Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201905292)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905292

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

29 January 2021


Our Approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 reports concerning:
    1. misuse of the leaseholder carparking bays;
    2. misuse of the fire doors;
    3. antisocial behaviour (ASB), including:
      1. vandalism of the fire doors;
      2. unauthorised visitors using the building for the use/supply of illicit substances; and
    4. keeping pets in the building.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. In July and August 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that a large minibus was parked in the leaseholder carparking bays, however, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged or responded to these reports. In December 2019, following the landlord’s stage one response to the other complaints, the resident again raised the issue of social tenants parking in the leaseholder carparking bays. Similarly, in June and July 2020, following the landlord’s stage two response to the other complaints, the resident raised the issue of regulation of the carparking bays. On each occasion, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged or responded to these reports. It is also not evident that the resident has requested that these reports be considered a formal complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the misuse of the leaseholder carparking bays is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident makes a formal complaint and subsequently progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she will not be prevented from then bringing this complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder of the property of the landlord since 30 April 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The block at which the property is located contains two main buildings, one which is made up of leasehold properties, the other which houses social housing tenants. The building which houses social housing tenants is accessible by via the fire door in the building which is made up of leasehold properties. Access via this method is, however, prohibited.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that for a medium level of distress and inconvenience resulting from its service failure, it will offer compensation of £25 – £75.
  5. The landlord operates a fire management policy. The policy notes that “fire doors that are illegally held open should be released and action taken against repeat offenders.”
  6. The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that ASB includes using accommodation for an unlawful purpose. The policy also notes that possible remedies for ASB include working with other agencies, such as the police, and also implementing additional security measures.
  7. The landlord operates a pets policy. The policy notes that tenancy agreements can allow for pets with the permission of the landlord. Permission will be granted where the pet is suited to the accommodation occupied by the resident and will be withdrawn should the pet cause nuisance to other residents. The landlord’s current pets policy is dated 2017, however, the policy notes it had an early iteration of the policy since 2010.

