A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202107587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107587

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 April 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 reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff.
2. The landlord’s handling of the installation of a gas meter.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the property is a one bedroom house.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident and a household member as having mobility and mental health issues. Correspondence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the resident has said that he is disabled.
On 13 February 2019 the landlord issued a ‘final warning’ to the resident in relation to an alleged breach of his tenancy agreement. This was due to concerns about the resident’s behaviour towards its staff. The incidents occurred in late 2018 and early 2019.
A further alleged incident occurred in November 2019, the landlord stated that the resident had been aggressive and abusive to one of its contractors when he saw them in public.
The above incidents resulted in the landlord placing a ‘cautionary alert’ on file for the resident. The alert advised that its staff must do ‘joint visits’ when attending the resident’s property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2019 and told him that it had reviewed its ‘cautionary alert’ and that it would remain in place. It told him that it would be reviewed again by 26 November 2021.
The above incidents occurred before the timespan that this investigation will consider. However, the information has been provided as useful context for the investigation. The ‘cautionary alert’ remained in place at the time the resident raised his complaint. The ongoing ‘cautionary alert’ is a substantive issue in the resident’s complaint.
The landlord began a project in early 2021 to provide gas main connections to the properties on the resident’s street. This was due to the residents only having access to electric storage heating. The landlord advised this Service that it wanted to provide a more cost effective heating solution for its residents.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord by email on 19 and 26 May 2021 stating that he wanted to make a complaint. He was concerned that a gas meter for his neighbour was fixed to his property. The resident also told the landlord he was unhappy that he had been issued with a warning due to the alleged incident that occurred in November 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2021 to acknowledge his stage one complaint. The letter did not give a timescale in which the landlord would respond. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 16 July 2021 asking for assistance in progressing his complaint, which he said related to:
1. The landlord labelling him as a “racist” on its system following an incident where he shouted at its contractors;
2. Being told by his landlord that he was not allowed to submit any complaints to it;
3. The landlord’s handling of the installation of gas meters.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2021 and asked it to progress with the resident’s complaint, if it was not already doing so. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 September 2021 advising he had received a stage one complaint response dated 20 August 2021. He said that he wanted to escalate the complaint to a stage two complaint because he was unhappy with the stage one response. He said that he had been unable to get a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman has not seen a stage one complaint response dated 20 August 2021.
The resident said that the landlord was acknowledging him with different complaint references to confuse him, and it was not responding to the fundamental issues of his complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 September 2021 advising that it had previously asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint (letter dated 16 July 2021). The Ombudsman asked the landlord to confirm if the complaint had been escalated to stage two of the complaints process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 September 2021 with a stage one complaint response. The complaint response stated:
1. Neither of the resident’s neighbours had a gas meter installed during recent works;
2. Given the comments the resident had made to its staff, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to tell him the language he had used would not be tolerated;
3. His recent comment to its complaints team could “be construed as a racist comment” (this appears to be referring to an email sent by the resident to the landlord in September 2021). It asked the resident not to use such language when speaking with its staff;
4. It found no service failure in relation to the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that he had been told by the landlord that it would not accept further complaints from him. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2021 asking it to confirm its position in relation the complaint.
The landlord replied on 27 September 2021 and stated that it was unclear which complaint the resident felt had not been addressed. It advised the resident had raised 15 complaints “in the last month”, and “possibly [had] restricted contact”. The landlord stated that it had sent a stage one complaint response and asked the Ombudsman whether it needed to issue a stage two complaint response.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2021 asking it to provide a stage two complaint response by 11 October 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident and told him it would send him a stage two complaint response by 8 November 2021, and issued its response on this date. It stated:
1. The resident was incorrectly advised in the stage one complaint response that no gas meters had been installed. It apologised for the error in communication;
2. It confirmed that no gas meter was attached to any part of the resident’s property and the neighbour’s meter was installed as far away from the resident’s property as possible;
3. It had filled in the holes that it dug to complete the works with “like for like” material;
4. It asked the resident to contact it if he wanted to improve his garden as it could connect him with a volunteering agency that could help;
5. It confirmed that it had an ‘alert’ on its records that stated visits to the resident’s home should be in pairs due to the resident’s previous “unacceptable behaviour”;
6. The ‘alert’ is reviewed annually and if no further incidents occur, it may be removed;
7. It did not say the resident was “racist”. It said the resident’s emails making reference to the skin colour of operatives were unacceptable. (this appears to relate to emails sent by the resident in October 2021 commenting on the skin colour of the landlord’s operatives);
8. Where there was “evidence of racist behaviour” it would be treated as a breach of tenancy and it may take legal action;
9. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to providing inaccurate information about the gas meters and offered £75 in compensation;
10. It advised the lesson it had learned from the complaint was that it would make sure it had the full facts when responding to a resident. It would raise the issue at team meetings to promote learning.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

Section 3.7 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is “not to commit any form of harassment on the grounds of race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability which may interfere with peace and comfort of, or cause offence to […] staff or representatives ” of the landlord.
