A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202114671)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114671

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 April 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

  1. The complaint is about:
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the door entrance system.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat located in a residential building. The resident lives with her infant child and said that she suffers from depression and anxiety, as well as other unspecified medical conditions. The landlord has no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 20 July 2021 a new access control system to the building was installed which required new key fobs to gain access. The new fobs for the property had not yet been issued which resulted in a number of residents being unable to get into the building with the original key fobs that they had. A contractor was sent out that day to open the doors for the residents and the new fobs were delivered in the following days.
  3. It is unclear when the resident made her stage one complaint; however, it is indicated that it was done over the phone. She explained that she had been left locked out of her property for several hours, and once back in, she was unable to leave to run important errands for herself and her child. The landlord’s formal response was issued on 25 August 2021. It addressed the resident’s concerns and offered a total compensation award of £150 – £50 in regard to the communication error that led to the delay and £100 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused. It also explained that further staff training would be issued to avoid such situations in the future.
  4. The resident made the request to escalate her complaint to stage two on the same day (25 August 2021) as she was unhappy with the outcome provided. She explained that she was unhappy with the delay in delivering the fob and also noted that the communication breakdown had left her with panic attacks, ‘severe anxiety’, and escalated health conditions. The landlord asked for clarification on what outcome the resident was seeking from the escalation and for her to confirm that she wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident confirmed this on 29 August 2021. On 10 September 2021 the landlord asked again for clarification on what outcome the resident wanted but she did not received no a response.
  5. Subsequently, the resident contacted this Service on 28 September 2021 to advise that she had not had a final response from her stage two escalation. After correspondence with this Service, the landlord issued its final response on 27 October 2021. It confirmed that it was satisfied with the level of compensation originally offered and apologised for the disappointment caused. Although it stood by its decision from the stage one response, the landlord did offer a further £25 compensation for the delay in escalating to stage two. The resident was not satisfied with this and explained to this Service that she would like £5000 compensation due to ‘extreme anxiety, panic attacks and depression’.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 8.1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure outlines the complaint stages and their required content.
  2. Section 10.1 of the complaints procedure states that an acknowledgement will be sent to the resident within two working days. If the complaint is received by telephone, then that phone-call is considered acknowledgement of the complaint.
  3. Section 10.3 of the complaints policy states that if the resident is unhappy with the stage one response, then they are to let the landlord know ‘as soon as possible’. The complaint should then be escalated automatically to stage two.
  4. Appendix two of the landlord’s compensation policy outlines the amount of compensation payable for service failure. It notes that:
  1. Detriment, including stress/inconvenience, can be an award of up to a maximum of £100
  2. Length of time (Time and trouble payment) within a delay of one to three months can warrant a payment of £25, £50 or £75.
  1. Appendix three of the compensation policy outlines the guidance on deciding compensation relative to the length of time of a service failure:
  1. A low length of time would be considered as; ‘a short delay in resolving the issue…For non-emergencies it may have been a delay of a month’.
  2. A medium length of time would be considered as; ‘a longer period of delay. The resident may have had to chase up several times to get an issue resolved’.
  1. Appendix three of the compensation policy also outlines the guidance on deciding the compensation for stress and inconvenience. A high level of stress and inconvenience would be considered if: ‘The mistake has caused high levels of hardship, distress, or inconvenience to the customer. For example, if an action has resulted in major disruption’.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the situation has impacted both her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord has responded to these concerns. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the door entrance system

