A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202210846)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210846

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

7 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports of a broken toilet within her property.
   2. associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat, and the landlord is the freeholder.
3. On 1 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her toilet was not flushing properly, and therefore could not be used. She highlighted that it was the only toilet within the property. On the same day, the landlord instructed its contractor to attend the resident’s property, who confirmed that the toilet was faulty and required a replacement part. On 16 June 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property for a second occasion, however, during the appointment, the contractor informed the resident that they could not repair the toilet as the required part needed to be ordered.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 17 June 2022. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of time it had taken the landlord to complete an urgent repair. She also stated that she was unhappy with the fact that the second operative attended her home without the required part, despite being informed by the landlord that the part had been ordered.
5. On 21 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged its delay to order the required part and confirmed that the part would arrive in time for the next scheduled appointment on 28 June 2022. It also offered £165 compensation in recognition of the delay and to apologise for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord advised the resident that it would appoint a single point of contact to liaise with her until the work was completed.
6. On 28 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, as her toilet had not been repaired. She requested for the landlord to take ownership of the issue and to resolve it by 1 July 2022. Additionally, she asked the landlord to compensate her with a payment of £1013.70 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
7. On 29 June 2022, the resident arranged for the toilet to be repaired herself, and subsequently, on the 22 July 2022, the landlord closed the repair request.
8. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 2 February 2023. It apologised for the length of time taken to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint but explained that it had no record of her escalation request. It acknowledged that the required part to repair the resident’s toilet was not ordered as previously advised in its stage one complaint response, resulting in the repair not being completed. It offered an additional £450 in compensation, consisting of:
   1. £150 for time and trouble.
   2. £150 for its poor communication.
   3. £150 to reimburse the resident for repairing the toilet herself.
9. Finally, it advised the resident that if the costs incurred repairing the toilet were more than its offer of £150, she could submit her expenses so that it could investigate the matter further.
10. On 2 February 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She stated that she was unhappy with the length of time taken by the landlord to respond to her complaint. She also advised that to resolve her complaint, the landlord should increase its compensation to £580 for reimbursement of the repair and £1000 for each month it failed to respond to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

11. Clause 3 (4) of the resident’s lease obliges the resident, as the leaseholder, to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition.
12. Appendix 3 of the resident’s lease states that the leaseholder of the property has the normal responsibilities of a full owner and is obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings relating to the property.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will not carry out repairs for leaseholders where the terms of the lease state that such repairs are the responsibility of the leaseholder.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a broken toilet within her property.

14. Upon the resident reporting that the toilet was not flushing properly, the landlord would be expected to check the status of the resident’s tenure to establish whether the repair of the toilet was something that it was responsible for. In response to this Service’s enquiries, the landlord has confirmed that as the resident is a leaseholder, it was not responsible for the repair. However, as it failed to identify this at the time, over a four-week period, the resident was led to believe the landlord would resolve the issue. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have had clear and accessible records of all resident tenures, so that upon initial contact it could correctly identify who was responsible for repairing the toilet. Consequently, its error contributed to the resident being without use of a toilet for an unreasonable amount of time as she was waiting for the landlord to repair it.
15. Additionally, the landlord has explained to this Service that its contact centre staff were the first point of contact in this instance, and that when the job had been put through as a work order, the repair operatives would not have had details of the resident’s tenure. Once the job had been raised, all emphasis was on getting the work completed. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s acknowledgement of its oversight, there is no evidence to suggest that it has communicated its findings to the resident. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord realised that it was not responsible for repairing the resident’s toilet, and it is likely that the resident will learn of this key factor through the Ombudsman’s assessment of this case. It will therefore be recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices, and complete staff refresher training on how to check resident tenure and landlord repair responsibility, to reduce the risk of similar issues occurring in the future.
16. The Ombudsman notes that on initial inspection of the resident’s toilet, the landlord’s contractor clearly identified what part was required to carry out the repair. However, it is apparent from the evidence that on the second and third visits to the resident’s property, the landlord’s contractor did not have the part because it had not been ordered, despite assuring the resident that it had been. The landlord’s repeated failure to honour its commitment to order the required part and repair the resident’s toilet was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is of paramount importance that when a landlord pledges to take a specific action, this is followed through to conclusion.  A failure to do so creates unnecessary delay, uncertainty, erodes the resident and landlord relationship, and may result in formal complaints.
17. The landlord has not disputed that its delay to source the required part and its overall poor communication has caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and has resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this, the Ombudsman must consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
18. While the landlord contributed to the delay of the resident’s toilet being repaired, the cost of repair would have always been the resident’s responsibility in line with the terms of her lease. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation to reimburse the resident for repair of the toilet, exceeds its obligation to put things right. It is clear however, following the outcome of its own investigations, the landlord did not recognise its failure to correctly identify its repair responsibility, and this was demonstrated throughout its ongoing communication with the resident.
19. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance states that where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant, landlords should offer a financial remedy of £100 to £600 to put things right. Considering the above points, the Ombudsman would have been inclined to order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the failings identified in its response to the resident’s reports of a broken toilet within her property. As the landlord has already offered £150 compensation to reimburse the resident for the repair, and £150 compensation for poor communication, the Ombudsman considers this element of the complaint reasonably resolved. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation however, for the landlord to pay the £300 compensation it had already offered to the resident for this element of the complaint, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the complaint will be responded to within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, where it will be responded to, within 20 working days.
21. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 June 2022, and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response within three working days. This was appropriate as the landlord’s complaint response was sent to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
22. However, on 28 June 2022, when the resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure, it issued its stage two complaint response to the resident almost eight months later. This was inappropriate and far in excess of the timescales set out in its complaints policy. In its stage two response, the landlord explained the reason for the delay was because it had no record of the resident’s escalation request. However, in response to this service’s enquiries, the landlord has provided a copy of the resident’s escalation email, which confirms it was in receipt of her request. It is clear from this email that the resident felt her complaint remained unresolved. She outlined why she was unhappy, what impact the situation was having on her, and how she felt the landlord could resolve her complaint. She also submitted her escalation to the email address specified at the end of the landlord’s stage one complaint response, which appears to be the general complaints mailbox address. Considering this, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s reason for its delay to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint, is adequate.
23. The landlord has also explained that the member of staff handling the resident’s complaint at the time, has since left their employment, which may explain why it was unaware the resident had been waiting for a response. However, the Ombudsman has noted that on 14 July 2022, the resident sent a follow up email to the landlord’s general complaints mailbox, asking for a response to her outstanding concerns. Completing complaint investigations within reasonable timeframes demonstrates to residents that landlords are taking the matters raised seriously and understand the importance of putting things right.
24. While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint would constitute maladministration, the Ombudsman recognises that it has apologised for the delays that occurred. It has also offered the resident a total discretionary payment of £315 compensation for time and trouble. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman would have been inclined to order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused over the course of the eight months that it did not respond to her complaint. As the landlord has already offered a total of £315 compensation for time and trouble, the Ombudsman considers this element of the complaint resolved. The Ombudsman will however, make a recommendation for the landlord to pay the £315 compensation it had already offered to the resident, if it has not done so already.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a broken toilet within her property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Recommendations

27. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should pay the resident the £165 compensation it had already offered to the resident at stage one of its complaints process, if it has not done so already.
    2. The landlord should pay the resident the £450 compensation it had already offered to the resident at stage two of its complaints process, if it has not done so already.
    3. The landlord should review its record keeping practices, and complete staff refresher training on how to check resident tenure and landlord repair responsibility.