A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202007813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007813

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 July 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s report of human waste coming through the ventilation unit in the bathroom.
2. the related complaint

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a leaseholder of the housing association since 29 April 2008.
The property is described as a two-bedroom flat situated on the first floor. There are four flats on the top floor of the building with each flat owing a quarter share of the loft space.
The lease obliges the leaseholder to keep the interior of the premises in repair… including all pipes, drains…which are in the premises and enjoyed and used only for the property.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it will maintain the external and internal structure of the property including fittings. It advises that the policy excludes leaseholders where the terms of the lease state that repairs are the responsibility of the leaseholder. It outlines that it has two repair categories: urgent repairs will be resolved within 24 hours and for standard repairs, residents will be given the next convenient appointment.
The repair policy also states that the repair of the extractors fan is the responsibility of the leaseholder and that the main drains are the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord anti-social behaviour policy (ASB) available on its website defines anti-social behaviour as “anything that harms you, your family or your community in some way. It’s usually aggressive or destructive and leaves you feeling threatened, unsafe or distressed. An example given of this type of behaviour is harassing people.
The ASB policy states that it aims to respond to a report of ASB within 48 hours, to agree an action plan, that it will keep in regular contact with the resident and use a variety of remedies to obtain a resolution to the ASB including prevention and enforcement.
The complaints procedure sets out how the landlord will deal with the complaints it receives. It states that complaints will be acknowledged within two days and that the resolution to the complaint will be resident led.
The landlord’s compensation policy recognises that sometimes its service delivery does not meet its service standards. It sets out that the award of compensation should be appropriate to the mistake and provides guidance on the level of award that should be made to ensure consistency.
The resident’s complaint concerns the action of her neighbours living in the same building who are leaseholders of the landlord. This Service has not been supplied with copies of their lease agreements, but it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord has a responsibility to ensure adherence to the terms outlined in their lease.

