A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202122709)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122709

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

29 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to access her belongings in storage.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three bedroomed house.
  2. In February 2020, the landlord arranged for the resident to move out of the property, due to damage from a leak, in order for it to investigate the source of the leak and carry out remedial works.
  3. In June 2020, the resident and landlord’s legal representatives signed an agreement to settle a proposed disrepair claim related to the leak outside of court. The landlord compensated the resident and agreed to complete works to the property. The resident would reside in a decant property at the landlord’s expense for the duration of works and the landlord would arrange for, and cover the cost of, storing and moving her belongings. The same month, the resident contacted her solicitor about unsuccessful attempts to access her belongings, and the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord provide the storage company with confirmation that she had authorisation to access her belongings. The following week, the landlord contacted the resident about getting access to belongings to locate a passport, but she said this was no longer required. The landlord recorded that the repairs in the property were completed on 6 July 2020.
  4. The resident subsequently attempted to make a complaint, and the landlord initially responded that the issues were the subject of legal proceedings. It later said that it believed matters were resolved when the agreement was signed with the resident’s legal representative in June 2020, and it asked the resident what she wished to complain about. In September 2020, the resident detailed a range of issues and, in addition to repairs issues, complained that:
    1. 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 she declined it and instead paid for a hotel. She became homeless when the hotel was closed due to coronavirus restrictions in March 2020 and the landlord did not offer support.
    2. when she moved into the decant property in June 2020, she signed an agreement stating she would be able to collect her belongings from storage at her own expense. She was unhappy that when she tried to do so, she had been unable to access her belongings.
    3. 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.
  5. The landlord subsequently issued stage 1 and 2 responses in October 2020 and March 2021, which the Ombudsman investigated and issued a determination for in August 2021. This found service failings as, in its complaint responses, the landlord failed to address its handling of the decant and the points complained about above at paragraph 8 a to c.
  6. Following the Ombudsman’s determination, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 September 2021.
    1. It said that on receiving notification from its property team that the resident needed to be decanted, a booking was made at a hotel in February 2020. It explained that this was usual practice where an emergency decant is required as it takes time to source alternative properties. It said that once it was identified that it was not safe for the resident to remain in her home, it was right that she was not allowed to stay there.
    2. It said that a temporary property was found which the resident viewed and was offered verbally and by letter in March 2020. It noted that she informed staff that she would not accept the property due to concerns about fitting her furniture in, the flooring, and safety fears about the area. It noted that staff informed her that the property was temporary while works were completed at her home, and that any furniture she was not able to fit in would be stored for her, at the landlord’s cost.
    3. It said that its decant policy only allowed for use of hotel accommodation where no suitable accommodation is available, which the resident was informed of. It explained that its policy did not allow for rent reductions to be made if suitable accommodation is offered and refused.
    4. It said that once the resident agreed to move to a temporary property for the remaining duration of the works, she was informed that it would be arranged for ‘essential items’ to be returned to her from storage. It noted that a list was provided by the resident which was communicated to its contractors, and it said it was unable to comment on why the contractors would have attended with all the resident’s items. It noted that due to the short timescale before the resident’s return home it was decided that only ‘essential items’ would be unloaded.
    5. It noted that its records showed that when the resident subsequently requested access to her passports, this was being arranged when she then withdrew the request.
    6. It concluded that it had adhered to its decant policy, staff had acted in line with expectations, and there were no service failings.
  7. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with this response on 13 September 2021. She expressed concern about access to belongings and said she asked staff to give permission for her to access her belongings, which they never did. She also expressed concern about the suitability of the temporary property originally offered to her.
  8. Following this, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 October 2021.
    1. It provided explanation about its approach and said it found a 3 bedroom property that it felt was suitable for the resident and her family on a temporary basis, which it acknowledged she did not agree with. It said it tried to be as flexible as it could, but it did it not hold a stock of properties to use for decant purposes, did not have a list of properties that residents can choose from, and could only offer what was available. It explained that residents did not have to accept any offers of temporary accommodation and were always able to make their own arrangements. It noted that it was eventually able to decant the resident to a property opposite her permanent home which seemed to be a good solution to the difficult situation.
    2. It noted that its decant policy says that it could reimburse reasonable costs related to fitting suitable flooring and curtains to a decant property. It noted that it could not see that this was offered and it apologised to the resident for this omission.
    3. It noted that its system indicated that the resident contacted the landlord on 25 June 2020 asking to access her daughter’s passport. It noted that staff then contacted the resident within 5 minutes and were informed that the passport was no longer needed. It said that there were no records to show that the resident requested access to the passport before this date and so it believed it acted swiftly in this matter. It explained that the company it used asked it to authorise access in order to safeguard residents’ belongings. It explained that it checked to confirm that this was usual practice and that staff understood that requests for access should be responded to quickly.
    4. The landlord concluded that it did not uphold the complaint, but it offered £25 in recognition that it could not see that the resident was advised that she could be reimbursed for reasonable costs should she want to fit flooring and curtains to the temporary property. It confirmed that it had reminded staff that this was an option for future decant situations.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation notes that the resident raised concern about the landlord not rectifying leaks since 2013. The Ombudsman normally only considers complaints about issues which have occurred within 6 months of when the complaint was made. This investigation therefore focuses on the main focus of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, which was the handling of the decant and her request to access her belongings in storage. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of more recent repairs, she has the option to report this to the landlord, and has the option to progress a complaint through its formal complaint procedure if she is dissatisfied with its reply.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