Summary of events

  1. During or before July 2017, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding the unauthorised use of the fire doors by the social housing tenants, the keeping of pets in the building, and ASB concerning the use and supply of illicit substances in the building. This service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaints. The landlord subsequently provided a stage one response on 19 July 2017 in which it advised it had sent letters to residents reminding them not to enter the property via the fire doors. This service has not been provided with a copy of said letter. It also advised that the fire doors could not be locked, and that while the fire doors were previously fitted with an alarm, following requests from residents, its current approach was that each flat in the building was fitted with an individual alarm. Regarding pets, the landlord confirmed that the leaseholder leases prohibited pets, and that it believed “this is also the case for the tenancy agreements, however, permission may be granted in certain cases.” It requested that the resident provide it with any relevant information of flats keeping pets. Regarding alleged drug use at the property, the landlord advised this should be reported in the first instance to the police.
  2. Following this response, the resident requested an escalation to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, however, it is not evident that a stage two response was provided.
  3. On 12 August 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she had observed two people acting suspiciously and requested that it review its CCTV footage to determine where they had gone. She further reported that she believed one of the flats was being used as a “trap house” and that “the issue with the fire doors that enables the dealing.”
  4. On 14 August 2019, the landlord replied and advised that “without direct evidence that the people mentioned in your email were committing a crime or were causing ASB issue, we cannot take further action in this matter.” It noted it would “consider” taking further action if the resident provided evidence, however, it did not specify what it considered evidence. Regarding the request for a review of its CCTV footage, the landlord advised it could not do so as “there is no proof that your request is in connection with criminal activity taking place or a crime being committed.” It recommended that in future she report her concerns to the police.
  5. On 15 August 2019, the resident replied and advised that she believed the individuals had tried to gain access to the building. She further requested the landlord advise her what further evidence would be required before it would take action. The landlord replied on the same date and advised that ASB matters are dealt with by its ‘Leasehold Property Manager’, who was responsible for “leading on communication and carrying out the resulting actions as appropriate.”
  6. On 16 August 2019, the resident confirmed she had passed on her concerns to the police. She also noted that the landlord had previously advised her that it was liaising with the fire department regarding a solution to the “abuse of the fire doors” and requested that the landlord advise her of its proposed resolution. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this request.
  7. On 30 September 2019, the resident noted she had received correspondence from the landlord sent to all residents reminding them of their responsibilities regarding disposal of rubbish. She subsequently requested that the landlord provide residents with a letter addressing the reports of ASB and drug use in the building, the unauthorised keeping of dogs in the building, and the unauthorised use of the fire doors. Regarding the last request, she also advised the landlord of the tenants she suspected were responsible. On the same date, the resident also reported that “children have broken the glass again on the fire alarm in the passage … and the fire escape window was wide open.”
  8. On 6 October 2019, the resident reported that the hinge on the fire door had been damaged and that the door no longer opened fully. She further reported that there had been “an attempt to cause a fire in our block by people that should not be allowed in the leasehold complex” and provided photographic evidence depicting a sign on the wall with burn marks. She requested the damage be repaired and also expressed concern that the landlord had not proposed a resolution to the issue. On 7 October 2019, the landlord advised it had “drafted a letter to be sent out tomorrow regarding the Drug use, Misuse of the interconnecting fire doors and the recent vandalism of the fire doors.”
  9. On or around 27 October 2019, the resident noted that the landlord had still not provided an update regarding the fire doors. On 6 November 2019, the resident requested that the landlord provide her with “the outcome of your investigation into my complaints.” The landlord replied on 15 November 2019 and advised the complaint was still under investigation.
  10. The landlord subsequently provided its stage one response on 29 November 2019 and apologised for the delay to its response. Regarding the unauthorised individuals gaining access to the block and taking drugs, the landlord noted the reports were “linked to a particular flat on the rented core and resulted many reports of anti-social behaviour from residents.” It advised it had subsequently “engage[d] security patrols at our cost and are working with this particular household with the assistance of the Police.” It noted that it had recently attended the building and that “all the doors were checked and were operational at the time.” Regarding the unauthorised use of the fire doors, the landlord advised it had “received information about certain families this information has been shared with our colleagues in housing for their attention and action.” It did not go into detail as to what action would be taken. It noted that residents had requested that the fire doors be sealed to prevent unauthorised use, and advised that it was “looking into ways that we can keep the interconnecting doors locked, but ensuring that they are released in the event of a fire.” It noted, however, that this was “proving difficult as we try to balance the needs of our residents without compromising on health and safety.” It confirmed it would provide an update on this when a decision had been made.
  11. On 10 December 2019, the resident reiterated her complaint regarding the social residents keeping dogs and advised that the “dogs urinate on our property and have defecated in the stairwell and foyer.”
  12. On 17 December 2019, the resident reported that another resident had been assaulted. On the same date, the landlord advised it had forwarded the details onto the police and that its ‘neighbourhood manager’ was investigating the incident. It further advised it would “update you on any actions that have been taken by our neighbourhood team.”
  13. On 17 March 2020 and again on 14 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to reiterate that the fire doors were still broken and that the reports of ASB/drug use in the building were still ongoing. On 17 April 2020, the landlord confirmed the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its internal complaints procedure. On 7 May 2020, the landlord wrote to all residents reminding them that permission was required to keep a pet and that residents should provide it with information about any flat keeping unauthorised pets.
  14. The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 May 2020. Regarding the resident’s request that the fire doors be sealed, the landlord advised that “this is not a possible option we can explore. This is because of fire regulations which by law we cannot breach as a landlord and it is not possible for us to change our position on this point.” It further advised that its ‘Leasehold Department’ was exploring “alternatives to manage misuse of the interconnecting doors” and that these would be discussed with the leaseholders “if they are able to come up with a solution.” Regarding damage to the fire doors and glass panel, it confirmed repairs had been raised and that at its inspection of the block in May 2020 “we found both the interconnecting doors and main front door … to be secure and in working order.”
  15. Regarding the resident’s reports of ASB and drug use in one of the social tenant flats, the landlord agreed it “should have investigated this by opening an Anti-Social Behaviour Case and providing you with feedback on the outcome of our investigations.” It subsequently apologised and made an offer of £30 compensation. It also advised it would open a new ASB case and would contact the resident to discuss it further. It further confirmed it would review its CCTV footage regarding specific incidents at the request of residents. Regarding ownership of dogs by social housing tenants, the landlord advised its pets policy and tenancy agreements allowed for tenants to request to keep pets and that, if they met the criteria in its policy, the landlord may grant permission. It further advised it was unable to discuss individual cases, but that it was aware of the flats the resident had reported.
  16. The resident replied on 1 June 2020 and advised that the ASB issues and suspected drug use was ongoing. She further advised that the landlord use the CCTV footage for the times and dates of incidents she had previously provided to assist in its ASB investigation. Regarding the fire doors, the resident noted she understood they could not be sealed but reiterated that a system that releases them upon an alarm could be implemented. Regarding ownership of pets, she enquired why the residents were not informed by a letter from the landlord that pets were allowed.
  17. On 9 July 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the “decorative cover plates for the door closers” to be repaired and advised that “the camera [does] not cover these areas.” It further advised that any further incidents should be reported to the police. On 16 August 2020, the resident also advised that the landlord had previously refused to review its CCTV footage without further evidence and requested it advise on this position further. It is not evident if the landlord has since responded.