Summary of events

The resident had raised concerns about the actions of her neighbours who lived in the same building. The landlord’s records note that on 3 March 2020, the resident alleged that her neighbours had put urine through the ventilation unit causing it to enter her bathroom. A works order was raised to investigate the resident’s reports.
The resident chased the repair on 9 March 2020 and the landlord advised that as she was a leaseholder, she was responsible for the repair to the ventilation unit.
On 23 March 2020, the Government introduced a national lockdown of the country. In response, the landlord changed the way it delivered its services with a move away from face-to-face service provision and remote working of its staff.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2020 to report that she was still experiencing human waste from the ventilation unit in the bathroom. In response, the landlord raised a repair to its contractor.
The contractor attended the resident’s property on 31 March 2020 regarding the leak from the loft space affecting her bathroom. An extract from the notes from his visit are “the tenant said the leak was coming from the bathroom ventilation unit and it smelled of urine. Our engineer investigated and agreed that it appeared to smell like urine but would need access into the loft space within the above flat to identify the exact cause after lockdown.” The contractor contacted the occupants of Flat A and Flat B which are situated on the top floor of the building. The occupants of Flat A were not at home and the occupants of Flat B did not answer the door. The contractor advised the resident to contact the police.
The following day (1 April 2020) the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the police had attended regarding the report of human waste coming through the ventilation unit in the bathroom and wanted to know when the work to the ventilation unit would be completed.
In response on 1 April 2020, the landlord raised a works order to its contractor to check Flat A and Flat B to investigate the report made by the resident regarding the report of human waste from the vent in the bathroom. The landlord has advised this Service that it has not received a report from the police regarding ASB at the resident’s property.
The landlord’s record note that on 2 April 2020 it contacted the resident to inform her that it was investigating her reports of human waste being present in the vent in the bathroom.
On 8 April 2020, the landlord arranged a convenient appointment to inspect Flat A, however it was unable to agree a convenient appointment time with the occupant of Flat B.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection on 20 April 2020 and advised that:
1. it had visited the loft space at Flat A and it had not found any evidence of human waste in the ventilation unit.
2. it had contacted Flat B but there was no answer.
3. it had inspected the resident’s property and it had not witnessed any matter coming out of the ventilation unit.
The landlord raised an order to a ventilation contractor on 27 April 2020 to carry out a camera investigation to the ventilation unit in the resident’s property. It is recorded that the contractor’s staff were furloughed due to the Covid 19 pandemic, and the landlord decided to suspend further works until the national restrictions were lifted as the work to be carried out required two people to undertake it.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 April 2020 to advise that for a long period of time she had been experiencing human waste through the ventilation unit in the bathroom and that the plumber who had attended in March 2020 had confirmed that human waste was present in the ventilation unit in her bathroom. She requested that it investigate the reason for this and that she was aware that the landlord had had trouble inspecting the loft space for Flat B.
There were no further reports of contact between the landlord and the resident regarding this matter until 27 June 2020 when an inspection was carried out at the resident’s property. It was recorded that it did not find evidence of human waste present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom and that Flat B refused access for an inspection to be carried out in their property. The landlord decided to contact the estate agent managing Flat B to obtain access for the property to be inspected.
On 19 August 2020, the contractor attended the resident’s property following a report from the resident that a neighbour was pouring human waste through the ventilation unit in her bathroom. The contractor reported that he did not find any evidence of human waste or urine in the ventilation unit and advised that he was unable to carry out checks at Flat A and Flat B as the occupants were not at home.
The resident complained using the landlord’s complaint form on 26 October 2020 that she had been experiencing anti-social behaviour since October 2018, that since January 2020 human waste has been coming through the extractor fan in the bathroom. The landlord had been unable to gain access to Flat B and that the independent plumbers who had attended had advised her that access to Flat B was necessary to diagnose and assess the reason for the presence of the human waste in the vent in her bathroom. She advised that her preferred resolution was for the landlord to clean the ventilation duct to the bathroom.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it had not found any evidence of human waste in the ventilation unit and that as she was a leaseholder, she was responsible for cleaning the vent.
The resident contacted this Service advising that the landlord had not responded to the complaint regarding the presence of human waste in the ventilation unit in the bathroom. This Service contacted the landlord on 13 December 2020 requesting that it respond to the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2020 to advise that human waste was present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom and leaking onto the bathroom floor.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a repair for a specialist drainage contractor to investigate the resident’s report of human waste being present in the ventilation unit in her bathroom. Its key findings were:
1. it did not find a specific defect but found the ducting to the ventilation unit full of water.
2. it recommended that a ventilation expert be commissioned to check that the communal ventilation pipework has been correctly installed.
3. The drainage was clear, there were no leaks or sign of human waste present in the resident’s property or the communal area.
Following the report from the drainage contractor, it is recorded that on 21 December 2020 the landlord raised a repair to check the communal ventilation pipework on 5 January 2021 and arranged for access with Flat A and Flat B to inspect their property on the same day.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2020.