  1. 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.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy states that “Where a property becomes uninhabitable because of major planned or unplanned works, and there is an intention for the resident to return to their property after the works are complete, A2Dominion (where relevant) will seek to ask the resident to stay with family and or friends for the duration of the works. Compensation will be offered to the resident in line with the decant procedure.”  The policy also states that “Where A2Dominion provides alternative accommodation, we will use all available resources including (but not limited) to our own housing stock, hotels, bed and breakfasts, guest houses, caravans, flats, maisonettes and bed sits.”
  3. The initial decant form advised the resident of a 4 month timescale for the decant for an ongoing leak and damage to the floor and ceilings. The resident was initially decanted to a hotel on 25 February 2020, which was the same day landlord staff received notification of the requirement for a decant from their property team. The landlord initially decanted the resident to a hotel, but the hotel was forced to close due to COVID-19 lockdown. The resident stayed with family for a period. The landlord offered to place the resident in temporary accommodation and to cover expenses such as storage.  The resident returned home on 6 July 2020.
  4. The Ombudsman understands how distressing it will have been for the resident to experience leaks at the property and to be forced to move from her home. However, the landlord’s handling in respect to the decant was in line with its decant policy, and it is not evident that there was any significant service failures. The resident was told in a timely manner by the landlord that she would need to be decanted, and the landlord acted promptly to ensure that she was decanted to a hotel. The landlord offered temporary housing which met the type of alternative accommodation the decant policy says it may provide, and this was reasonable as it was considered to meet the resident’s needs and was only offered on a temporary basis. The resident had no obligation to accept the accommodation, and her staying with family met the type of alternative accommodation the decant policy says may be necessary and reasonable for major unplanned works.
  5. The landlord’s decant policy does note that it covers all reasonable costs incurred by a resident at a temporary property, which includes curtains and curtain rails and fitting of suitable flooring, and the resident has raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not handle matters in line with the decant policy in respect to a temporary property it offered. The landlord has however acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response that it could not see that this was offered to the resident, and offered £25 compensation for this. It also confirmed that it had reminded its staff that this is an option to be discussed where necessary in future decant situations. This response was in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcome, and in the Ombudsman’s view satisfactorily  addressed this aspect based on the information provide to the landlord and this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to access her belongings in storage

  1. The landlord says that the resident only requested her belongings, namely a passport, on 25 June 2020. It says that it contacted her the same day and was then informed that the passport was no longer needed. The landlord confirms it took steps to check the authorisation was usual practice, and to ensure its staff understood that any requests for access must be responded to quickly, which was appropriate.
  2. However, emails from the resident’s solicitor to an email address at the landlord’s web domain shows that access was requested on dates including 17 June 2020. This shows that the landlord’s actions on 25 June 2020 was 8 days after the resident’s solicitor’s request. It is not appropriate that no action was taken during this time, or that the landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint response. The resident subsequently did not need access to her belongings, so it is not evident that the level of detriment was significant, however the solicitor’s email reporting the resident’s distress bout the issue shows she will have been caused some frustration, which it is not reasonable the landlord did not acknowledge and address.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to access her belongings in storage.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress caused by the delay in responding to her request to access her belongings.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the handling of the resident’s request to access her belongings in storage, and consider any appropriate steps to try to minimise delays where service requests are made in disrepair correspondence.