A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202207964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207964

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 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 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 report of a faulty fridge-freezer.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat, of which the landlord owns the head lease, since 31 January 2022. The property was supplied with an integrated fridge-freezer.
3. The resident reported to the landlord on 14 February 2022 that the fridge-freezer supplied with her property was not working correctly and would not get cold, with the manufacturer being unable to attend for a week while she had a small baby. On 30 March 2022, the landlord’s records noted that it had advised her “weeks ago” to approach the manufacturer of the appliance for a repair.
4. The resident then raised a stage one complaint with the landlord, the date of which was not supplied to the Ombudsman, in which she said that the fridge-freezer had not worked since she had moved into the property on 12 February 2022. She considered that the landlord had therefore not checked the appliance properly at the time of installation, and she sought compensation for the inconvenience of not having use of the fridge-freezer.
5. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response to the resident, on 25 April 2022, did not uphold the complaint. It stated that it had informed her, on moving into the property, to register the warranty for the fridge-freezer with the manufacturer. The landlord therefore directed the resident to the manufacturer to pursue a repair and compensation. She nevertheless escalated her complaint on 28 April 2022, repeating that she felt that it was the landlord’s responsibility to check that the appliance was working correctly before installing this. Although the resident confirmed that the fridge-freezer was now resolved, and so she requested compensation for the extra cost, time, stress and inconvenience of being without this for six weeks and having to shop for fresh food daily.
6. The resident then chased the landlord for a response to her final stage complaint on 24 and 30 May 2022, which recorded on the former date that it had not escalated the complaint, before she contacted the Ombudsman because she had still not received a response. We subsequently contacted it about this on 16 August 2022, but it informed us on 7 September 2022 that she had not formally complained to it yet, before it then acknowledged her final stage complaint on 12 September 2022.
7. The landlord subsequently issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 26 September 2022. It said that the original snagging repair inspection and home demonstration checklists for her property did not indicate any fault with the fridge-freezer. The landlord stated that it had confirmed that this had been installed correctly by checking if electricity was being supplied to the fridge-freezer. It said that it had informed the resident that this was a ‘gifted’ item, which was her responsibility to repair. Although the landlord noted that it had not advised her on 14 February 2022, when she reported the issue, to approach the manufacturer to repair the fridge-freezer, offering her £50 compensation for its lack of clear information about this.
8. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not checked that the fridge-freezer was working properly from the outset, as its electrician’s inspection only confirmed if power was being supplied to this. She added that its final stage complaint response was the first mention of the fridge-freezer being gifted to her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a faulty fridge-freezer

9. The resident’s lease is silent on the repairing obligations for white goods, such as fridge-freezers, that the landlord provides to residents. Its responsive repairs policy confirms that it does not carry out repairs for fridge-freezers for residents in shared ownership properties. The landlord’s voids and refurbishment lettable standards state that the checking of appliances during the void period is only applicable to its keyworker, market rented and supported housing properties.
10. In accordance with the above provisions of the resident’s lease and its responsive repairs policy, there was no obligation on the landlord to repair her fridge-freezer. As she has a shared ownership property, there was also no requirement for it to check the appliance, as per its voids and refurbishment lettable standards. Moreover, on purchasing a property, it is the buyer’s responsibility to investigate to satisfy themselves that the property’s condition, and the elements within, are suitable for them. Therefore, landlord’s response to the resident that she contact the manufacturer for fridge-freezer repairs and compensation was appropriate in the circumstances of her case.
11. The landlord nevertheless acknowledged that, on 14 February 2022 when the resident first made it aware of the fault with the fridge-freezer, it did not immediately provide her with the appropriate advice to seek a repair from the manufacturer. This may have prolonged the inconvenience experienced by her while she sought the resolution of the repair by the manufacturer by unnecessarily delaying when she was told that she had to approach them for this instead, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to offer her compensation to recognise this.
12. The landlord’s records were unclear on when correct advice to contact the fridge-freezer’s manufacturer was subsequently provided to the resident, only noting that she was informed of the correct process by 30 March 2022 at the latest. Therefore, there may have been a period of up to approximately six weeks during which she was uncertain as to how to progress this repair.
13. The compensation that the landlord offered the resident of £50 was a reasonable offer to address this inconvenience under the circumstances, and was in accordance with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. These provide for awards from £50 compensation to recognise detriment to residents including from stress, inconvenience, time and trouble from delays in getting matters resolved. The landlord has therefore been recommended below pay the resident the £50 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
14. The landlord’s final stage complaint response also stated that it had informed the resident that the fridge-freezer was a gifted item that it had no responsibility to repair and maintain. Although there is no evidence that she was previously explicitly informed of this. This was consistent with the resident informing the Ombudsman that the landlord’s final stage complaint response was the first time she had been made aware that the fridge-freezer was gifted.
15. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have made clear to the resident at the outset that she had assumed all responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the fridge-freezer, and that it had no obligation to check the appliance, but that she should contact the manufacturer about this. This may have reduced the time taken for her to resolve the fridge-freezer repair, and so the landlord has been recommended below to review its voids and refurbishment lettable standards to include providing this information for all of its new residents at the outset.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

