A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202233594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233594

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

12 July 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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of drafts coming in from the windows.
   2. Request for the windows to be replaced earlier than planned.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident succeeded the tenancy in November 2015. The property is 2-bedroom terraced house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the windowsills, window catches, stay bars, sashcords, and window frames.
5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said he had been complaining since 2015 about the windows and the draught. He had only been given draft excluders which had not been effective. He had been told by the landlord’s contractor that the windows needed to be replaced. He had now been informed that the windows were not going to be replaced until 2023. He had lived in the property for 30 years and the windows had not been replaced. He was concerned about how he would afford his energy bills.
6. The landlord responded on 30 June 2022. It said it had on record 3 repair reports since 2018 in respect of draughts from the windows to which it had responded. It had attended however in April 2022, but the repair record did not mention the windows which may have been an error on its part. It said it would arrange an inspection now. It could not at this stage state what works would be required. It said if window replacement was required its contractor committed to this being completed by 29 September 2022. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of a breakdown in communication between the operative and the office which resulted in the job being closed down in April 2022.
7. On 22 November 2022, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to a stage 2. He said the works were supposed to be completed in September 2022, but they had not. He was concerned about the energy costs particularly as it was winter.
8. The landlord responded. It said it had raised a job for secondary glazing in June 2022. It said the delays were out of its control and because of issues with its supplier. The secondary glazing had now been received and the works were due to take place on 18 March 2023. It had checked its recent damp report. This said the windows needed to be replaced as a long-term solution and not immediately.
9. The fitting of secondary glazing would not therefore mean that the windows would not be replaced in the future. The windows were still on the programme to be replaced in 2025. It offered £200 compensation. £150 for the delays in completing works and £50 for delays in responding to stage 2.

Post complaint.

10. The landlord advised this Service that the resident declined the offer of secondary glazing. It had re-offered the option again in May 2024. It said the planned start date for the window replacement was in August 2024.

Assessment and findings.

Reports of drafts coming in from the windows.

11. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out the appropriate temperatures and the health risks that could be caused if temperatures fall below. It also suggests that landlords could complete a heat assessment to determine the cause of any heat loss.
12. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs within 20 working days. It will complete planned works within 90 days.
13. This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states the window issues had been present (since 2015) and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances, it is unclear why the resident did not raise his concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live’ Given the passage of time, and the gaps in reporting between 2015 and April 2022 this service has only investigated the landlord’s response from April 2022 onwards. As this is what led to the stage 1 complaint.
14. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that it had failed to check the window when it attended in April 2022. It sought to put matters right by raising a full inspection of the windows so that it could assess whether works were necessary, or replacement required. It said that if the report found that the windows required replacement then it would look to complete the works by 29 September 2022. It also offered £50 in recognition that it had incorrectly closed down the job in April 2022. Its response showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and sought to try to resolve matters.
15. At the point, the landlord issued its stage 1 response it also raised a job for secondary glazing to be installed. It is unclear how it determined that secondary glazing was required rather than replacement. The landlord had agreed to complete an inspection within its stage 1 response. This Service has asked the landlord to provide a copy of the inspection, but the landlord has not provided this. It is therefore unknown how the landlord concluded that secondary glazing was appropriate rather than replacement.
16. Furthermore, there are no records to show that it had risked assessed the property to ensure that it was free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
17. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of all of its inspections including risk assessments. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
18. The records do however show that the landlord was in regular communication with the resident. The correspondence records coincide with the landlord’s version of events as set out in its stage 2 response. The delays were due to issues with its suppliers, and it had ensured that the resident was kept informed. It also sought to find an alternative supplier when it became apparent that its current supplier was not responding.
19. However, the delay was for a period of 9 months which was substantial and was outside of its own policy. The delay would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident particularly given his expressed concerns about the increased energy costs because of the drafts. The landlord’s offer of £200 (£50 in its stage 1 and £150 in its stage 2) went some way to putting matters right. The amount however does not fully reflect the length of time and level of impact on the resident in particular the uncertainty of when the matter would be resolved.
20. Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide copies of inspections and complete risk assessments to show that it had done all that it could. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
21. It is acknowledged that although outside of the complaint period the landlord advised this Service that the resident refused the secondary glazing, so it was not fitted in March 2023 as agreed in its stage 2. It is unknown why the resident refused the secondary glazing. The landlord had made it clear within its stage 2 response that secondary glazing would not impact replacement. The landlord also advised that full replacement of the windows had been programmed in for August 2024.
22. To try to ensure matters do get resolved and given that the full replacement works are programmed to begin shortly. This Service has made a recommendation that the landlord inform the resident when these works will commence. If it has not done so already.

Request for the windows to be replaced earlier.

23. The landlord appropriately explained the circumstances in which it would replace windows within its stage 1 response. It went further to explain that it would not automatically replace windows on request. It would have to show that a repair would not fix the issue. This response was clear and managed the resident’s expectations.
24. The landlord had determined that secondary glazing was appropriate rather than replacement although this Service has not seen the evidence to support its findings. The evidence did show however that it had been in regular communication with the resident, so the resident was aware of what action it was taking despite the delays. The landlord also provided a damp and mould report which was completed in May 2024. This report although dated after the complaint process confirmed that the windows did not need replacing straight away.
25. We note that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s position in regard to replacing the windows, which he evidently found disappointing. However, the landlord explained its position with clarity and consistency within its complaint responses. As stated earlier in this report an order has been made to ensure the landlord updates the resident as to when the windows are going to be replaced. Overall, however, this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the windows to be replaced earlier.

Complaint handling.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy gives 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint. 10 working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, it is unknown the exact date when the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. This is because the document provided does not show a date. The stage one complaint request was however acknowledged on 29 June and its full response was provided the next day.
27. The stage 1 complaint response appropriately acknowledged where it had failed. The landlord also explained what had gone wrong. It sought to remedy the matter by ensuring that a new job was raised. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was trying to get matters resolved. It went further to set out is position in respect of replacing the windows. This was appropriate and ensured that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. It also offered redress in respect of its failings which was appropriate in the circumstances.
28. The resident requested an escalation to a stage 2 on 22 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 10 working days later. This was not in accordance with its policy. It advised that it would provide a response by 11 January 2023 which it did. This was 34 working days after the stage 2 request which was again outside of its policy timescales. It acknowledged its delay and offered £50 redress. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed all the points raised and confirmed the landlord’s position. It explained what had gone wrong and how it had remedied the issue. It acknowledged that compensation was appropriate to try to put matters right. It said that part of its learning was to feedback to its contractor. This was also appropriate in the circumstances.
30. Failure to adhere to timeframes for complaint responses is considered a service failure. The compensation award of £50 was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord therefore offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination.

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drafts coming in from the windows
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for the windows to be replaced earlier.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders.

34. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £350. £200 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
       1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of drafts coming in from the windows.
35. If the landlord is unable to start the window replacement work within the next 8 weeks. The landlord is ordered to complete a risk assessment of the property The risk assessment will need to include:
    1. Readings of the temperature of the property.
    2. An inspection of the condition of the windows and whether they meet the relevant standards.
    3. Details of any risks identified, and action required including timescales to complete the actions.
    4. Details of what consideration has been made of the resident’s circumstances including any household vulnerabilities and affordability.
    5. The landlord must share the outcome of the risk assessment with the resident and this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation for its delays in responding to the stage 2 complaint. If it has not done so already.
37. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with written confirmation of when the works to replace the windows will commence.