A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202223766)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223766

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

17 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:
1. Handling of external works to the block and the related communication with the resident.
2. Information provided in relation to charges for external work to the block.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and she moved into the property in September 2018. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a two bedroom flat on the first floor of a block (the block).
The landlord erected scaffolding on 10 April 2022 to complete cyclical decoration works to the block’s exterior. The work included repairs and decoration of the timber windows and doors. The works were programmed to start in April 2022 and be complete by July 2022.
The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2022. She said:
1. The landlord was taking too long to complete the cyclical works.
2. The landlord should update its leaseholders about the associated costs.
3. The scaffolding was due to last 6 weeks. It was still in place 6 months later. She referred to the scaffolding being erected in February 2022.
4. No contractor had been working on the block “for weeks”.
5. There was no communication from the landlord/its contractor.
6. Since the scaffolding was erected, there was no sunlight into the property. The lack of light and heat was affecting the resident’s mental health and energy bills.
7. The landlord should remove the scaffolding as soon as possible.
8. The resident disputed the cost for the works.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 October 2022. It said:
1. The complaint was partially upheld.
2. It was sorry that the resident had to complain.
3. The time taken to complete the work was out of its control.
4. The scaffolding was up for longer than anticipated because a scaffolding licence was required from the local authority.
5. Further repairs to windows were identified after preparatory works were complete.
6. It had to conduct asbestos surveys for parts of the windows/sash cords.
7. The contractor visited the block “several times a week” to check on quality and discuss any queries with residents.
8. It recognised that it had not communicated effectively with all residents.
9. All residents should have been given a start date/notification letter with the contractor’s details.
10. It was unable to provide full costings until the works were complete.
11. It would complete the outstanding works by 4 November 2022 and the scaffolding would be removed on this date.
12. That feedback had been fully considered. It found that it did partially uphold the complaint. The delays should have been explained to residents. Updates may have prevented the resident’s complaint.
Following the complaint, the landlord emphasised the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records. Its internal correspondence said there could have been an improvement on how the project was communicated. It planned to hold regular progress meetings with contractors to ensure any delays involving the scaffolding were brought to the attention of the residents and that they are kept updated as to the reason of this extension and expected timescales.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 25 October 2022. She said:
1. She wanted to know how long the improvement work should have taken.
2. She wanted to know why the scaffolding licence was not requested from the local authority and whose responsibility it was.
3. She had never met or seen the contractor’s representative on site. She felt it was “incorrect, if not dishonest” for the landlord to suggest the contractor visited “several times a week”.
4. She wanted the landlord to confirm how and when the contractor visited the estate or contacted residents.
5. She wanted a detailed breakdown of the property’s cyclical and major repair costs for 2021/2022.
6. The lack of communication caused stress and inconvenience.
7. The absence of natural light for almost 7 months had impacted her mental health and energy costs.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 December 2022. It apologised for the 1 week delay, admitted to failings and offered ways to put things right and share learning. It set out its understanding of the complaint and said:
1. Having completed its investigation, the service had “fallen very short” of the standard it would expect its services to deliver.
2. The scaffolding was erected without the appropriate licence in place, and this caused a delay. The situation was unacceptable. The landlord should have ensured the licence was applied for before the works began.
3. The communication with residents, the availability of officers and site presence throughout the work was not to the level of service expected. It could have informed the resident of the days and times officers were carrying out visits.
4. It provided a copy of the costs for cyclical and major works. It stated that they were subject to reconciliation and a final summary would be given to the resident on completion.
5. It was responsible for the delivery of work on site and the work had not been completed on 4 November 2022. The revised completion date was 19 December 2022. Scaffolding around the block would be removed between 30 November and 12 December 2022.
6. The works were “plagued with issues and delays”. The landlord’s delivery and communication could have been much better. For these failures it offered an “unreserved apology for the delays and for the lack of communication throughout the delivery of works”.
7. It was arranging for a senior officer to inspect the works and confirm if they had been complete by 19th December 2022.
8. It had shared the complaint and its findings to internal departments for review and to take learning outcomes on planning and communication when delivering major works.
9. It hoped the response showed that feedback had been fully considered and that the resident was satisfied with the final response.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She approached the Ombudsman on 1 February 2023. On 30 March 2023, the resident told us that she:
1. had received the detailed breakdown for the work, but felt it was “barely intelligible”;
2. was charged and paid £3,315.70;
3. was uncertain if there would be further costs. Although, she expected there to be a further bill of around £1,700 based on information given by the landlord previously.
It is unclear from the evidence available what date the scaffolding was removed. However, the final completion report was provided in March 2023 and this included an itemised account of the costs for the work undertaken.
The landlords records show that it reduced the costs to the residents to reflect the delays in completing the work in March 2023. It said that the 10% management fee had been waived, there was a 10% discount given against the survey costs and residents were not charged for the replacement of slabs. The landlord totalled the value of this discount for all residents to be £16,000.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing/frustrating for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. As a result, we cannot consider the impact of the alleged lack of sunlight was having on the resident’s mental health. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. When considering disputes about service charges, we can consider whether the landlord has followed the correct processes, policies, good practice and relevant legislation. The Ombudsman is unable to make a binding determination in relation to whether costs incurred by a freeholder were reasonable or whether residents are liable to pay them as the leaseholder. The decision regarding the amount the landlord charged the resident for the works in this case have not been considered.
The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has powers to determine Section 20 matters. It can also determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. It is understood that if a landlord fails to carry out the full consultation procedures in the correct manner, it may not be able to recover service charges beyond the statutory minimum amounts. While this aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that other leaseholders had concerns about landlord’s improvement works. While this may be the case, this complaint was brought to the Ombudsman on an individual basis.

