A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202126092)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126092

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

4 November 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 handling of outstanding repairs works due to damp issues within the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder with shared ownership of the property.
  2. The Leasehold Manager first reported damp and mould in the resident’s property to the landlord on 29 May 2019. A contractor attended the property on 17 June 2019 and reported the damp but could not locate the source of the problem. On 25 September 2019 the landlord arranged for a drain survey at the property. Repairs notes on 11 October 2019 show that the landlord acknowledged that it needed to ascertain whether it was a structural issue causing the damp. On 13 November 2019, a surveyor’s report shows that damp was found in the bedroom, with a damp patch in the middle of the floor and condensation on the walls which had led to staining on the carpet.
  3. On 02 July 2020 and 03 October 2020, contractors attended the property in an attempt to find the root cause of the damp but both reports were inconclusive. On 10 September 2020, the resident raised a stage one complaint as she had not received a copy of the surveyors report as requested, and due to the ongoing damp issues, which she stated were affecting her ability to sell the property.  In the landlord’s stage one response on 18 January 2021, it acknowledged the unacceptable levels of service provided to the resident and the unreasonable delays and offered the resident £150 in compensation for time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 08 February 2021.
  4. Between June 2021 and September 2021, the landlord hired a contractor to obtain measurements of the property in order to carry out remedial works to the water damaged flooring. On 09 November 2021, the landlord advised the resident that originally both parties had not agreed to the works but that they could proceed following discussions with their legal team and contractors. On 28 January 2022, the landlord advised the contractor not to carry out any internal works due to the resident’s ongoing legal case. The resident has informed this Service that she did not dispute any works or raise any legal case in relation to this complaint, and that this was her neighbour who was experiencing similar issues.
  5. On 03 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response, apologised for the lack of communication and advised that the delays in repairs were due to specialists being required to investigate and find the root cause of the damp. It offered £180 in additional compensation.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ongoing repairs and lack of communication from the landlord throughout. The resident was also dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered due to the length of time the issue had been ongoing and the inconvenience and distress caused. The landlord informed this Service on 19 July 2022 that it had now offered the resident a total of £640 in compensation for the ongoing. In order to resolve the complaint, the resident is also seeking for the repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has explained how the landlord’s failure to carry out remedial works for the damp in her property has impacted her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. 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. This is an 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.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for structural repairs externally and internally.
  2. The compensation policy states that residents are advised to take out home contents insurance. It also states that “if a resident believes that the landlord is liable for damage then… residents should not be asked to claim on their home contents insurances unless there was no way the landlord could have prevented the damage from occurring”.
  3. The compensation policy states that the maximum compensation available for time and trouble is £240 if the issue has been ongoing for more than six months and £150 for a high level of service failure and that this can be a separate payment for each element.

The landlord’s handling of remedial work relating to damp within the property

  1. After the damp was reported on 29 May 2019, the landlord arranged for contractors to attend on 17 June 2019. This appointment happened within a reasonable timeframe of the first report and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that a repair with standard priority would be attended “at the first available convenient appointment”. A further contractor attended on 25 September 2019 to complete a drain survey, there is no evidence that communication was sent to the resident to explain why there would be a three month delay, and this was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord then arranged for contractors to complete further investigations into the damp within the property. These appointments took place in July and October 2020 which was more than a year after the original report. Whilst it is understandable that there would be some delay in arranging for a contractor to attend due to the landlord having to book the appointment with the contractor, and that the cause of damp can be difficult to diagnose, the timeframe in this case is inappropriate. There is no evidence provided to this service to show that these delays were reasonably communicated with the resident which would have been the appropriate action for the landlord to take when a repair needs to take longer than its policy timescales.
  3. The landlord then hired contractors to complete further investigations into the damp within the property on 10 May 2021 and 24 May 2021 but these reports were also inconclusive. The contractors did find damp and recommended that the floor was coated with a liquid sealant. These appointments took place 22 months after the original report, and 7 months after the previous investigation. As the repair was classed as standard priority, this was a further failure in the repair service.
  4.  On 29 June 2021, the landlord hired contractors to complete remedial work within the property due to water damaged flooring. This was 23 months after the original surveyor’s report acknowledging the damp. There was no evidence provided to this Service to show that the landlord communicated with the resident within this timeframe about the delays. As per the landlord’s service standards, it should have provided the resident with a named contact whilst the repairs were ongoing in order to achieve their customer service standards.
  5.  From June 2021 until September 2021, the landlord regularly chased the contractor for updates regarding the remedial works to the property and expressed dissatisfaction with their service due to the delays of works. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. Whilst an expectation of a waiting period before contractors are able to attend is reasonable, this needs to be managed by the landlord through responding to reports, providing updates and arranging the appointments within a suitable timeframe. However, in this case, the landlord failed to suitably manage the resident’s expectations and the related remedial work.
  6.  On 09 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that repairs to the wardrobe could now proceed following the resident previously not agreeing to the works. The resident informed this Service that she did not refuse any works and that this was her neighbour. On 28 January 2022, the landlord advised the contractor not to carry out any internal remedial works due to the ongoing legal case. The landlord also stated in its stage two response that the resident declined remedial works to the flooring during the repairs period. The resident has informed this Service that this is miscommunication from the landlord as it was her neighbour who had disagreed to the works due to an ongoing legal case and the resident had not declined any works. This poor record keeping caused further inconvenience to the resident, and it is recommended that it reviews its record-keeping processes to avoid miscommunication occurring in the future.
  7.  The resident raised the stage one complaint on 10 December 2020, the landlord responded on 18 January 2021 which was a total of 24 working days later. The landlord responded to the stage two complaint 252 working days following the escalation. The maximum appropriate timescale as stated by this Service is up to 10 working days for stage one, with an extension of up to a further 10 working days with good reason, and up to 20 working days for stage two, with an extension available if convening a panel. At both complaint stages, the landlord exceeded the appropriate timeframe with the stage two response a considerable failure.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. The offer was disproportionately low when the length of these repair delays is considered (June 2019 until October 2020 for surveyors to investigate the damp, October 2020 until July 2022 for remedial work) and the length of time taken to deal with the resident’s complaint.
  9.  It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £700 compensation for the delays throughout the repairs process, £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling timescales, £100 for the poor communication regarding repairs and £100 for the poor record-keeping which resulted in further delays would provide adequate redress for the maladministration identified. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250-£700 where there has been considerable maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled outstanding repairs works due to damp issues within the property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation which is inclusive of the £640 the landlord previously offered:
    1. £700 compensation for the considerable delays in the remedial work being carried out.
    2. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication.
    3. £100 compensation for the poor record-keeping which resulted in further delays.
    4. £100 compensation for the handling of the associated complaint.
    5. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.
  2.  The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, agree a date to visit the property to complete any previously identified works that it has not completed. Within this time the landlord will also contact the resident so they can provide their up to date report of the damp situation. Within the 4 weeks the landlord should agree a date for any additional inspections or repairs that are required based on the resident’s up to date report.