A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202001096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001096

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

4 January 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offer, in respect of its response to a reported problem with the resident’s kitchen sink.  

Summary of events

2. On 11 November 2019, the resident reported to the landlord an “eggy smell” from his kitchen sink. In the absence of a response, he emailed again on 19 November 2019. The landlord responded, advising that an operative would attend to inspect a communal issue he had also reported on the sixth floor.  The issue with the sink was not acknowledged. In the landlord’s email of 21 November 2019, it advised that a job had been raised.
3. The resident telephoned the landlord on 27 November 2019, complaining about its inaction and stating that the unresolved issue with the sink had now resulted in a leak of “foul smelling water” which had spread under the kitchen units.
4. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident then reported an issue with the kitchen sink on 1 December 2019. The landlord’s out-of-hours service attended the same day and found that there was air trapped in the pipes which was causing “foul smelling water” to back up, although the sink would then suddenly gurgle and “run perfectly”.  As a result of this visit, works were scheduled for 6 December 2019 for a further inspection/camera inspection. It is not clear if this date was agreed with the resident, but the landlord’s records note that it was unable to gain access to the property on 6 and/or 10 December 2019 and it could not reach the resident by telephone, so it left, leaving a calling card.
5. On 9 December 2019, the resident telephoned the landlord asking for a formal complaint to be raised due to the lack of action it had taken. The landlord responded on 11 December 2019, advising that it would allocate a case number and coordinator to the complaint. In the absence of any further contact, the resident chased the landlord on 20 December 2019, and it responded on 9 January 2020, when it acknowledged the complaint.
6. The landlord’s records indicate that it was unable to gain access to the property on a further occasion, on 24 December 2019 and could not make contact with the resident, despite calling.  It is again unclear if this appointment was pre-arranged with the resident.
7. On 15 January 2020, the landlord advised the resident that a camera inspection had been arranged for 23 January 2020. However, the landlord’s records indicate that, on 17 January 2020, the job was closed due to lack of access. The chronology of events continues to be unclear, with the landlord then attending the property to carry out an inspection on 23 January 2020.  This is further complicated by the fact that the resident has said that, due to the access point being “glued” on, the inspection could not be carried out on this date.  The landlord has not made reference to this in its records. 
8. Having not heard about rescheduling the inspection, the resident chased the landlord on 28 January 2020 in respect of both this and his complaint. He has said that he was unable to get through on the telephone and so utilised the landlord’s webchat function.
9. The landlord’s records indicate that a job was raised on 31 January 2020 to “clear and survey stack”, although it is noted that on this date it “could not replicate fault”.  It is unclear what is meant by this.  What is clear from the records, however, is that the landlord telephoned the resident on this date and spoke to him about the issue, which was “ongoing but intermittent”.  The records state that the resident “mentioned this issue wasn’t happening at the moment” but that he had had two visits from “drainage” and two from the plumber and it still was not rectified. On the same date it was also noted that the resident was available that coming Sunday.
10. On 3 February 2020, the resident has said that he expressed his dissatisfaction via the landlord’s webchat and that he was told that the member of staff he needed to talk to was at lunch but would call him back. However, this did not happen.
11. On 5 February 2020 an inspection was raised for 25 February 2020. On the same date, the landlord emailed the resident, following a telephone call with him, apologising for the lack of communication and coordination and explaining what it believed the issue with the sink to be. It reassured him that, as he had separate stacks for the bathroom foul water and the kitchen waste water, it would not be sewage that was surging into the sink but the odour would be from the waste and air in the stack pipe.
12. On 10 February 2020 the landlord’s records indicate that works were re-raised. In any event, the inspection scheduled for 25 February 2020 was cancelled on the day due to the member of staff who was due to visit, being off sick. The resident then contacted the landlord on 28 February 2020, to reiterate his dissatisfaction and to provide photographs. The landlord then attended the property on 2 March 2020 (albeit late, according to the resident) and resolved the issue.
13. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 10 March 2020, it explained that the complaint had originally been with a member of staff who had since left and that it was reviewing the complaint with a view to it reaching a resolution. It understood the issues had been resolved but that the resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation it had offered. It explained that it may offer compensation where there have been service failure/s but an offer of compensation is not intended as a way to reimburse rent. With this in mind, it offered £440 compensation (£200 for “timescales” and £240 for “stress and inconvenience”).
14. In the resident’s response of 11 March 2020, he set out a chronology of what he had experienced and asked the landlord to reconsider the level of compensation offered and reimburse him half of the rent for the four months it took for the issue to be resolved. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and lack of coordination to get the matter resolved and he did not believe the landlord had treated the situation with any sense of urgency, care or ownership. He referred to a foul smell that pervaded the flat and caused embarrassment when he had visitors, the number of calls he had made to get the issues resolved, the missed appointments and time taken off work and being unable to regularly use the sink, which led to having to eat out, causing additional expense.
15. The landlord responded, making an increased offer of £560 compensation (£200 for timescales, £120 for communication and £240 for stress and inconvenience) and confirming that it could not go beyond this. The resident did not accept the compensation.