Handling of external works to the block and the related communication with the resident.

The timeline confirms the situation was ongoing for a considerable period. There was a delay of nearly 7 months before the external improvement works commenced. Since the scaffolding was already erected, it is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the works were delayed in its responses to the resident. It said that its contractor had not acquired the necessary licence to erect the scaffolding over part of the land. It was not clear from the evidence available when the landlord became aware of this issue. It is also unclear why it was not resolved before the resident complained in October 2022 (nearly 6 months after it had been erected). The landlord said it expected the work to be complete in July 2022. It should have been inspecting the work or liaising with its contractor before October 2022.
The landlords records are unclear when the scaffolding was approved. It said that it was able to start the works in November 2022 and complete them in February 2023. The landlord did not effectively manage this contract and there was an unreasonable delay to acquire the scaffolding licence. The landlord did not adequately explain why there were delays or if there was anything it could to do minimise the delays.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of calls or visits to the resident outside of the complaints procedure. The records show that the resident had to contact the landlord and ask for updates before she knew about the delays. The landlord should have reasonably updated residents when it knew there was a delay in starting the work. The evidence shows it relied on its contractor to communicate with residents about the works. The resident informed the landlord that the contractor had not been updating residents. The landlord should have had more oversight of the works to ensure the contractor was meeting the standard of service it would expect.
It is essential to maintain trust and good communication to ensure a positive landlord/tenant relationship. The weekly visits from the contractor, referred to by the landlord in its stage 1 response were disputed by the resident. The landlord later acknowledged that it had not maintained communication with the resident in its stage 2 response. It apologised for its poor communication throughout the works and shared the findings within its internal departments. The response demonstrated learning from outcomes but there was no offer of redress. The landlord did not put things right or resolve the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord should have offered compensation to reflect the resident’s time and trouble.
The landlord did not address the impact the delays had on the resident in its responses to her complaints. The resident explained that she had gone months with no natural light coming into her home and had increased utility bills as a result. The landlord should have acknowledged these concerns and how it could put things right.
The discounts provided later for its issues with scaffolding were not referred to in the complaint responses. This caused unnecessary confusion on behalf of the resident. The landlord should have been clear with the resident if its intention was to discount the cost of the works in its stage 2 response. Instead, it said that it would send her a copy of the cost estimates and then a final summary once the total costs had been reconciled.
The Ombudsman finds that despite the apology and recognition of the problems with communication, the landlord did not put things right in the circumstances. The delay to start the work was avoidable and the landlord should have notified the residents about the issues sooner. The landlord did not acknowledge the impact the works had on the resident. It was appropriate for landlord to apply the discounts outside of the complaint responses; however, it did not include compensation for its delayed repairs and the impact on the resident. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer did not reflect the time and trouble invested by the resident in chasing the repairs, or the concerns she expressed in her correspondence. There was maladministration in the time taken for the landlord to complete external improvement works and the related communication. The landlord should provide the resident compensation of £300 for the delays and the residents time and trouble.

Information provided in relation to charges for external work to the block.

It is recognised that receiving an estimated bill of around £5,000 was distressing for the resident. She asked the landlord to give her a breakdown of the costs incurred to carry out the work. The landlord provided a schedule of provisional costs with its stage 2 response in December 2022. The final completion report provided in March 2023 included an itemised account of the costs for the work undertaken.
There is no dispute that the resident was liable for charges as part of her lease agreement. The landlord gave notice of the works in line with procedure. It responded to the resident each time when asked for information about the cost of the works. Its communication in this regard was reasonable. However, the report covered the full costs of work to her block but did not provide a clear list of charges that she would be liable for. The resident remained uncertain about her total liabilities as a leaseholder. The landlord should have provided a clear description of the charges specific to the resident.
There is no evidence that the decision to reduce the costs incurred to reflect the delays in completing the work has been made clear to the resident. The landlord should have written to and told her of this decision. If it had done, it would have prevented further confusion regarding the total charge she was responsible for.
The Ombudsman finds there was a service failure by the landlord in the way information has been shared with the resident. It should provide the resident £100 compensation and an itemised account for her property. This is to clearly set out her total liabilities in relation to the works.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of external works to the block and the related communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the information provided in relation to charges for external work to the block.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, and a copy to the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation. This comprises of:
  1. £300 for the time taken to complete external improvement work and the related communication.
  2. £100 for the information provided in relation to charges for external work to the block.
3. Write to the resident and set out the charges that relate to her property and clearly show any deductions it has made to the cost.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.