A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202219811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219811

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

23 April 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 the landlord’s:
   1. response to reports of damage caused to the resident’s flooring following works to the property.
   2. complaint handling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom maisonette.
4. In March 2021 the landlord decanted the resident while it carried out various repairs to the property. On 5 November 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that following the works she found that her flooring was damaged and covered in sawdust. In addition, she disputed that the landlord had carried out a deep clean of her carpets in October 2021 as promised. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for damaged belongings and flooring. In response, the landlord provided the resident with a liability claim form and explained that it would establish what was done to protect her belongings while the work took place.
5. At the end of January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would not progress her complaint as its legal team had investigated the issues raised and this case was still open. The resident disputed this and chased the landlord between March 2022 and August 2022 for a formal complaint response. On 14 September 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
   1. That its contractor’s report indicated that they carried out adequate precautions to protect the resident’s possessions.
   2. That following the works to the property a ‘builders’ clean as well as its contractors carrying out a formal deep clean.
   3. The formal deep clean was followed by a post-work inspection which found that the areas where the works had been completed were clean and tidy.
   4. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the standard of the deep clean and offered her £100 to get it done privately. It subsequently asked another contractor to carry out the cleaning.
   5. As the resident had left the flat unoccupied for some time this could have contributed to dust build up.
   6. It apologised and offered a total of £325 compensation, comprised of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing the matter and the distress and inconvenience caused and £75 for the quality of its service.
6. On 7 October 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said that a deep clean was not carried out and that its contractors took no precautions to protect her possessions. She said that she went to the property with the landlord in May 2021 to assess the completed works and that on arrival she found dust all over her carpet and dirt stuck to the flooring. She said that the landlord agreed to carry out a deep clean, but this did not happen. She added that she had sent photos to the landlord to evidence this. As an outcome, she wanted between £700-£800 compensation for the damage caused to her flooring.
7. In February 2023 following contact from the resident this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. On 24 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said that the resident was not offered a chance to claim for damage to her belongings through its insurance team and would provide her with a liability claim form. It apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint and its communication failures and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble pursuing the matter.
8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to this Service. She said that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient in light of the delays and the distress and inconvenience caused. In addition, she wanted compensation for damage to her flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident said that she is seeking compensation for damages. This Service cannot determine that the landlord is liable for damages, as determining liability requires a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to her complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of damage caused to the resident’s flooring following works to the property

10. 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:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes. 

11. 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’.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a resident believes that the landlord or a contractor working on behalf of it, is liable for damage then the claim should be assessed and referred to the appropriate insurance company. It adds that to progress any claim the resident will be asked for proof of damage and value including receipts and photographs where applicable. Further, it says that a ‘quality of service’ failure is categorised as the quality of work carried out at the property, which included follow-up to make good.
13. When a resident raises a concern with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position. In this case, the resident’s escalation request indicated that she first raised concerns about damage to her flooring in May 2021 during a post-inspection visit with the landlord. However, there are no landlord records to confirm this which likely indicates issues with its record keeping.
14. Furthermore, its stage 1 response said that the contractors ‘report’ indicated that they carried out adequate precautions to protect the resident’s possessions while carrying out work to the property. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of this report nor is there any evidence such as photos, notes or inspection reports that the property was clean and in a reasonable condition following the work. These are record-keeping failures that amount to maladministration on the part of the landlord and an order is made below in this regard.
15. With that said, the landlord’s records showed that it responded promptly to the resident’s complaint and acted appropriately and in line with its policy by providing her with details on how to make a liability claim through its insurers. However, the landlord also said that it would establish what it did to protect her ‘goods’ while the works were carried out, yet it did not fully respond to this matter until its formal stage 1 response in September 2022 almost 10 months later. This was a considerable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
16. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that the resident disputed that her carpets were adequately protected nor cleaned. In addition, she indicated that she provided photos to the landlord to evidence this. Indeed, the resident has provided this Service with photographs that showed damage and dirt on her flooring. While the Ombudsman cannot definitively state that the landlord’s actions or lack thereof were responsible for the damage, the landlord’s final response did not acknowledge or assess the resident’s claims, or the evidence provided to it. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord had not fully considered the information available to it.
17. In addition, while its stage 1 response appeared to suggest it had fully investigated this issue the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to reconcile its assertions. In the absence of this evidence, this Service can only conclude that the landlord failed to carefully consider or investigate this matter fully. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord requested proof of the damage to her flooring such as photos or receipts, as outlined in its policy.
18. Overall, the landlord failed to provide a timely response setting out its position. While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its own insurers to claim for damages, there was no evidence that it had considered the information provided to it by the resident or requested evidence of the damage to her flooring within a reasonable timescale. This was further evidenced by the resident’s assertion that both she and the landlord had ‘failed’ the post-inspection visit due to the condition of her flooring. Yet the landlord did not comment on this, and this Service has seen no evidence of it carrying out such a visit. Had the landlord taken a more proactive approach from the outset, it could have likely obtained evidence of any damage to her flooring much sooner.
19. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration in respect of this aspect of the complaint. From the landlord’s stage 1 response, it is unclear how it broke down its compensation offer. It appears the landlord made an offer of £75 compensation for ‘quality of service’. However, given the circumstances this does not go far enough in ‘putting things right’ for the resident and a further order of compensation has been made below. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests that offers of compensation from £100 should be considered where there have been failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge and log a complaint within 5 working days and will aim to respond within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It states that if a resident is not happy with the way it has dealt with a complaint or its decision at Stage 1 the resident can ask to escalate their complaint. It aims to respond to complaints escalated to stage 2 within 20 working days.
21. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within its timescales it did not provide a formal stage 1 response until 14 September 2022, 10 months after her initial complaint. This was a lengthy and avoidable delay and the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on at least 3 occasions. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was ignoring her concerns. Furthermore, the landlord delayed getting matters resolved for the resident by incorrectly informing her in January 2022 that it would not progress the complaint through its internal process. This was a further failure on the part of the landlord.
22. On 7 October 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response, yet the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. This led to the resident approaching this Service for assistance. The landlord finally provided its stage 2 response on 24 February 2023, over 4 months later. This was another considerable delay that would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
23. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its policy timescales. However, it did acknowledge this at both complaint stages. Although the breakdown was unclear it seemed to offer £250 at stage 1 and a further £150 at stage 2 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This amounts to a total of £400 in recognition of its complaint-handling failures. It took into consideration the resident’s distress and inconvenience, the time and trouble having to chase, as well as the delayed responses at both stage 1 and 2. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure that adversely effected the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was broadly in accordance with this Service’s guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of damage caused to the resident’s flooring following works to the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

27. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 comprised of:
       1. £75 as offered by the landlord in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.
       2. A further £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damage caused to the resident’s flooring following works to the property.
    3. Review its record-keeping practices, to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.

Recommendation

28. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £400 compensation comprising of the £250 offered in its stage 1 response and the further £150 offered in the stage 2 response, for its complaint handling failures. A finding of reasonable redress has been made based on this compensation amount being paid to the resident.