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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201914932)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914932

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 March 2021


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the resident’s kitchen;
    2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant. The tenancy began on 25 August 1997 and the property is a two-bedroom house.
  2. The resident is disabled and the landlord carried out adaptations to her bathroom at least as early as 2002.
  3. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to ‘keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises and the landlord’s fixtures and fittings including… kitchen units’ and ‘to keep in good repair… and proper working order any installations including… water pipes’.
  4. The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that sets out two repair priorities – ‘urgent’ (to be completed within 24 hours) and ‘standard’ (to be completed at next available convenient appointment). It states it will keep residents informed of progress and ‘will ensure that the property is left in an acceptable state, removing any rubbish and clearing up after ourselves as appropriate’.
  5. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it states it will ensure the resident is contacted and the complaint is passed to a ‘complaints champion’ within five working days. At Stage two, the landlord can conduct a panel review and offer a full response within 25 working days but it states that it will not escalate complaints to this stage that are regarding the level of compensation awarded at Stage one. It adds that staff complaints should be responded to within 10 working days.
  6. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to award compensation where there has been a service failure. It states that it can award £20 per week for loss of use of a kitchen, £2-4 per day for loss of hot water (depending on the time of year) and up to £150 for instances of service failure.

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s repairs records show it raised jobs on 21 May 2019 and 6 June 2019 related to wooden kitchen units and worktops. The jobs were promptly closed but it is not clear from the records what actions were undertaken.
  2. The resident submitted an online complaint form on 8 October 2019. She stated that she had reported broken elements to her kitchen in May 2019 and that the landlord had attended and taken photographs but no repairs had been carried out. She added that the worktops were rotting along with the sink and cupboards. She advised that she had chased progress for months but no further action had been taken. She mentioned that her mental health had been impacted and she felt that the landlord viewed her as unimportant due to her disability.
  3. There were internal emails between the landlord and its contractor during late October to early November 2019. The contractor reported that it had attended on 1 November 2019 and fitted a new worktop, sink and base unit with new pipework and waste also installed. It added that it would need to re-attend on 13 November 2019 so three new unit doors could be installed.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records show that there was a report of a loss of water supply at the property on 1 November 2019 with further orders logged on 2 and 3 November 2019 due to a lack of hot water.
  5. The landlord’s repairs records show that kitchen unit doors and handles were fitted on 13 November 2019.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 21 November 2019. It stated that:
    1. its contractors had advised that kitchen repairs were completed on 13 November 2019
    2. an apology was given for the failure to measure units on 23 October 2019 that led to delays
    3. compensation of £75 would be awarded for its service failure.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 November 2019. It stated that it had reviewed the complaint and would increase the compensation to £150 ‘for timescales’.
  8. The resident replied on the same day to express continued dissatisfaction with the attitude of members of staff and the level of compensation. She stated that:
    1. the plumbing works on 31 October 2019 had caused an airlock and that the carpenter had failed to carry out any works to the worktop and unit doors
    2. she reported loss of water supply on 1 November 2019 but the landlord only managed to send the carpenter back to the property who could not fix the plumbing issue
    3. an engineer attended on 2 November 2019 and some cold water was briefly accessible from the kitchen tap but the plumbing issue was not resolved until 3 November 2019
    4. she was assured on 4 November 2019 that the kitchen works would be completed as soon as possible but the carpenter did not attend until 13 November 2019 and materials had been left in her garden.
  9. The landlord’s repairs records show jobs raised in late November 2019 and early December 2019 in response to reports about the water supply not having been connected to a garden tap but it was noted on 2 December 2019 that the tap was working.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2019. It offered to log new complaints about the members of staff the resident had raised concerns about. It also revised the compensation again to £305, made up of £150 for ‘timescales’, £75 for communication and £80 for quality of works. It also said it would arrange to collect materials from the garden.
  11. The resident stated on 16 December 2019 that she was still dissatisfied by the compensation, wanted a complaint to be logged about members of staff and that the materials in her garden were still there.
  12. The landlord’s repairs records show that it collected rubbish from the area by the front door on 20 December 2019 although a further record related to clearing materials was made on 16 July 2020.
  13. The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 23 December 2019. It stated that it had reviewed the case and listened to a recording of a telephone conversation on 27 November 2019. It concluded that:
    1. the conversation between the member of staff and resident’s daughter was ‘difficult’ but there were no concerns with the conduct or attitude of the member of staff
    2. the member of staff had only been tasked with reviewing the compensation award which she had done appropriately based on the information she was given
    3. an apology was offered for delay in a previous complaint handler making contact and the revised compensation offer had taken this into account.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Kitchen repairs