 

Assessment and findings

Misuse of the fire doors

  1. Following the resident’s initial complaint in 2017, it was appropriate that the landlord outlined its position on how it manages the alarm system. The landlord’s fire management policy does not require that the fire doors be fitted with an alarm and so it was reasonable that the landlord advised that each property is fitted with an alarm instead. The landlord’s fire management policy also requires that it take action to prevent misuse of the fire doors. It is not evident that at this point the landlord had been provided with evidence against any individual tenant, and so it was reasonable that it sent letters to all residents reminding them not to misuse the fire doors. While this service has not received a copy of this letter, it is not in dispute that it was sent.
  2. Similarly, following the resident’s request on 30 September 2019 that the landlord write to the residents with a letter addressing the unauthorised use of the fire doors, it was appropriate that on 7 October 2019 the landlord agreed to do so. Again, while this service has not received a copy of this letter, it is not in dispute that it was sent.
  3. While the resident’s reports in August 2019 of misuse of the fire door relate to the same issues responded to by the landlord in July 2017, given that the reports were of ongoing misuse, it was appropriate that the landlord provided a further stage one response. The resident requested an update on the landlord’s proposed solution to the misuse of the fire doors on 16 August 2019, 27 October 2019, and 6 November 2019. While the landlord responded on 15 November 2019 that its investigation was still ongoing, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to acknowledge such reports and set out a timeframe for a response within a reasonable amount of time, which the landlord did not do in this instance. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay to its response in its stage one response.
  4. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that it had received the resident’s reports about specific individuals who were misusing the fire door. Given that its fire management policy notes it will take action against persons misusing the fire door, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised that it was taking action. Additionally, while it advised it was looking into alternative methods of securing the fire doors, it was appropriate that it managed the resident’s expectations by noting the difficulty of balancing the resident’s requests with its health and safety obligations.
  5. Given that the landlord had agreed to provide an update as to its consideration of alternative methods of securing the doors, it was appropriate that it addressed the issue again in its stage two response. It was also appropriate that it made its position clear that given its legal obligations, stating unequivocally that “this is not a possible option we can explore… it is not possible for us to change our position on this point.” While the resident has suggested a system of automatically unlocking doors, the landlord is under no obligation to implement such a system, and the Ombudsman considers that the landlord discharged its responsibilities as outlined in its fire management policy.
  6. Regarding other steps it would take to tackle misuse of the fire doors, it was appropriate that the landlord advised it was continuing to consider alternatives, which would be discussed with leaseholders. The landlord has advised this service that it has liaised with the fire service, whose consultant has advised that “the current arrangement in the form of green emergency break glass devices is the right approach for this block.” The consultant also gave the reasons why an automated unlocking system would not be appropriate, however, it is not evident that this has been conveyed to the resident. The landlord has also advised this service that it is considering other alternatives to manage misuse of the fire doors, including installing additional CCTV, or allowing shared access to the block. It is not evident if this has been conveyed to the resident, or if a timeline for when a decision will be reached has been conveyed to her.

