A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202212450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212450

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

3 January 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:
1. The resident’s reports concerning the conduct of its contractor’s staff and the resulting ‘duty of care’ alert raised against the resident by its contractors.
2. The associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 22 June 2001.The property is a 3 bedroom house.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

The landlord’s cautionary alerts policy (referred to as a ‘duty of care’) says a cautionary alert must only be requested where there is a specific incident that poses a threat to staff safety. This may be due to aggressive language or behaviour, knowledge from third parties about physical violence, a dangerous animal, or some other reason that would put a staff member or contractor in potential physical danger. The purpose of a ‘duty of care’ form is for the landlord’s staff or contractors to report concerns relating to a resident’s behaviour or welfare.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On Thursday 18 November 2021 the landlord’s repairs contractors attended the resident’s property to replace trellis that had been damaged by an ongoing dripping overflow pipe from a neighbouring property. The job was not completed as the trellis was not an exact match.
On the same day the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint as she was not happy with the service from its contractors. She said she had been promised that they would attend at 8:00am to replace the trellis, as she had to go to work. However, the operative had not arrived until 8:50am. She also said she was not happy with the way the operative had greeted her as, in her opinion, he was rude.
The resident also spoke to the contractor’s office staff. The call took place whilst she was on the phone to the landlord. The contractors informed the resident that they were suspending all non-urgent repairs due to a duty of care for the safety of their staff. The landlord’s staff heard the call and it was recorded by the landlord’s recording system.
On 19 November 2021 the resident sent the landlord an email. She said she was very unhappy with its contractors and the way they had spoken to her on the telephone the previous day. At the time of the call to the contractor, the resident was also on a call to the landlord. The landlord had heard her conversation with the contractor’s staff, and the call had been recorded by the landlord. The resident said the landlord had apologised to her for the way she had been spoken to by the contractors’ staff. The resident alleged that the contractor’s behaviour amounted to defamation of her character.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 November 2021. She said she had spoken to a member of its staff about the incidents on the 18 November 2021, when she had reported the operative for being rude to her. She said the contractor had made allegations that she was abusive to the operative who had attended her home, and abusive on subsequent phone calls to the contractor’s office. She re-iterated that her call to the contractors had been recorded, as she was on a call to the landlord at the time. She disputed the contractor’s version of events and said she had “called them out” over a failed repair and they did not want to apologise. She said, in her opinion, the ‘duty of care’ was a “smoke screen” to cover the contractor’s failures and delays. She said she had reported the same operative previously in relation to a previous incident, and she wanted the matter resolved to her complete satisfaction.
The landlord responded to the resident on 24 November 2021. It said it was aware that the resident had logged a complaint. It would carry out an investigation into the ‘duty of care’ raised by its contractor and respond in due course with the outcome.
The landlord spoke to the contractor on 26 November 2021. It was agreed that the resident would not contact the contractors directly going forward, and only make contact through the landlord’s contact centre. The landlord informed the contractor that it would not be raising a cautionary joint visit alert (known as a duty of care), although they could make their own decision as to whether to send two operatives, to manage risk, when attending the resident’s property in future.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 November 2021. The exact details of the call are unknown as the landlord has not provided a transcript of the call or contact records in relation to the call. However, the evidence provided suggests the call was in relation to the outcome of the landlord’s investigation into the ‘duty of care’ action submitted by its contractors.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on 30 November 2021. It said it had investigated the ‘duty of care’ raised by its contractor. Following discussions with all parties, it had been agreed that the resident would not contact the contractor directly going forward. Any contact relating to repairs would instead go through its contact centre. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was being dealt with by its complaints team and that it would contact the resident once it had completed its investigation. It said it would contact the contractor and request that the ‘duty of care’ be closed, then the resident’s non-urgent repairs would resume.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 6 December 2021. She said she had not received anything in writing to confirm the allegations that had been made against her, and she had no way to provide her version of events or appeal the contractor’s decision. Her repairs were restricted for a period of 2 weeks with no reasonable explanation. The contractors measured up for the replacement trellis on 29 July 2021 and she was still waiting for the repair to be carried out. She had made a formal complaint. However, she had not had a response, despite chasing the complaints team. She re-iterated she thought her character had been defamed.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 December 2021. She said the contractor had left her a voicemail message that afternoon, whilst she was at work, and had asked her to call back. She reminded the landlord that there was an agreement in place that she would not call the contractors directly. She said she had spent 40 minutes trying to arrange outstanding repairs via the landlord’s customer service team, and now the contractor had asked her to call directly. The resident asked for a response from someone in authority to show that it was actively addressing what she thought was her unfair treatment.
