A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202001273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001273

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

19 August 2021

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 response to the resident’s complaint about:
1. Its handling of the resident’s decant.
2. The quality of works undertaken in her home and damage to her belongings.

Background and summary of events

On 25 February 2020, the landlord arranged for the resident to be moved into a hotel because the upstairs bathroom flooring was damaged and the ceiling to the downstairs toilet had partially collapsed due to a continuous leak. Intrusive investigation to find the source of the leak and remedial works were needed.
Following contact from the resident on 4 June 2020, this Service advised the landlord that the resident had raised concerns about the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs to her ceiling, and about staff conduct towards her. We asked the landlord to raise a complaint, contact the resident if further clarification was needed, and respond to her by 25 June 2020.
On 23 June 2020 the resident and landlord’s legal representatives signed an agreement to settle a proposed disrepair claim (related to the ceiling leak) outside of court. The landlord compensated the resident and agreed to complete several works to the property. The resident would reside in the decant property specified at the landlord’s expense for the duration of works and the landlord would arrange for, and cover the cost of, storing and moving the resident’s belongings.
Following further contact from the resident, on 25 June 2020, this Service asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint, (about the ceiling repairs and staff conduct) and provide a written update within ten working days. In July 2020 this Service and the landlord corresponded regarding whether the complaint was subject to legal proceedings.
The landlord recorded that the repairs in the property were complete on 6 July 2020.
On 2 September 2020 the resident advised the landlord that, since moving back into her home, there were two leaks from the sinks in the bathroom and downstairs toilet. She said she reported them on 25 August 2020 and had not heard anything in response.
This Service informed the landlord on 3 September 2020 that the proposed disrepair claim, and the agreement that followed, was not a sufficient reason for preventing the resident access to the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 September 2020 and said that it believed matters were resolved on 23 June 2020 when an agreement was signed with the resident’s legal representative. It asked the resident what she wished to complain about.
The resident sent a lengthy reply on 12 September 2020. She raised a wide range of issues she said she had experienced during the decant. These included calling the landlord to complain on several occasions but not being allowed to because the issues were being considered by its legal team. Furthermore, she explained that:

Two weeks after being moved into a hotel in February 2020, she was offered a decant property. However, it was not suitable for her family’s needs and did not have flooring, so the resident declined it and instead paid for a hotel. The resident became homeless when the hotel was closed due to coronavirus restrictions in March 2020 and the landlord did not offer support.
When she moved into the decant property on 5 June 2020, she signed an agreement stating she would be able to collect her belongings from storage at her own expense. The resident was unhappy that when she tried to do so, she had been unable to access her belongings.
She believed the landlord did not follow its decant policy, which said that if there were no flooring or curtains in a decant property it would supply these, because there were no curtains or flooring in her decant property.
The quality of decorating completed to her home was poor. Her belongings left in the property were damaged, and her bathroom and toilet sinks were leaking.