  1. The landlord’s records show that it initially raised repairs orders to attend to damaged kitchen units and a worktop during May-June 2019. It closed these orders and the resident has reported that members of staff attended to survey the kitchen but this Service has not been provided with any evidence of actions on the part of the landlord until it considered the resident’s complaint in October 2019. This delay was unreasonable and it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord considered the resident’s disability when assessing the condition of her kitchen and the need for repair works.
  2. The resident reported the kitchen repairs again on 8 October 2019 when she submitted her complaint. On this occasion, the landlord assessed the works required and completed these on 13 November 2019. Although it subsequently found there had been delay caused by its contractors failing to measure up during an appointment on 23 October 2019, this was a reasonable timeframe in which to complete the repairs given the carpentry and plumbing works that were needed.
  3. During these works, the resident reported that she experienced a loss of water supply on 1 November 2019. The landlord has demonstrated that it raised appropriate repairs orders for this report but it is not clear from the records why it took until 3 November 2019 for the supply to be reinstated. This report should have been classed as urgent, particularly given the resident’s disability, and should have been completed within 24 hours according to its responsive repairs policy. It was therefore inappropriate that it took two days for the water supply to be restored.
  4. The resident raised continued concerns after mid-November 2019 about follow-on jobs to re-connect the water supply to a garden tap and to clear materials from her garden. It responded to the former report within one week which was a reasonable timescale. Although it recorded collecting some items from the property in December 2019, the landlord’s repairs records indicate that it failed to clear all materials from the garden until July 2020. This was inappropriate as its responsive repairs policy requires it to remove any rubbish from a property.
  5. In mitigation, this Service has not seen any evidence to indicate that either the kitchen or garden were out of use due to these delays. The repairs were originally raised in the summer of 2019 following reports that some kitchen unit doors were falling away from the hinges and the worktop was swollen. Whilst this will have been a source of concern for the resident, it was unlikely that the kitchen was out of use or that this impacted the resident in the same way that more serious disrepair may have. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a rate of £20 per week where a kitchen is out of use but it was appropriate for the landlord to decide that this level of compensation was not proportionate for the delays in the kitchen repairs.
  6. The landlord has awarded compensation of £230 in recognition of service failures related to the kitchen repair delay and quality of works. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a case. A range of £50 to £250 is recommended where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant, including distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s decision to award compensation at the upper end of this range was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
  7. In summary, the landlord delayed in progressing kitchen repairs during June-October 2019, caused the resident to be without a water supply for two days during the repairs and delayed in tidying materials from the resident’s garden until July 2020. However, the landlord’s apologies and compensation award of £230 have provided reasonable and proportionate redress for these service failures.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint about the kitchen repairs on 8 October 2019. The landlord failed to respond to the complaint until 21 November 2019. Although the landlord’s complaints policy does not prescribe a timescale for stage one complaint responses, this was an unreasonable period for the resident to await a response to her complaint.
  2. The landlord awarded £75 compensation for repairs delays within its original stage one response although it failed to account for its failure to resolve the kitchen repairs between May-October 2019. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why this earlier delay had occurred and it was unreasonable that it was silent on this issue.
  3. The resident disputed the level of compensation and provided more details of the impact the landlord’s service failures had on her. As a result, the landlord reviewed its decision and increased the compensation level on two occasions – these were within decisions dated 29 November 2019 and 2 December 2019. It was reasonable for the landlord to promptly review its complaint decisions when the resident provided more details. This demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to revise its decisions as more evidence was supplied. It did so without a full stage two panel review which was in accordance with its complaints policy on escalations about compensation.
  4. When the landlord reviewed its compensation decision for the final time, it increased the total award to £305. It advised that £75 of this award was in recognition of failures in communication. It was not clear exactly when these communication failures occurred but it clarified in a later response that this was related to mismanagement of the original complaint.
  5. On 16 December 2019, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with members of staff who had been involved in managing her complaint. As a result, the landlord conducted a separate complaint investigation which involved a manager reviewing the case and listening to a telephone call recording. It provided a response on 23 December 2019 where it confirmed (as per the previous paragraph) that £75 of its compensation award was partially in recognition of the mishandling of the original complaint but that it had not established fault on the part of the manager who subsequently managed the complaint – these actions were reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord had investigated the resident’s allegations about its handling of the complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a case. A range of £50 to £250 is recommended where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Examples include occasions where a landlord has repeatedly failed to return phone calls or caused a resident unnecessary time and trouble. The landlord’s compensation award of £75 for its communication failures through the complaints process was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
  7. In summary, it is not disputed that the landlord did not handle the resident’s original complaint appropriately – it delayed for several weeks in providing a response and has acknowledged communication failures. However, its subsequent apologies, reviews of the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and compensation award of £75 have provided reasonable and proportionate redress for the complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for the service failures identified in its handling of:
    1. the kitchen repairs and
    2. the related complaint.

 

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the resident’s kitchen and in carrying out a follow-on job to clear materials from her garden. Its apologies and compensation award of £230 were fair given the circumstances of the case.
  2. There was service failure on the part of the landlord in its communication with the resident when she made her original complaint. Its investigations, apologies and compensation award of £75 were fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the proposed compensation of £305 within four weeks of the date of this report.