ASB

  1. While the landlord’s ASB policy does not set out the steps it will take in an ASB investigation, the Ombudsman would expect that it would take reasonable steps to investigate before it gave its position in a formal response. In its 2017 stage one response, the landlord advised that the resident report the alleged drug use directly to the police. While this response was reasonable, the landlord’s ASB policy notes that use of the property for an unlawful purpose is considered ASB and therefore it would have been appropriate for it to have opened an ASB investigation, which it did not do in this instance.
  2. Following the resident’s reports on 12 August 2019 of suspicious behaviour, it was again reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report any criminal activity to the police. It was also reasonable for it to request further evidence, however it did not give any guidance as to what additional evidence it required, which would have been helpful for the resident. Given that the resident was concerned that criminal activity was taking place, which is considered ASB in the landlord’s policy, and given that the resident had provided it with the details of when the incident took place, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to review its CCTV as part of its investigation, as requested by the resident, which it did not do in this instance. While it was appropriate that the landlord directed the resident to discuss her concerns with its ‘Leasehold Property Manager’, given that the resident had made her concerns clear to the landlord, it would have been helpful to the resident had it passed on the concerns internally as part of its investigation.
  3. Following the resident’s reports on 30 September 2019 and 6 October 2019 that the fire doors had been vandalised, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to send a letter to the residents addressing this issue and the use of drugs in the building, as requested by the landlord. This service has not been provided with a copy of said letter, however, it is not in dispute that it was sent.
  4. In its 2019 stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s reports and advised that it had taken reasonable action in the form of increased patrols. This was in line with its ASB policy which notes it can introduce “additional security measures” to tackle ASB. It also appropriately confirmed it was working with the police, which was in line with its ASB policy. Given the resident’s concerns of vandalism to the fire doors, it was also appropriate that the landlord confirmed that they were operational at the time of its visit. Additionally, following the resident’s reports of an assault in the building, it was appropriate that the landlord directly forwarded the report to the police and advised that its neighbourhood manager was investigating the incident. While it did not open an ASB case at this point, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised it would keep the resident updated as to its investigation.
  5. Following the resident’s reports that the vandalism ASB incidents were ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord reiterated in its stage two response that the doors were operational, and that it had arranged for the damage to be repaired. The landlord has advised this service that the repairs have now been completed.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion and based on the landlord’s ASB policy, the resident’s reports of vandalism and drug use at the building required the landlord to open an ASB case and reasonably investigate the resident’s reports. Its failure to do so amounted to service failure, for which an amount of compensation is appropriate. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord agreed in its stage two response that it should have opened an ASB case and kept the resident informed of the outcomes of its investigation. It was also appropriate that it made an offer of £30 compensation, which is in line with its compensation policy, and what the Ombudsman would expect to see in this type of circumstances.
  7. It was appropriate that the landlord agreed to open an ASB case and to discuss the matter with the resident further. It was also appropriate that the landlord agreed to review any CCTV footage at the request of residents as part of its investigation. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident subsequently expressed concern that the landlord had previously advised it would not be able to review CCTV and it is not evident if the landlord has clarified this point.
  8. The landlord has advised this service that it has now concluded its investigation into the alleged ASB, noting that it is no longer open “as a result of lack of evidence.” It confirmed it had requested evidence from the police, (a copy of the police’s disclosure has been provided to this service), and advised that the disclosure did not provide it with any evidence on which it could take further action. The landlord has also advised this service that it has informed residents of the outcome of its investigation (a copy of said correspondence has been provided to this service) and that it has requested that residents keep it informed of any further incidents.

Pets

  1. The landlord’s pets policy notes that a resident may only keep a pet if their tenancy agreement allows it and the landlord grants permission. It is not evident whether any tenancy agreements allowed for pets at the time of the landlord’s initial stage one response in July 2017, however, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that “permission may be granted in certain cases.” Given that pets can only be kept with the landlord’s permission, it was also reasonable that it requested the resident provide it with details of any flat keeping a pet.
  2. Although there was a significant time delay between the request and the letter, it was also appropriate that the landlord wrote to residents reminding them of the rules regarding keeping pets, in line with the resident’s request.
  3. While the resident had noted she wished for the landlord to remind residents of the rules regarding pets, it is not evident that she had made a formal complaint regarding pets prior to the landlord’s 2019 stage one response. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not address the issue in that response. Following the resident’s expression of further concerns, particularly that they had fouled the entrance area, it was appropriate that the landlord reiterated the rules regarding pets in its stage two response. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of specific flats who keep dogs, and it was reasonable, given the landlord’s data protection obligations, for it to advise it could not go into any further detail.
  4. Although the resident queried on 1 June 2020 why the landlord had not written to residents regarding its rules on pets, it is evident that it had done so on 7 May 2020, and additionally, as it publishes a pets policy, continual reminders were not necessary.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. misuse of the fire doors; and
    2. keeping pets in the building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning:
  1. antisocial behaviour (ASB), including:
    1. vandalism of the fire doors; and
    2. unauthorised visitors using the building for the use/supply of illicit substances.

Reasons

Misuse of the fire doors

  1. The landlord appropriately wrote to residents reminding them of the rules regarding using the fire doors. The landlord also appropriately responded to the resident’s requests that they be more effectively sealed and clearly set out its position and reasons why it would be unable to do so.

ASB

  1. The landlord failed to open an investigation into the resident’s reports of ASB and did not initially provide the resident with assistance in reporting her complaints to the police, nor did it give her guidance on what evidence it required in order to open an investigation. Following the resident’s continued reports of ASB, the landlord appropriately recognised that it should have opened an ASB investigation and offered reasonable redress. It also agreed to open an ASB investigation and liaise with the resident going forward, and it has provided evidence to this service showing it has done so.

Pets

  1. The landlord appropriately advised the resident in both 2017 and in its stage two response in 2020 that it granted permission for pets in certain circumstances. It wrote to residents to remind them of its rules, as requested by the resident, and appropriately acknowledged the flats reported to it by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to advise the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. the outcome of its discussions with the fire service regarding alternative fire door systems and its subsequent position;
    2. a timeline for reaching a decision about alternative methods to manage misuse of the fire doors; and
    3. its position on reviewing CCTV footage of alleged ASB incidents at the request of residents.