The landlord sent the resident an update on 7 December 2021. It said it had spoken to the contractors and informed them that the restrictions on the resident’s repairs had been placed incorrectly as the issue related to the way the operative had spoken to the resident. It confirmed that its contractors had listened to the recording of the call between the resident and the landlord, which had captured the conversation between the resident and the contractor. It encouraged the resident to contact the contractor’s complaints managers to discuss the matter further.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. She confirmed she had attempted to speak to the contractor’s complaints manager; however, they kept missing each other. The resident said she would continue to pursue the matter until it had been resolved to her complete satisfaction. She said she was disappointed that the contractors could behave in the way they had and stated that she felt as though the contractors had the backing of the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 26 December 2021. The letter was received by the landlord on 4 January 2022. She said:
1. She had contacted the repairs contractor in November 2021, only to be told that all non-urgent repairs were suspended due to a duty of care for its staff. She had not received any prior warning of the suspension and had not been able to challenge the decision.
2. She had waited over 12 months for a dripping overflow pipe from a neighbouring property to be fixed and almost 5 months for the water damaged trellis to be replaced.
3. She wanted a full written response stating the reasons why the issues relating to the grounds maintenance had taken so long to resolve.
4. She had attempted to contact the complaints team and she had made a complaint about an operative and another member of the repairs contractor’s staff. She had left messages and sent emails. However, she had not received a response.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2022. It acknowledged the complaint was in relation to delays in replacing the residents trellis and the contractors issuing a ‘duty of care’ on the residents account, which then restricted her access to repairs. The landlord agreed that the service she had received had fallen below what would normally be expected. It confirmed a promise had been made in July 2021 to replace the trellis, which had been damaged following a leak. However, as there had been a delay in fixing the leak, the contractor was unable to replace the trellis until the leak had been stopped. There was also an additional delay as the wrong trellis had been sourced, which had since been rectified. The landlord said it had spoken to its contractor who had explained that the ‘duty of care’ had been issued due to what was described as the resident’s rude, abusive and aggressive behaviour towards the office staff.
The landlord said it had been agreed that the ‘duty of care’ could be lifted as long as the resident contacted its customer services team instead of contacting the contractor directly. It apologised for the service failures and offered the resident compensation of £125 in recognition of the time it took to complete the replacement of the trellis. It also offered £25 for the time taken to issue the stage 1 response, and £50 for the lack of communication around the delays. It said, as a result of the complaint, it had reinforced the service levels it expected to see from its contractor.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on the same day. She said she accepted the apology and the compensation in relation to the trellis and she considered the matter concluded. However, she did not agree with the findings in relation to the duty of care element of her complaint. She said it was her suggestion that she should not speak directly to the contractors as they had been rude to her. She requested that her complaint was escalated to Stage 2 as she wanted a full explanation of what was meant by categorising her behaviour as ‘rude, abusive and aggressive’. As a resolution to the matter the resident asked to speak to a senior staff member of the landlord to discuss a satisfactory amount of compensation. The resident said it was important for her to clear her name in relation to the accusations that had been made without proof.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2 on 18 January 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response letter on 15 February 2022. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint and it confirmed there was no active ‘duty of care’ logged on its system. The ‘duty of care’ form submitted by the contractor did not contain sufficient detail to be able to explain why it was completed, which the landlord said it would raise directly with its contractors. The landlord said it had a policy in place for placing alerts on resident’s account, however, in the resident’s case it had not been followed. All ‘duty of care’ forms had to be approved by the landlord and based on the information recorded on the resident’s form, it would not have been approved without seeking further information. It said it would be working closely with its contractors over the next few months to implement new ways of working which would help improve the services it provided for its residents. It apologised for its failures and it apologised on behalf of its contractors. It offered the resident £100 in recognition of the failures, and in recognition of the distress the situation had caused.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 20 June 2022, following a review of her complaint responses, as the resident believed it had not adequately addressed her complaints, or responded to her letter dated 26 December 2021. It said it provided a stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2022, which addressed the issues relating to the suspension of non-urgent repairs and damage to the trellis. The resident had accepted the compensation and outcome relating to the trellis but escalated the suspension of non-urgent repairs to stage 2. It confirmed that the stage 2 response was provided on 16 February 2022, and it believed that the complaint had been resolved. It said, after reviewing the final outcomes and responses, all issues raised by the resident had been addressed and resolved through its complaints process.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 25 August 2022 following a telephone call. It said its complaints team had confirmed all compensation offered had been accepted and paid through the complaints process. The email sent by the resident on 26 December 2021 to its chief executive had been considered, and responded to, as part of the complaints process.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 5 September 2022. She said she had not been notified that her email had been considered as part of the complaints process. She said, in her opinion, it was a service failure not to answer all the queries in her letter and to keep her waiting months for a response. The landlord responded on 7 September 2022. It said if the resident remained unhappy with its response, she was able to progress the matter with the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of its contractor’s staff and the resulting ‘duty of care’ raised against the resident by its contractors

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The evidence suggests that the landlord would have been aware that its contractors had suspended the resident’s non-urgent repairs on 18 November 2021, when it overheard, and recorded, the conversation between the resident and its contractors. The landlord would have also been aware of the way the contractor spoke to the resident during the conversation.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord passed on this information to a relevant team for action/investigation, or whether the resident’s contact on 19 November 2021 and 22 November 2021 prompted a response. However, it took the landlord until 24 November 2021, to inform the resident that it would carry out an investigation into the ‘duty of care’ raised by its contractors. This was unreasonable considering the evidence suggests that the contractor did not follow the required cautionary alert procedure and had made the decision to restrict the resident’s repairs without the landlord’s knowledge or approval. The evidence from the recorded phone call and the contractor’s failure to follow procedure should have prompted the landlord to adopt an inquisitorial approach to its contractor’s actions.