The resident and the landlord communicated on 22 and 23 December 2020 regarding the work required to the ventilation pipe. The landlord confirmed that its contractor would check and clean the ventilation pipe.
The ventilation contractor visited on 5 January 2021. It reported to the landlord that it carried out:
1. Having removed the service panels to the first and second floors it found no evidence that the ventilation unit had been tampered with.
2. It found that as the excess ducting had been doubled back, this had created a trap in the ducting.
3. Its inspection of Flat B identified that the ducting had not been insulated which contributed to the duct work condensing.
4. It had reduced the ducting within the ventilation pipe to the resident’s property, formed a trap at the bottom of the ducting to catch the condensation, this would remove the excess condensation to the soil stack.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 January 2021. Its key findings were:
1. its investigations had not found human waste or urine in the communal ventilation shaft.
2. it had no evidence of human waste in the ventilation unit in the resident’s property.
3. its contractor had checked the communal ventilation pipe – had advised that it could be stale water that was present in the ventilation unit.
4. it had carried out further staff training on record keeping and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining, clear, accurate and up to date records.
5. it acknowledged that the resident had experienced delays in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns regarding the human waste being present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom.
6. it apologised for the poor service experienced and made an award of compensation of £95 for time and trouble in making the complaint and £50 for its service failures.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 January 2021. She disputed the landlord’s findings. She complained that:
1. its contractor had undertaken temporary works when it attended on 5 January 2021 and that further works were required.
2. she had not been provided with the date when the additional work would be carried out.
3. she disagreed that she had initially complained about her neighbours pouring human waste into the ventilation unit in the bathroom in March 2020 – as its contractor had attended about the bathroom vent in March 2019 and December 2019
4. its contractor who had visited in March 2020 had confirmed the presence of human waste in the ventilation unit in the bathroom.
5. she disputed the findings of the contractor who attended in January 2021 that the fluid in the ventilation unit was stale water condensing from having hot baths and showers as she has not used the bathroom since December 2019
6. there had been diluted urine present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom and was concerned that the landlord had been unable to gain access to Flat B on multiple occasions.
7. it had taken the landlord too long to acknowledge and respond to her concerns regarding the human waste present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom which had been ongoing for nine months.
8. her children were fearful of using the bathroom as when using the bathroom, they had felt the spray from the human waste present in the ventilation unit and she was upset by the lack of diligence by the landlord to resolve the situation.
On the same day 22 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had carried out a permanent repair to the ventilation pipe in the bathroom and no further works were required.
In response, the resident asked the landlord if it intended to fit insulation to the ventilation pipe as recommended in the report to stop the situation reoccurring.
The landlord responded to the resident’s escalated complaint on 9 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response and its key findings were:
1. it accepted that the resident made contact before August 2020 regarding reports of ASB from her neighbours.
2. its review of her communication found that she had used personal email addresses to communicate with members of its staff and requested that she use the generic email addresses to ensure that it had a record of all contact.
3. it considered that she had not supplied any new information regarding her reports of human waste being present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom. It confirmed that its investigations had not found any human waste in the ventilation pipe and that it was likely to be stale water.
4. the resident had not provided the evidence from the plumbers she had commissioned to confirm that there was human waste in the ventilation unit.
5. it had found no evidence of previous reports of this issue.
6. it reoffered the compensation award that it made at Stage one of the complaints procedure.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the complaint and emailed the landlord on 12 March 2021. She advised that she had evidence dating back to February 2020 showing that she had raised these concerns with the landlord and would provide the report from her plumbers that they had found human waste in the ventilation unit in her bathroom and that she had contacted the police about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2021. The landlord advised that:
1. the responsibility for the ventilation unit lies with the resident.
2. it had not received any evidence that the ventilation unit had been tampered with
3. the report from the ventilation contractor had found that the ducting within the pipe had not been doubled back, that the area had not been insulated and that this had contributed to the amount of condensation it had found with the ventilation pipe.
4. in addition, the report identified that the loft insulation was not of an adequate thickness and it had taken steps to resolve the problem by reducing the amount of condensation present in the ventilation pipe.
5. it had learnt that it needed to communicate better with leaseholders regarding their responsibilities under the terms of the lease.
6. the site visit to the building and the subsequent report from the ventilation specialist that it commissioned could have been undertaken sooner.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service expressing that the landlord did not accept that human waste was coming through the ventilation unit in her bathroom as confirmed by the plumber who attended in March 2020. In addition, the landlord had failed to acknowledge that that she had experienced anti-social behaviour for the past three years from her neighbours with urine on her front door, human waste poured through her extractor fan and her reports of damage to her car.
The landlord informed this Service on 25 July 2022 that the pipework had not been disturbed and that the occupants of Flat A and Flat B do not have direct access to the communal pipework. It has not received reports from any other residents about human waste being poured into the ventilation system.