16. Under the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (‘the code’) unless a later date has been agreed due to the scope of the complaint, residents can refer complaints to us if the landlord fails to provide a stage one response within ten working days, or a final stage response within 20 working days. Although the procedure additionally says that the final response should be provided within five working days of this, if a review panel meeting has been held.
17. The code also states that, if a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of their stage one complaint, a landlord should escalate the complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure. If a landlord does not do so, it must have a valid reason for this, which it must explain clearly to the resident.
18. The records provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord do not confirm when the resident’s stage one complaint was received by it. It is therefore not possible to confirm whether its response to this on 25 April 2022 was within an appropriate timeframe. This was a failure to keep an accurate and complete record of its interaction with the resident about her complaint, however, and this prevented the Ombudsman from determining the timeliness of the landlord’s complaint handling at this stage, which was inappropriate. This was additionally contrary to the requirement in the code for it to keep a full record of the complaint at each stage, including the date that this was received.
19. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 28 April 2022, and she chased a response from it on 24 and 30 May 2022. Its records from 24 May 2022 noted that her final stage complaint was nevertheless not escalated. It was unclear from this if there had been a deliberate decision by the landlord not to escalate the complaint. If it had made such a decision, then it should have clearly explained why to the resident, in accordance with the code, but there was no evidence of this.
20. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the resident’s complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure on 12 September 2022, after she sought the intervention of the Ombudsman to progress this, and we contacted it about the complaint on 16 August 2022. It then provided its final stage complaint response to her on 26 September 2022, which was almost five months since she had originally requested the escalation of her complaint on 28 April 2022. This was an unreasonably excessive unexplained complaint handling delay by the landlord, and this was a failure to follow its own complaints procedure and the code.
21. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, residents experiencing time and trouble from failures involving the length of time taken by it to resolve final stage complaints within four to six months are recommended to be awarded up to £160 compensation. This is therefore proportionate to recognise the prolonged unexplained delay of over four months later than its complaints procedure’s 20-working-day response timescale to address the resident’s final stage complaint, her resulting time and trouble from having to chase this and to contact the Ombudsman to do so, and its inadequate record keeping at stage one.
22. As a result, the landlord has been ordered below to apologise to and pay £160 further compensation to the resident. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation of over £100 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but which it failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put right. It has also been ordered below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints procedure and the code to ensure that in every case it fully records complaints at each stage of the procedure, including the date that they were received, and issues timely complaint responses.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to her report of a faulty fridge-freezer satisfactorily.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

25. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to and pay the resident £160 compensation within four weeks for any time and trouble that she incurred from its poor complaint handling.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints procedure and the code to ensure that in every case it fully records complaints at each stage of the procedure, including the date that they were received, and issues timely complaint responses.
26. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £50 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its voids and refurbishment lettable standards to include providing information about the responsibility for checking, repairing and maintaining gifted items and appliances for all of its new residents at the outset.
27. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.