On 25 September 2020 the landlord raised an appointment for 26 October 2020 to assess the leaks coming from the bathroom and toilet sinks. The landlord confirmed that the leaks were containable.
This Service pursued the landlord for a complaint response on 9 October 2020 and 18 October 2020.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord fitted new basin taps to the downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 26 October 2020. It said, “you had some historic repair concerns at the property that you raised as disrepair issue and a settlement was made with you out of court, where you received compensation…There was also a commitment for the repairs to be completed in June 2020.” The landlord said that the repairs were completed and the resident had signed a post-work inspection form, dated 7 July 2020, to confirm this.
The landlord explained that more recent leaks were raised as a repair on 26 August 2020, but an appointment was not given until the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord apologised “for this oversight” and confirmed it completed the outstanding repairs on 26 October 2020. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble the resident went to in pursuing this matter and “£75 for the stress and inconvenience caused”.
On 26 October 2020 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response; in particular, that it had not addressed her full complaint. The resident said that the landlord only addressed her recent repair and not that she was without a home for five months. The landlord responded that it had referred to the history of the issue, that the resident had “been compensated already in the past for it” and had signed a post-inspection form on 7 July 2020. On 5 November 2020 the resident forwarded the landlord her email of 12 September 2020 explaining the content of her complaint and asked that the landlord escalated her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2020 in response to its voicemail message asking for clarification on her complaint. She said that it had not addressed her original complaint and referred to her email of 12 September 2020. Following a call with the resident, the landlord sent her an email on 10 November 2020. It said it could not escalate the complaint on basis that insufficient compensation had been offered.
After speaking with the resident this Service contacted the landlord on 16 December 2020. We advised the landlord that the resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint because:
1. She was not satisfied with the quality of work undertaken in her home and that the landlord’s contractor damaged her belongings.
2. The landlord had not addressed the period she was unable to live in her property during the works.
3. She did not agree with the level of compensation offered at stage one.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2020 to advise that it would respond to the complaint by 9 February 2021.
On 9 February 2021 the resident asked for an update. The landlord responded that, due to the coronavirus, there was a delay in it responding to stage two complaints but the resident would receive this “shortly”.
In its stage two complaint response of 5 March 2021, the landlord said that it had organised for all outstanding repairs to be carried out to the correct standard and, on 3 March 2021 via telephone, the resident confirmed that works were progressing well. The landlord said it had considered that the resident received compensation “in respect of these repairs from the previous disrepair claim”. However, it apologised for the service the resident received and offered her £250. This consisted of £150 for the time and trouble she went to in pursing the matter and £100 for the distress and inconvenience. The landlord said further staff training would be carried out on assessing responsive repairs correctly and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up-to-date records. The landlord advised the resident of the next steps she could take if she remained unhappy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.

The resident has raised several concerns about the landlord’s handling of her decant. This includes the distress she said she had been caused whilst she was without a home between March and June 2020, the difficulties in accessing her possessions when they were in storage, and that the landlord did not follow its decant policy.
It is clear from the evidence that the events in this complaint were complex, partly due to the nature of the disrepair settlement between the landlord and the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint does not address the issues she raised about her decant experiences, despite her clearly referring to them in her complaint of 12 September 2020, and specifically in her escalation requests between October and December 2020. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and basic good practice, landlords need to address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Landlords should operate a resident-focused complaints process ensuring residents are given the opportunity to explain their point of view and the outcome they are seeking before a decision is reached.
In this case, the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her decant were not considered or addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses. Because of that this investigation cannot properly consider how the landlord handled the decant, or whether its actions were reasonable and appropriate. That omission was a significant failing.

The quality of works undertaken in the resident’s home and damage to her belongings.

The landlord has acknowledged that there was a one-month delay in it arranging an appointment for the sink leaks reported by the resident in August 2020. In response, it attended the property to resolve the leak, apologised for this shortcoming, and offered the resident £250 for the time and trouble she incurred, and the distress caused. The landlord has also confirmed that it arranged for any outstanding works to be completed and for further staff training. These actions were proportionate to the service failure identified, and were in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
However, the landlord again did not consider the full complaint and omitted the aspect concerning the resident’s damaged belongings. Similar to above, this is a failing in line with good practice and the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and impacts on our ability to determine this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in way the landlord responded to the complaint about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
2. The quality of works undertaken in the resident’s home and damage to her belongings.

Reasons

The landlord has not addressed the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of her decant. It has appropriately acknowledged, apologised, and compensated the resident for its delay in raising a repair for her leaking sinks and arranged to complete any outstanding works. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint that her belongings were damaged during works to her property.

Orders

In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Within four weeks of this report, pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience and delay caused to the resident by not addressing her full complaints. This payment is in addition to the £250 already offered by the landlord, which it should also now pay if it has not already done so.
2. In the absence of a complaint response on the issues of its handling of the decant and the damage to the resident’s belongings, the landlord is also ordered to review these aspects of her complaint. The review should clearly consider and respond to the points of complaint about the decant raised by the resident in her email of 12 September 2020 and in subsequent emails. It should also clearly consider and respond to her complaint about damaged belongings. The review should be fully in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, including an assessment of whether a remedy to the resident remains outstanding in regard to her complaints. The resident retains the right to ask the Ombudsman to consider her complaint (about the specific issues referred to here) if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this order. This review is to be completed within eight weeks of the date of this report, and the findings shared with the resident and with this Service.