A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202202700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202700

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 December 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 landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of ongoing water ingress from their bedroom window.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder (there are two complainants, both of whom live in the property. For the purpose of this report they will be referred to as the “resident”).
3. The resident reported water ingress from her window on 12 January 2021. An initial visit took place from a contractor on 4 February 2021 where the ingress was confirmed. However, the contractor was unsure of the cause and requested a further inspection from a supervisor. This was carried out on 12 March 2021, which recommended that the roof be checked for a potential leak, and a further inspection to advise what works were needed. A supervisor attended on 9 April 2021, and a roofer on 16 April 2021. Scaffolding was subsequently required, and erected on 14 May 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2021 and reported that the scaffolding had been put in the wrong location and it needed to be moved.
4. The resident complained on 1 June 2021 about the length of time it was taking to resolve the issue, and the need to constantly chase the matter with the landlord.
5. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on10 June 2021. It confirmed that works were completed to the roof on 6 June 2021. It also pledged to have all outstanding repairs completed by 6 August 2021. It offered £210 compensation for its lack of updates about the delays completing the works, and for her time and trouble.
6. The resident reported further water ingress on 16 June 2021. Visits took place in August 2021, where attempts were made to reseal the window externally. However, the positioning of the scaffolding prevented the work from being completed. In December 2021, work was attempted again, but contractors advised they could not work safely due to the scaffolding, and concerns were also raised that the roof was still the source of the leak. The roof was checked in January 2022 and confirmed to be fine, and the scaffolding was adjusted at the same time.
7. A second complaint response was provided on 10 February 2022. The landlord apologised again for the delays, poor communication and poor record keeping.   it offered further compensation of £80 for delays, £100 for failure in communication between its staff and contractors, and £50 for poor communication with the resident, totalling £440. It also promised to seal the window frame and replaster around the window.
8. The window was replastered on 30 March 2022, but, on 4 April 2022, the resident informed the landlord again that the windowsill was wet following earlier rain. Operatives attended on 10 June 2022 and identified movement in the window frame would cause plastered-over cracks to reappear over time. On 17 June 2022, the contractors removed the plaster and secured the frame to the wall, completing all outstanding repairs on 4 July 2022, with only decorating outstanding. On 11 August 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident who confirmed all work had been completed, but there had been no rain fall so could not say whether the repairs had resolved the issue.
9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in July 2022. At the time she remained dissatisfied with the length of time the repairs had taken.

Assessment and findings

10. When there are repairs or replacements needed to windows, they can sometimes fall into the category of major (also known as planned) works rather than a routine repair. The same can be said for repairs to a roof. In those cases, the time needed to complete the work can vary widely, depending on the nature and complexity of the repair issue, and also on the landlord’s work plans and scheduling. During a delayed repair, basic good practice is for a landlord to manage their tenants’ expectations, keep them informed, and show by its actions that it is taking reasonable steps to complete the repairs.
11. The landlord has not disputed that it failed to complete the resident’s repair within a reasonable timeframe. The resident first raised the issue of water ingress in January 2021. The landlord made several visits to inspect the issue as it was unclear where the ingress point was. In circumstances where the source of a repair problem is not immediately apparent, this was a reasonable and appropriate approach. However, the delays between its visits were between three to six weeks at a time, and the reasons for this were not communicated with the resident. This understandably caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase the landlord for updates in the interim.
12. The landlord’s contractors completed work to the roof. However, this did not rectify the issue as the resident reported that water ingress was continuing in June 2021. A window specialist attended on 31 August 2021 but, due to the incorrect positioning of the scaffolding, could not complete the work. The landlord did mention that, at the time, the contractor advised the work was complete. Landlords are responsible for their contractors and, in this instance, the evidence suggests that the work was incorrectly advised as complete, which caused the resident to report further water ingress and another inspection of the windows to take place on 11 October 2021. This was not reasonable. Landlords are responsible for ensuring work has been completed to a satisfactory standard, whether that be through a physical inspection or evidence via photos and videos from its contractors.
13. The resident advised the landlord in May 2021 that the scaffolding was in the wrong place. The landlord was able to complete necessary works to the roof without adjusting it but, as explained above, work to the window could not be completed. The landlord did not adjust the scaffolding until January 2022. During this time, four visits had taken place from contractors, who were all unable to carry out work due to the scaffolding. There is no evidence of communication from the landlord to the resident explaining these delays. Although earlier evidence in 2021 suggests that there were communication issues with its contractors, there was no specific reason provided by the landlord for delay in adjusting the scaffolding. This appears to have prolonged the necessary works to the window.
14. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its shortcomings in its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the length of time taken to carry out the work, its poor communication, and poor record keeping. It also provided next steps to the resident, explaining that it would send contractors in March 2022 to seal the window frame, and redo the internal plaster around the window. Compensation of £440 in total over stage one and two was offered. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for complaints where there is no permanent impact, but inconvenience and frustration was caused (such as the resident’s need to chase the landlord for updates).
15. The issue itself was not resolved until 11 August 2022 which was after the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). After the stage two response in March 2022, contractors visited to test the roof and windows for leaks and found no water ingress. There were cracks in the plaster internally which were arranged to be resealed. This was completed on 30 March 2022. However, on 4 April 2022 the resident reported that the windowsill was wet again following rain fall. This was reported again two days later after more rain fall. It was not until June 2022 that a contractor reported the window frame was not secured to the wall properly and the works to correct this, alongside the plastering, were completed on 17 June 2022 pending decoration over the new plaster.
16. The evidence provided suggests that the cause of the water ingress was unclear, thus it was reasonable for the landlord to take a ‘trial and error’ approach by undertaking different work around the property to eliminate the issue. Nonetheless, there was a delay of two months from April to June 2022, as explained above. Depending on the nature of the work there can understandably be delays and set-backs. In this instance, the landlord provided no evidence or communication to explain this delay. There is no evidence to suggest the delay was out of the landlord’s control and, therefore, this was a failure in service.
17. This failure by the landlord, took place after its final stage complaints response, which therefore, also displays a failure by the landlord to learn from its previous mistakes. This was not appropriate, as it would have further undermined the relationship between the resident and the landlord on the basis that it would appear to show that the landlord was unwilling or unable to learn from its previous failures. An order will be made below therefore, to address these subsequent failings by the landlord.
18. Despite these failings, the evidence suggests the landlord completed all the work and checked in with the resident on 11 August 2022. At that point the resident noted there had been no rainfall recently, so she could not be sure whether the completed works had resolved the issue. There would be nothing more expected of the landlord at that time. However, should problems reoccur, it will need to respond accordingly and proportionately to whatever issue the resident reports next (if any).
19. Overall, the landlord had numerous failings throughout the process of the repair and as stated above, which it reasonably redressed these with its stage two response. However, the landlord’s actions after its final stage complaint response were unreasonable. This refers to its failure to communicate with the resident, which then also became a failure by it to learn from its previous mistakes.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint investigated in this report.

Orders

21. In light of the further failings following the end of the ICP, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £575 in total compensation. This is inclusive of the £440 which it has already offered. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.