The landlord’s Cautionary Alerts Against Residents Procedure (CAARP) states alerts may be placed on a resident’s file when a specific incident relating to “aggressive language or behaviour” occurs.
The guidance for alerts state a ‘joint visit alert’ should be added to a resident’s file if “any perceived racial or other harassment” has occurred.
The procedure states that the ‘cautionary alert’ should be reviewed every 12 months, as a default. The landlord must “also indicate when the alert should be reviewed”. It states the “resident will be sent a review letter” advising the outcome of the review.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that a stage one complaint acknowledgment will be sent to the resident within two working days. The procedure states that if a resident is unhappy with a stage one complaint response it should let the landlord know and the “complaint should be escalated automatically” to stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out amounts for different levels of service failure. For detriment (including stress and inconvenience) the amounts are: low: £50; medium: £75; high: £100.
For length of time (time and trouble) the amounts are: Low: £25; £50; £75 (one to three months). Medium: £85; £95; £110 (four to six months). High: £150 (over six months).

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff

The resident stated that by adding the ‘cautionary alert’ to his file the landlord had labelled him as a “racist”. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide what happened during the incidents that led to the ‘cautionary alert’ being added to the resident’s file. Rather, this investigation will make a determination on whether the landlord has applied its policies correctly and acted fairly in the circumstances of this case.
When the landlord issued its ‘final warning’ letter to the resident in February 2019, it explained how it believed the resident had breached his tenancy agreement. It told the resident which incidents it believed had caused the breach. It stated that it was a “final” warning and outlined the consequences, if the alleged behaviour continued. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord outlined what behaviour it felt had caused the breach, made its expectations clear and explained the possible consequences to the resident. The landlord acted fairly and with clarity.
The landlord’s CAARP states that a ‘cautionary alert’ should be placed against a resident’s address when a specific incident of “aggressive language or behaviour” occurs. It states that incidents of “any perceived racial or other harassment” would require the landlord to do ‘joint visits’ when attending the resident’s property. Following documented incidents between the resident and the landlord’s operatives, it applied such an alert. Given the landlord “perceived” these incidents to amount to aggressive behaviour and harassment, it was appropriate to apply such an alert to the resident’s file.
The landlord’s CAARP indicates that the ‘cautionary alert’ should be reviewed every 12 months, as a default. This implies that the landlord has discretion in setting an alert review period, and this Service has seen a ‘review of cautionary’ letter dated 16 December 2019, which stated the alert would be reviewed by November 2021. As part of this investigation this Service asked to see evidence of any further ‘review’ letters, but the landlord has not supplied them. This Service has also sought confirmation of whether the ‘cautionary alert’ remains on the resident’s file, to which the landlord has not responded. It was appropriate in line with the CAARP that the period of review was set out in the landlord’s letter of December 2019. As the review period for the alert was two years, it was reasonable that a formal review did not take place prior to November 2021. However, it is not clear whether the alert remains on the resident’s file and whether a review has taken place since November 2021. A recommendation has therefore been made to the landlord about this matter.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response explained that the ‘cautionary alert’ was still in place. It advised this would be reviewed “annually” and if no further incidents occurred, it may be removed. It said the alert was still in place due to the content of the recent correspondence from the resident, which it found to be unacceptable. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord gave a clear explanation of why the alert remained and the perceived behaviour that caused it. It explained the steps the resident could take for it to remove the alert.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response stated that it had not labelled the resident as a “racist”. It defended its decision to challenge the resident on language and behaviour it found unacceptable. The stage two complaint response made it clear to the resident the specific correspondence it found inappropriate. It asked the resident to refrain from using such language and explained the consequences of him continuing to do so. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as the landlord explained the behaviour it found unacceptable, gave the resident an opportunity to stop before taking further action, and explained the likely consequences if he did not. It also addressed the resident’s concern that he had been labelled a “racist” and explained that it had not done so.
The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff was reasonable. The landlord managed expectations by issuing warnings and explained the behaviour it thought unacceptable. It gave the resident the opportunity to modify this behaviour before taking further action. The landlord gave the resident an appropriate explanation of why the alert remained and outlined how it could be removed. The landlord acted reasonably in its handling of reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a gas meter.

The landlord told this Service, in an explanation sent with the evidence provided for this case, that its engagement with residents was “extremely limited” in relation to the installation of gas meters. It cited “extreme staff shortage” and the Covid lockdown as reasons for this.
It is reasonable to conclude that there was poor communication with the resident about the proposed gas meter works. The Ombudsman has requested evidence of communications with the resident prior to the works commencing, but has not received evidence of such communications. There is limited evidence that any communication with the resident occurred prior to the works, and the landlord has accepted that its engagement was limited.
