied on 13 January 2022 that she wished to be compensated for the stress and inconvenience given the number of times she had had to complain. The landlord declined to a escalate the complaint as the substantive issue was upheld. It cited the complaints policy. It considered that an apology was sufficient as an outcome.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a toilet leak.

The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints where the issues have been the subject of legal proceedings. That is because the court will be making, or has made, a determination. Nevertheless, there are aspects of a complaint which cannot be dealt with by a court. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman will not investigate the background of the complaint concerning the toilet and but has investigated the complaint insofar as the issues were not resolved in the proceedings.
In relation to the toilet repair, it is noted that the resident complained that she awaited four days before the repair was completed. Given the delay was four days, that the job was raised and that the job took less time than anticipated, the Ombudsman considers that the award of £50 constituted reasonable and proportionate redress, and in line with both the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance. Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). This report will address the closing of that complaint below when considering the landlord’s complaint handling.
In relation to the complaint about the damaged bench, although the cause of the damage was disputed, the landlord offered reasonable redress by offering compensation and assisting the resident in making an insurance claim. In relation to the complaint about the insurance claim, the landlord’s explanation that the responsibility for the progress of the insurance claim lay with the insurers was reasonable. The evidence indicated that the resident was unhappy there was a delay in the landlord sending details to the insurers and with the communication from the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed those aspects and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct from its staff and contractors.

The Ombudsman has considered the staff complaints including that the landlord put the resident on hold, the contractor and/or landlord called the resident twice about the Covid-19 status of the household, the landlord did not fully explain it was putting her through to a different person to the one she requested, staff not returning calls, that the landlord provided incorrect information about one of her complaints, and had failed to log a complaint.
The inconvenience of each incident, while frustrating for the resident, taken each by itself, was short lived and had no lasting impact on the resident. The Ombudsman is of the view that, in each case, the compensation and landlord’s explanations and apology it offered were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The complaint regarding the operative was more serious, however again, the first stage response offer of an apology, its assurances that it would take steps to address the issue with the operative, and its explanation that it could not share what action it would take with the resident was reasonable. The Ombudsman is of the view that the apology offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. In the circumstances, the landlord’s decision not to review the complaints outcomes was reasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Both parties provided details of a number of other complaints many of which concern the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has not investigated complaints which the resident did not ask to escalate, including a complaint about delays to the fitting of the radiators and accordingly were not referred to this service. However, the complaints are included in the chronology as background to this investigation into the landlord’s complaint handling. While the Ombudsman has not investigated each complaint, the Ombudsman will take into account the number of complaints and their outcomes by way of context in considering the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
Its explanation that its complaint handling responses were slightly delayed due to the then pandemic was reasonable.
A number of complaints concerned the landlord not escalating complaints. The landlord’s explanation that it would not escalate a complaint that had been upheld was reasonable and appropriate. The policy states “where a complaint has been dealt with at a previous stage and upheld in full, it may not be appropriate for the complaint to be taken to the next stage of the complaints procedure. In these circumstances, the complainant will be advised in writing of the reasons why and given the contact details of the Housing Ombudsman Service”. While the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to apply this policy inflexibly, which is indeed so worded, there was no evidence of exceptional circumstances or otherwise which would require the landlord not to apply this policy. The purpose of a review would be to reconsider the landlord’s decision so it was difficult to see what a review would achieve except to reconsider compensation, which issue the landlord addressed in any event.
However, it was not reasonable of the landlord to have closed the complaint about the toilet repair, or if it did so, it should inform the resident that she still had a right to request escalation of the complaint. Whether the landlord escalated the complaint, would be a matter of a separate decision by the landlord. In this case, having considered the outcome of the toilet repair reasonable, and the landlord having considered the award of compensation, the Ombudsman sees no benefit in escalating this complaint and in the circumstances, considers the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint reasonable.
There was no evidence it addressed the resident’s complaint that the operative whose conduct she complained about re-attended the property, however that omission is not sufficient to find service failure in that regard.
The landlord overall dealt with the complaints with reasonable promptness. Where there were delays in its responses, they were not significant. It acknowledged its errors, demonstrated that it understood the resident’s frustration, apologised, and, in many instances, offered compensation. It listened to the recordings of telephone calls and provided a detailed response. It set out what actions it would take to address its failings.
One of the frustrations for the resident was that the landlord required evidence to uphold her complaints and she did not feel she would be believed otherwise. There was no evidence that the landlord’s references to the evidence provided by the resident reflected on the landlord’s view of the resident’s credibility. If there is evidence to support a report, it is reasonable of the landlord to take that into account.
The resident also expressed frustration that the landlord apologised each time, but the service did not improve for her. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have taken note that a significant proportion of the resident’s complaints were upheld, to consider the accumulative impact of the errors it acknowledged and to have proactively taken a holistic look at how it was managing communication with the resident. The landlord has a number of options it could consider, such as offering mediation with the resident, setting out boundaries for communication, proactively warning the resident of any delays, making it clear what it can and cannot do, allocating a specific point of contact and realistic response timescales in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offers of compensation were adequate. However, they will make an order to address the landlord and resident relationship.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct from its staff and contractors.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its delays and apologised and paid, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable compensation that was proportionate to the delays involved.
The landlord recognised its failings and apologised and paid, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable compensation that was proportionate to the issues raised. An apology offered as a resolution of the complaint, also constituted reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s complaint handling was responsive, prompt and sufficiently thorough. Its decisions not to escalate the complaints that had been upheld were reasonable and it reasonably considered the level of compensation. However, the landlord should review why a high number of complaints were upheld and seek to address this with the resident, who experienced frustration as a result.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to undertake a review of the resident’s complaints of 2021 and consider the underlying issues, why so many complaints were upheld and to consider the following:
1. Offering the resident mediation with the landlord.
2. Setting out clearly what the resident can expect from the landlord in terms of responses, service standards, timescales, and availability of its staff.
3. Providing a single point of contact and a reasonable timescale for responses.
4. Proactively warning the resident, whenever possible, of any delays.
The landlord to provide a summary of the review to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.

Recommendation

If the resident requests this within a reasonable time of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to explain its role, including timescales, in relation to insurance claims.