  1. On 20 July 2021 a contractor attended the property to carry out planned works to change the access system for the building. The residents would require new key fobs to access their property; however, they had not been issued due to a communication issue within the landlord’s staff. The relevant agent of the landlord had not been notified that the fobs had been delivered to the landlord’s office and therefore the planned works went ahead without the residents being properly notified, and without them having the means to use the new access system. As a result, once the new access system had been installed, several residents were left unable to access their homes.
  2. The landlord raised the issue as an urgent repair, and it was attended to within 24 hours by one of its contractors. The contractor ‘left the door on free access’ as stated on the landlord’s job sheet for the repair, which allowed residents to enter the building. However, the initial mistake highlights that there were key communication issues on behalf of the landlord, not only internally but also in regard to communicating information to its residents and to its contractors. Had the relevant agent been notified that the key fobs had been delivered, it could have issued them to its residents sooner and advised of the late delivery. Additionally, knowing that it had not yet sent out new key fobs to its residents, it should have been aware that the work to install the new access system was scheduled for that date. Therefore, the landlord should have either postponed the work, or should have scheduled a contractor to make the building accessible until the new key fobs were in the hands of the residents.
  3. It is unclear when the resident made her stage one complaint as it was done over the phone and no call log has been provided. However, in the landlord’s formal response, reference is made to the call. The formal response was issued on 25 August 2021. Although we do not have an outline of the resident’s stage one complaint and the content of the phone call, this Service can review the issues addressed in the formal response to decide whether it had responded appropriately to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s formal response confirmed with the resident that she had now received the new key fobs and that she had access to the building and the lift. It also apologised for the delay in receiving the new key fobs and cited the breakdown in communication as the reason for the delay. It acknowledged that during the phone call with the resident, she had stated that she was unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord. The landlord addressed this in the response and therefore reviewed the offer to try to ‘reflect the level of detriment this experience caused’.
  5. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the communication error that caused the delay. This is in line with the landlord’s policies as Appendix two of its compensation policy states that a payment of £50 is reasonable when considering an offer of compensation for a delay that would be considered a ‘low’ amount of time. The communication failure led to a delay of three days in providing the new key fob to the resident. This would appropriately be regarded as a low delay as Appendix three of the compensation policy states that a ‘low’ amount of time is ‘generally a short delay in resolving the issue…For non-emergencies it may have been a delay of a month’.
  6. Additionally, the landlord offered a further £100 in compensation in ‘recognition of the stress and inconvenience this caused [the resident] due to having a newborn baby and medical conditions’. The landlord rightly acknowledged the resident’s situation and vulnerabilities, and how the failure by the landlord had affected her and her child. The offer of £100 was also in line with its compensation policy. Appendix two of the policy states that a maximum of £100 can be awarded for detriment, ‘including stress/inconvenience’.
  7. The resident also said to this Service that she can ‘no longer trust’ the landlord to not change the locks without her knowledge and that she needs to make sure that somebody is always in her property to let her in, in the event that the situation may happen again. Although this Service respects and understands the resident’s fear that this may happen again, there is no indication or evidence to suggest that this event would repeat itself. The system has recently been changed and therefore it is highly unlikely it would be changed again soon. Also, the landlord has shown that it was a one-off case of human error that led to the delay. Additionally, a letter was sent out to the residents of the building to make them aware of the planned change to the access system, although there is no date on the letter and this Service is unable to tell how much time in advance was given to the residents to prepare. This Service believes that the stress and inconvenience caused was appropriately addressed by the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for detriment.
  8. In addition to the total offer of £150, the landlord also made the resident aware that as a result of her complaint, it had issued further training to its staff in regard to record keeping. The landlord noted in its formal response that: ‘staff have been reminded of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up to date records’. The implementation of additional training for its staff is consistent with this Service’s dispute resolution principles. One of the principles is that a landlord is expected to learn from outcomes. Where possible, this Service adds value by looking beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considers whether anything can be improved in terms of process and systems.
  9. The landlord has shown, by issuing further training to its staff, that it has taken this principle on board and has acted to ensure it can improve. Additionally, another of the principles is to put things right. A remedy must set out the measures that will correct the service failure. The landlord has also shown a commitment to this as it has offered the maximum compensation available and broken down each aspect of the compensation so that the resident is aware of which aspects of her complaint are being remedied, and to what extent. The landlord’s response to the complaint and its offer of compensation constitutes a reasonable redress to the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage one response was issued within a reasonable timeframe, and there is no dispute with this. It is difficult to say whether it addressed all aspects of the resident’s initial complaint as the stage one complaint has not been provided. However, in the resident’s escalation request, there is no indication that the landlord left anything unaddressed in its response and it was the offer of compensation that the resident was not happy with.
  2. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated on 25 August 2021, and the landlord responded by asking for confirmation that she would like to escalate the complaint. It also asked the resident to outline the outcomes that she sought from escalating the complaint. The resident confirmed on 29 August 2021 that she would like to escalate her complaint to stage two but did not describe the outcome that she was seeking.
  3. The landlord next emailed the resident on 10 September 2021 and rightly apologised for the delay in responding to her escalation request. It again asked the resident to explain the outcome that she wanted from a complaint escalation as the landlord wanted to know whether it should either review the case again at stage one, escalate to stage two or to send for a compensation review with the manager. There was no further correspondence between the resident and the landlord until after this Service contacted the landlord.
  4. The landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage two after the resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with the formal response to her stage one complaint. As section 10.3 of the landlord’s complaints procedure states: the resident is to let the landlord know ‘as soon as possible’ that she is unhappy with the stage one response. The response should then be ‘automatically escalated’ to stage two, and this is to ‘ensure that complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and are not left unresolved’. The resident did make the landlord aware that she was unhappy with the response and the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. The complaint was not officially escalated to stage two until 25 October 2021, after this Service had contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. However, the landlord should have taken further steps itself rather than wait for this Service to contact it.
  5. Although the landlord failed to escalate the complaint when the resident had confirmed that she wanted to do so, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to clarify the outcome she wanted. As the landlord had stated, there may have been other means of resolving the resident’s complaint, such as a compensation review, as it appeared that the compensation offered was the key concern of the resident. On both occasions of asking, the resident did not respond with her expected outcomes.
  6. The final response was issued on 27 October 2021 and apologised for the disappointment caused by the service. It referred to the resident’s request for a stage two escalation in August and noted that it had asked the resident for the outcome that she wanted; however, this had not been responded to. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the delay in getting the case to stage two and stood by its earlier offer of compensation. This is in line with its compensation policy, as it states in Appendix two that a length of time payment (Time and trouble payment) within a delay of one to three months can warrant a payment of £25, £50 or £75. The award of a further £25 compensation offered reasonable redress for the delay in escalating the complaint, because, although it failed to escalate the case upon request, the resident also did not provide key information that could have determined whether her complaint could be satisfied through other means.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme:
  1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified relating to its response to the resident’s reports about the door entrance system to the building.
  2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures acknowledged with its complaint handling.