Poor communication on the part of the landlord is likely to have contributed to the confusion for the resident. His concern about his neighbour’s gas meter being fitted to his property could have been quickly resolved, had the landlord communicated more effectively. The inability of the landlord to provide evidence of communications with the resident about the works suggests that the resident was not well informed about the process. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. The inconvenience experienced by the resident could have been reduced by better communication.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that around February 2021, the resident removed a “meter box” it had placed on his property as an indicator of where the live meter would be. It advised that the resident removed this from his property and this action made it “clear” the resident did not want a gas main installed. This statement from the landlord indicates that it had not appropriately established whether the resident wanted a gas meter prior to the work starting. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service that it had such discussions with the resident, and it is reasonable to conclude that such discussions did not occur. It is apparent that if the landlord had engaged with the resident about the project, the resident could have made his views on the matter clear to the landlord at the outset. This could have avoided the dispute between resident and landlord about the gas meter.
The communication logs provided for this investigation suggest that the resident felt the landlord had accused him of “vandalism”. This appears to be about the removal of the meter box. However, the landlord’s communication does not mention vandalism. The landlord took no punitive action for the removal of the meter box and later referred to the incident in neutral terms. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not accuse the resident of vandalism.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the gas meter works is poor. For this investigation the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records of dates contractors visited the resident’s property and evidence of inspection reports. It has not provided this information. It did provide a document that outlined the progression of the project, but it contained little information about the resident’s property and stated the “resident refused”.
It is not disputed by the landlord that it did do some work at the resident’s property. This included digging a hole for a pipe and installing a “meter box” to show where the gas meter would go. Given such works took place, the landlord should be able to provide information about this. It should be able to provide details of the dates it attended the resident’s property and what works it completed on those dates. The fact that the landlord gave incorrect information to the resident in its stage one complaint and that it has not been able to provide relevant records to this Service indicates that the landlord did not keep appropriate records in relation to the gas meter works. The result was confusing and poor communication with the resident.
The landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses gave little explanation to the resident about the purpose and outcome of the works. The landlord has accepted its engagement with residents was limited. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes. By not providing a more detailed explanation about the works in its complaint responses, the landlord missed an opportunity to put right what had gone wrong in its earlier communication.
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 considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate and reasonable.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £75 compensation for “incorrect information being shared internally”. The landlord did not acknowledge its poor communication prior to and at the time of the works. It did not address how it intended to learn from this outcome and engage with residents about proposed works. The offer of £75 compensation was not sufficient to put things right in respect this matter. By not acknowledging its poor communication prior to the works starting, it did not fully recognise the stress caused to the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge the ‘time and trouble’ (5 months) for it to give an accurate explanation about the gas meter. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have awarded compensation for ‘time and trouble’ in line with its compensation policy.
In terms of learning from outcomes, the landlord advised it would address the issues at “team meetings”. Given the level of poor communication and record keeping in relation to this matter, the suggested action was not likely to provide sufficient learning from the outcome of this case. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to conduct a review of the meter installation works to establish how it could communicate more effectively with residents and improve record keeping.
The poor communication and record keeping in relation to the installation of a gas meter amount to a failing by the landlord. The time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident was not sufficiently put right by the landlord’s offer of redress. Overall, there was maladministration in its handling of the handling of the installation of the gas meter. The impact on the resident is mitigated by the fact that the works were external and did not have a lasting impact.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a complaint about the gas meter and the ‘cautionary alert’ in emails on 19 and 26 May 2021. The stage one complaint acknowledgment, provided by the landlord for this investigation, was sent to the resident on 8 July 2021. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that stage one complaints will be acknowledged within two working days. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint 30 working days after he made it. This was 28 working days later than outlined in the landlord’s complaint procedure. This was a failure to comply with its own procedure, and led to an unfair lengthening of the process.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response on 20 September 2021. The landlord’s complaint procedure does not outline a timescale for stage one complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which the landlord is obliged to comply with, states that a stage one complaint should be responded to within 10 working days. The Code advises that if there is a delay the landlord should write to the resident to explain when it will provide a response. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the reason for the delay was communicated to the resident.
The resident received the stage one complaint response 53 working days after the landlord acknowledged his complaint. This a significant amount of time later than mandated by the Code. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for a response to his complaint and amounts to a failing. The detriment to the resident was increased due to the time and trouble he spent requesting a response from the landlord. He also contacted the Ombudsman to escalate his concern with the landlord, resulting in further inconvenience.
