The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202214973)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214973

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

 

1 February 2024


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 concerns about her patio.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2 bedroom house. The landlord is a Housing Association. The landlord has provided this Service with a sample tenancy agreement as it is unable to locate the original tenancy agreement.
  2. The resident made an initial complaint to the landlord in November 2020 about the drains outside the kitchen door being blocked and water pooling in her back garden. As an outcome, the resident wanted the landlord to install new drainage pipes in the garden.
  3. On 15 October 2021, the landlord levelled out the patio, installed new drainage and laid a new patio and base. In November 2021, the resident reported some discolouration on the slabs and water pooling in some parts of the patio. According to the landlord’s repair records, a job was raised on 10 January 2022. The landlord’s contractors inspected the patio on 17 January 2022 and noted that there were some black marks on the slabs. The contractors believed that the discolouration formed part of the design of the slabs and were not scuff marks. They confirmed that the patio was installed to a good standard. However, they decided to arrange an appointment to jet wash the patio in an attempt to remove the marks on the slabs.
  4. On 21 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident informing her that the patio did not require any repairs. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord again regarding the discolouration and water pooling on the slabs on 22 and 25 February 2022. The landlord attended the property on 30 March 2022 and advised the resident that it could not find any problems with the patio but would ask its contractors to inspect the slabs for any faults.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 May 2022. She said that the slabs were of poor quality and added that they were discoloured and pooling water. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage one on 27 May 2022. In summary, the landlord said that it carried out an inspection at the property and that it could not find anything wrong with the patio apart from the discolouration of the slabs.
  6. The resident disputed this report so the landlord arranged for a second inspection of the patio. Upon inspection, it agreed that it would arrange for its contractors to inspect the patio to establish if there was any fault with the slabs. The landlord committed to repairing the patio by 29 July 2022 if its contractors found it to be faulty but explained that no repairs would commence until the outcome of the inspection.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 26 August 2022. The resident was not happy about the following issues and requested for her patio to be re-laid:
    1. The length of time it took for the contractors to attend the property.
    2. The landlord’s lack of communication.
    3. The quality of paving slabs, poor installation, discoloration and water pooling on her patio.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation request on 31 August 2022. On 22 September 2022, prior to issuing a stage two response, the landlord requested a joint inspection of the paving slabs with its contractors. On 28 September 2022, the landlord and its contractor visited the property to inspect the back garden slabs, drainage and the workmanship. The landlord’s contractor  found that the drain in the back garden was full of leaves which could cause surface water to remain on the slabs.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 6 October 2022. In summary, it said:
    1. That the resident raised the issues with the slabs being faulty in January 2022 and since then it had attended the property on multiple occasions to determine if there were any issues.
    2. A joint visit was carried out with its contractors to inspect the patio and it found no issues with the slabs.
    3. Following its inspection, it concluded that slurry was not required underneath the slabs.
    4. It was satisfied that there had been a thorough inspection of the patio and concluded there was no issue with the slabs or the quality of work done and the complaint was not upheld.
  10. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she stated that she was still experiencing ongoing issues of flooding to her patio area. The resident added that this situation was having a negative effect on her physical and mental wellbeing and she was concerned about falling on the patio which she believed was of poor quality.
  11. The resident’s independent contractor report of 9 October 2022 observed that at least four of the slabs were laid in the wrong way. Where the water is meant to drain away under the gate, two of the slabs were higher than they should be and any heavy rain would not drain away from the patio, causing flooding to the back door of the property.
  12. The landlord’s surveyor’s report of 8 November 2022 included pictures from a visit on a rainy day and one of the pictures showed water pooling on the slabs. The resident also reported that during this visit, the surveyor advised her to use a broom to sweep away the water pooling down the drain pipe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported that the handling of this complaint has negatively affected her health and caused her existing health conditions to worsen. While we do not doubt her comments regarding this, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so; this would be better suited for a court to decide upon. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the complaint 
  2. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes. 
  3. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her patio

  1. The landlord informed the resident on 30 March 2022 that it would arrange for the contractors who supplied and installed the patio slabs to attend the property and provide an inspection report to confirm if there were any faults with the slabs. It is unclear when exactly the contractors attended. However, the landlord’s records indicate the visit was not before 29 July 2022, the date the landlord promised in the stage one response to have all necessary work completed. In any case 29 July 2022 was nearly four months after the landlord’s visit on 30 March 2022 and six months from when the resident raised her first repair request.
  2. Furthermore, the landlord’s records showed that it was not until August 2022 that its contractors inspected the patio slabs. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord was not proactive enough in securing a date for the contractors to attend the property. The landlord should have arranged for an inspection within a reasonable timescale. Its failure to do so would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman has identified some instances of poor record keeping with regards to the landlord’s inspection reports and a recommendation has been made at the end of this report regarding record keeping.
  3. The resident complained about the level of communication from the landlord. The landlord informed the resident on 30 March 2022 that an inspection with its contractors would be arranged but there is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident regarding the status of the contractor’s visit. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have communicated with the resident and updated her on the progress of her repair request. The resident should have been informed of the difficulties the landlord had in arranging an inspection with its contractors. This lack of communication was a failing on the part of the landlord and would have caused further distress to the resident.
  4. The resident’s initial complaint in November 2020 was regarding water pooling on her patio; the drain and new slabs installed on 15 October 2021 were meant to have solved this problem. However, from both the landlord’s inspection report and the resident’s report, there are still some issues with water pooling in the resident’s garden.
  5. The landlord’s contractor’s report of 30 September 2022 indicated that the drains were full of leaves and therefore not draining the rain water away. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that showed the drains were cleaned subsequently. As the drains being blocked could have been be a likely explanation for the water pooling on the resident’s patio, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have cleaned the drains to rule out the potential cause of water pooling on the resident’s patio. In view of this, an order has been made below for remedy.
  6. Overall, the landlord did not arrange for an inspection by its contractors in a timely manner and it failed to take adequate steps to resolve the ongoing issue of water pooling on the resident’s patio. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £100 to £600 should be considered for failings that have caused an adverse effect to the resident. Because of this, this Service has made a finding of service failure and an order of compensation has been made to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days of the request to escalate. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 August 2022, and the landlord responded on 6 October 2022. This response was 9 days outside of its policy timescales. There is no evidence to show that the resident was informed that there would be a delay in the response and this would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  2. The landlord has failed to keep to its own policies regarding timescales for acknowledging or responding to complaints. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this was not a significant delay, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this and did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that this amounts to service failure and an order of compensation has been made below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her patio.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord takes the following actions:
    1. The landlord arranges for an appropriately qualified surveyor to inspect the existing patio and ascertain whether the patio is fit for purpose and laid in accordance with existing building regulations.  Where deficiencies are found, the patio should be repaired or replaced as appropriate.
    2. The landlord pays the resident a total of £250 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £200 for the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident in establishing the suitability of her patio.
      2. £50 for the frustration caused by its complaint handling.
    3. The landlord provides a written apology to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping and communication processes to ensure appropriate repairs records are kept and that residents are updated regularly about their repairs. If it has not done so already, the landlord should implement a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)