Once the landlord said it would carry out an investigation, it did so promptly. It made the decision by 26 November 2021, not to raise a cautionary alert on the resident’s account and to reinstate the resident’s non-urgent repairs, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, although it was agreed by all parties that the resident would not contact the contractor directly going forward, she received voicemail messages from the contractor asking her to call them back. The landlord also encouraged the resident to contact the contractor’s complaints manager in its correspondence on 7 December 2021. This was confusing and contradicted the agreement in place. It was the responsibility of the landlord to liaise with its contractors in relation to the ‘duty of care’, not the residents, particularly as the resident has no direct relationship with the contractor.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that there had been failures in the service provided to the resident. It apologised and offered compensation for the delays in replacing the trellis. However, it did not appear to make any commitment with regards to the issue of the ‘duty of care’, raised by its contractors, or the circumstances surrounding its contractor’s decision. It merely stated the contractor’s explanation as to why it had been raised. This was unreasonable, given that the landlord had completed an investigation into the circumstances in which the duty of care was raised, which should have provided enough evidence for it to give the resident a full response to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to the ‘duty of care’ raised by its contractor. It acknowledged that the correct policy and procedure had not been followed. It apologised on behalf of its contractors, which was reasonable given the relationship between the landlord and contractor, and it provided information as to how it would improve its processes going forward, which demonstrates the landlord’s willingness to learn from its failings. The landlord also offered compensation of £100 for the failure, and in recognition of the distress the situation had caused the resident.
It is unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord what happened between 15 February 2022 and 20 June 2022 following the conclusion of the complaints process. However, the landlord completed a full review of the resident’s complaints in June 2022,as she believed it had not fully addressed her concerns or responded toher correspondence to the chief executiveon 26 December 2021.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest it directly replied to the resident’s letter to its chief executive, or at the very least that it acknowledged the letter and informed the resident that its complaints team would be responding as part of the complaints process. However, apart from an issue relating to grounds maintenance, which has not been investigated by this Service, the landlord did respond to the points raised by the resident in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s decision to respond to the resident’s letter to the chief executive as part of its complaints process.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident directly, and on behalf of its contractor. It also offered compensation, confirmed that the resident’s account was not subject to a duty of care and ensured the restriction on non-urgent repairs was promptly removed.
The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and its apology represented reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaints and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there were identified failings, the landlord attempted to put things right in its stage 2 complaint response. The compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances as it is within the range that the Ombudsman recommends in the remedies guidance for service failings which had an adverse effect on the resident.
As the landlord has already offered this amount, it is therefore to pay the £100 compensation offered if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2021. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 6 January 2022, which was 32 working days after the complaint was made. This was significantly outside of the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days, and therefore meant that there was an unreasonable delay.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident updated in relation to the progression of the complaint throughout the period of delay or that it provided a reasonable explanation.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged that there had been a delay in providing a stage 1 response, and that it had failed to communicate with the resident in relation to the delay. It apologised and offered compensation of £75.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 January 2022. There was a minor delay in the landlord’s response which was sent to the resident on 15 February 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no significant detriment caused to the resident by the delay to the stage 2 complaint.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and offering compensation of £75.
The landlord’s offer of £75 compensation and its apology represented reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaints and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, as in paragraphs 38 and 39 above, although there were identified failings, the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying the £75 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of its contractor’s staff and the resulting ‘duty of care’ raised against the resident by its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response recognised its failings. The landlord’s apology and offer of £100 compensation was fair, reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance.
The landlord recognised its failings in relation to its handling of the resident complaint. The landlord’s apology and offer of £75 compensation was fair, reasonable and in line with the Housing Ombudsman guidance.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should:
1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £75 compensation it offered in its stage 1 response.
2. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
3. Ensure that all learning points from this investigation are shared with the relevant contractor through its formal contract monitoring arrangements and any actions needed are progressed as appropriate.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.