There was a significant delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. This had an impact on the resident, in relation to his understanding of the gas meter works. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint meant he was waiting for longer than he should have been for a formal explanation about the gas meter. The result was an inconvenience to the resident, as he had an unreasonable delay. During this time he believed he had a gas meter fixed to his property that he did not want.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 September 2021 to advise he had attempted to escalate his complaint to stage two, but the landlord refused. This investigation has not seen any evidence of communication between the resident and the landlord to confirm his request was refused. However, the landlord’s communication with the Ombudsman stated that the resident “may have restricted contact” and it asked whether it was required to provide a stage two complaint response. This suggests it may have refused to progress the resident’s complaint to stage two of the procedure. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that if a resident tells it they are unhappy with a stage one complaint response, it will escalate to stage two “automatically”. It did not do this in this case and therefore did not follow its own procedure. This was a failing by the landlord and led to an unfair complaint process for the resident.
The impact of not progressing with a stage two complaint “automatically” as it should have done caused further time and trouble on the part of the resident. Following communications from the resident, and interventions from the Ombudsman, there was a delay of 10 working days in acknowledging the resident’s stage two complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 November 2021. This was 35 working days after the resident had requested an escalation, 15 days later than set out in the Code. It is noted that it did respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint, but this does not mitigate the fact the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure initially. This was a failure on the part of the landlord, as the resident suffered further detriment, time and trouble by not having his complaint dealt with in the required timescales.
Having raised his complaint in late May 2021, the resident received the landlord’s final response on 8 November 2021, 116 working days later. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated to the resident about the delay. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledge or apologise for the delay in dealing with the complaint. Both responses took longer than the timescales set out in the Code. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delays.
Under the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of ‘put things right’, the landlord should have sought to put things right after an unfair delay in its complaint responses. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines amounts it can award compensation for “time and trouble”. The resident experienced delays in receiving a response and suffered additional inconvenience, due to having to chase the landlord and seek intervention from the Ombudsman. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some form of compensation for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
The landlord was unclear on its own position relating to “restricted contact” for the resident. It told this Service that the resident “may” have restricted contact and therefore it might not progress with a stage two complaint. This lack of clarity impacted on how the landlord dealt with the complaint. If it had been clear the resident had restricted contact, then it could have confirmed its position. It appeared to tell the resident it would not progress with a stage two complaint and then acknowledged it would do so 10 working days later. This led to a confusing and prolonged experience for the resident, as he was not given consistent information by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints procedure, provided for this investigation, does not set out timescales in which it will respond to stage one and stage two complaints. The Code states that stage one complaints require a response witing 10 working days and stage two complaints require a response within 20 working days. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses fell outside of this timescale. It is not known whether inclusion of appropriate timescales would have prevented the delays in the handling of this complaint. However, the omission of timescales does not demonstrate that the landlord is operating a complaints procedure in compliance with the Code, or that it is managing residents’ expectations appropriately.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that he received multiple complaint reference numbers relating to the same substantive issues. The landlord also stated that the resident had made “15 complaints” in a short period of time. Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. The resident said that the landlord was trying to confuse him with multiple complaint reference numbers. This indicates the resident believed the multiple complaints he raised to be about the same substantive issues and could have been dealt with as one complaint. Better communication with the resident about his complaint and where he was in the process would have reduced this confusion for the resident. It is noted that the landlord did address the resident’s fundamental concerns in its final response as one complaint.
There were multiple failures in the landlord’s complaint handling which led to an unfair and lengthy process for the resident. The complaint responses were outside of the required response times set out in the Code. The landlord failed to progress with the complaint when it was first raised and then escalated. The resident suffered inconvenience in the time and trouble he spent pursuing the landlord for responses. The resident also felt the need to request the assistance of the Ombudsman at several stages. The interventions from the Ombudsman would not have been needed had the landlord progressed with the complaint in a more effective way. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of a gas meter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted reasonably in relation to reports that the resident behaved unacceptably towards its staff. It managed the resident’s expectations and outlined the behaviour it found unacceptable.
The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident or keep good records in relation to the gas meter works. It failed to provide a timely explanation to the resident about its position in relation to the gas meter, which caused detriment to the resident.
There were long delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. These delays amount to a breach of the Code. Pursuing complaint responses from the landlord cost the resident significant time and trouble.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified within it.
2. To pay the resident compensation of £475, made up of:
  1. The original £75 it offered in its stage two complaint response (if has not already done so);
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the installation of a gas meter;
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its complaint handling procedure to ensure it is compliant with the response timeframes set out in the Code. The landlord should also carry out a Code self-assessment if this has not been completed within the last year. Further information on this can be found on the Ombudsman’s website (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)).
2. Considering the failings identified in this report, conduct a review into its handling of the gas meter works and identify points of learning on its record keeping and how it communicates with residents about proposed projects. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider whether it has reviewed the resident’s ‘cautionary alert’ in line with its policy since the conclusion of the complaints procedure, and conduct a review if it has not done so.