Assessment and findings

It is appreciated that the resident was distressed and frustrated by the landlord’s handling of her reports. This investigation will consider whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.

human waste coming through the ventilation unit in the bathroom.

The resident reported her suspicions about her neighbours to the landlord in March 2020. Whilst there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy at the time, the evidence does show that the landlord acted appropriately when it arranged for its contractors to attend the resident’s property in March 2020, April 2020 and in June 2020 to investigate the reports about the ventilation system. The landlord arranged for a drainage contractor to attend on 18 December 2020, and it also arranged for the ventilation contractor to attend in January 2021. These inspections in the resident’s and her neighbour’s properties concluded that there was no evidence that human waste was present in the ventilation shaft nor the resident’s bathroom.
The ventilation contractor advised that it was likely to be stale water and in its complaints response the landlord relied on the professional advice that it received. This was appropriate for the landlord to do as the contractor provided reasons for the condensation in the ventilation pipe, such as the way the ducting was laid and confirmed that there was no evidence that the pipework had been tampered with. In addition, the landlord requested that the resident provide evidence from the contractors that she had commissioned that it had found human waste in the ventilation unit as this had not being provided. The landlord did not receive any information to contradict the ventilation contractor’s report.
There was a delay in the landlord’s contractor carrying out the inspection to the pipework as its staff were furloughed for a three-month period during the Covid 19 pandemic and the landlord advised that its member of staff was also affected by Covid. This Service accepts that the Covid 19 pandemic was a difficult time for most organisations and that the contractor’s decision to furlough its staff was likely to be a necessity and in line with Government guidance. The contractor had advised that two people were required to carry out the repair, therefore it was reasonable considering the national guidance that the landlord did not arrange for the work to be carried out and the delay experienced by the resident was out of the landlord’s control. Once the lock down restrictions were lifted, the contractor visited the resident’s property in June 2020.
The resident disputed the landlord’s assessment that the liquid in the vent in the bathroom was condensation in the pipe which she attributed to the actions of the occupant of Flat B. However, the evidence shows that its contractor inspected Flat B and in its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed its position, that there was no evidence that there was human waste in the ventilation unit in the resident’s bathroom and that this likely arose from condensation in the pipe which its contractor had resolved.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance explains that if the landlord has identified its own service failures and taken the appropriate action to put things right, including making a reasonable offer of compensation, we would not necessarily require the landlord to take any further action. Looking at the severity of the service failure, the landlord has acknowledged that it could have arranged for the ventilation contractor to attend earlier, offered its apologies for this and offered an overall award of compensation of £145 for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and for its service failures. It has recognised that it needed to improve its communication with leaseholders regarding their responsibilities under the terms of the lease.
The Ombudsman Dispute Resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has investigated the concerns raised by the resident, apologised for the delay in taking some action and offered compensation which is proportionate to the length of the delay.

the related complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 2 working days but it does not give the timescales in which it will respond to the complaints that it receives. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling code sets out that landlords should respond to complaints it receives at the first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at the final stage.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 October 2020 regarding the human waste coming through her extractor fan, and that the landlord had not taken action to resolve the situation. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint which was not in accordance with its complaints procedure that it would acknowledge complaints that it received within two working days and work with the resident to obtain a resolution.
This Service contacted the landlord on 13 December 2020 and requested that it provide its complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2020 and provided its complaint response on 6 January 2021. This was outside the ten working days recommended in the Ombudsman’s Code.
The landlord acted reasonably when it arranged for the ventilation pipe to be checked on 5 January 2021. as by this time, it had received multiple reports from the resident about this matter and it had not been able to access the loft space in Flat B. In the final complaint response, it apologised for the service failures and offered a compensation award of £95 for the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint and £50 for its service failure.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 January 2021 to the landlord disagreeing with the length of time she had been reporting issues to the landlord and disputing its decision that there was no evidence of human waste in the vent in the bathroom.
The landlord responded to the resident on 9 March 2021. This was around 7 weeks after she had made her escalated complaint. Whilst the landlord complaint procedure has no guidance around its timelines for responding to complaints, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code informs landlords it should respond to escalated complaints within 20 working days. Whilst the landlord apologised for its delayed response, it did not explain the delay, nor did it offer further compensation for the delay. Instead, it reoffered its previous compensation offer of £145.
In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that the resident had not supplied any new information for it to consider and reaffirmed its position that it had no evidence of human waste in the ventilation unit in the bathroom. This was a reasonable position to take as the evidence from the contractor had advised that the ventilation pipe to the resident’s vent was condensing due to the design of the duct and that it had undertaken a permanent repair to resolve this.
The landlord also advised that it had not received any other reports regarding the presence of human waste in the ventilation unit before August 2020. This was not correct as the landlord had arranged for its contractor to visit the resident’s property in March 2020 and in April 2020 to assess and investigate the resident’s report of human waste being present in the ventilation unit in the bathroom.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that there was human waste coming through the extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

In response the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged for a ventilation contractor to inspect the communal ventilation unit and during its inspection it remedied the condensation in the pipes. No evidence was provided that supported the allegations about the neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the initial complaint made by the resident in October 2020 or provide its complaint responses in accordance with the time frames outlined in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord did not consider whether it should offer a further award of compensation for its failure to answer the complaints within a reasonable time frame.

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation of £150 for its failure to provide its complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord to review its complaint procedure and bring it into line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.