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out urgent repairs within 24–hours and non-urgent repairs at a time convenient to the resident.
17. The landlord has a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days. It will make contact with the complainant within three working days thereafter, to discuss the complaint and let the complainant know how long it is likely to take to resolve. The landlord aims to provide a full response within ten working days, although complex cases may take longer.
18. The landlord’s complaints procedural guidance states that “when a complainant is unhappy with the stage one outcome, they have the right to escalate to stage two”. The complaints policy states that “if a complaint has been dealt with at stage one and compensation has been awarded as part of the outcome, this cannot form part of an escalation to stage two of the process”.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy:
    1. sets out circumstances in which the landlord may offer compensation, besides for ‘loss of amenity’. These include where the landlord has taken appropriate action but has delayed in doing so and the delay has caused wrong and where the complainant has suffered stress and inconvenience;
    2. includes a matrix of compensation amounts, distinguishing different factors – ‘detriment, including stress and inconvenience’ and ‘length of time’ – and severity of the impact – ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’.  The maximum payment for stress and inconvenience is set at £240 and for length of time, £240, although there must have been a delay of more than six months; for delays of 3-6 months, the maximum amount of compensation is £160;
    3. references a discretionary additional compensation payment of up to £150 where service failure has caused detriment and/or a level of stress and inconvenience beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate.  Situations where this may be relevant is where the landlord’s communication has been poor.

Assessment and findings

20. The landlord was obliged to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time of being on notice, in accordance with its responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
21. In this case, the issue reported on 11 November 2019 did not constitute an emergency repair, which the landlord would be required to attend and resolve within 24 hours in accordance with its policy. This is because an “eggy smell”, whilst unpleasant, was not causing (at that point), any loss of amenity, leak or damage to the property and did not endanger the health and safety of the resident.
22. As a non-emergency, the landlord was required to arrange a suitable time with the resident to inspect and arrange any further investigation and/or repair works. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not do this. It was also inappropriate and unacceptable that it did not respond at all and further that, in its acknowledgement of 21 November 2019 (in response to a chaser from the resident) it only addressed a separate issue and not the issue of the sink.
23. The landlord ultimately delayed in its inspection and repair of the issue, taking four months in total to resolve it, which was inappropriately lengthy by any reasonable standard. It has appropriately accepted that it delayed in carrying out the repair in its formal response to the complaint; the issue of delay is not in question, although it is not entirely clear why it took so long.
24. The landlord’s records indicate that there were two or three occasions when there was no access to the property. The resident had an obligation to allow access for repairs in accordance with the terms of the tenancy. However, it is not known whether these routine repair appointments were made by mutual agreement, as stated in the landlord’s policy, or whether they were unannounced. It would be both unreasonable and inappropriate for the landlord to not communicate an appointment with the resident and then to close the works order down due to lack of access where notification of the appointment was not made.
25. Notwithstanding this, however, the works took longer than was reasonable and this is accepted in the landlord’s response to the complaint and its offer of compensation in recognition of the delay, as well as poor communication and coordination between its departments and/or contractors in arranging to get the works done. Sometimes repairs do take time and more than one appointment or inspection to put right, but in this case, the issue took too long to resolve and there was evidently poor communication throughout.
26. The resident was understandably dissatisfied with the length of time this repair took and the associated stress and inconvenience this caused. The resident has stated that a “foul smell” pervaded the property and the upsurging of water in the sink caused issues with using it.
27. Importantly, however, the resident did not have raw sewage coming into the property and this was confirmed by the landlord in its email of 5 February 2020. There was consequently no issue of health and safety or a need for a decant in this case. Further, the problem at both initial inspection on 1 December 2019 and later, in the telephone call of 31 January 2020, was identified as intermittent and not a constant block of the sink for four months.  In terms of loss of amenity, which the resident has claimed, this is not the case, as the sink was not constantly out of use. Compensation for loss of an amenity is therefore not relevant here.
28. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for the delay (“timescales”) exceeds that which is set out in its compensation matrix, which states that delay of up to six months attracts a maximum compensation amount of £160.  The £240 offered for the stress and inconvenience is the maximum in accordance with the compensation policy.
29. In terms of compensation for communication, the landlord’s policy allows for a separate amount of £150 which may be offered in circumstances, for instance, where communication has been unreasonably poor. Although the landlord offered £120 in recognition of identified failures in communication, the £30 gap between this amount and the maximum is more than offset by the landlord’s overpayment of £40, in respect of delay. This is also assuming the maximum amount was proportionate to the detriment and whilst this situation was unpleasant for the resident, the Ombudsman notes that the service failures identified are not at the more severe end of the scale.
30. Taking all the circumstances into account, the total amount of compensation offered was appropriate and proportionate as, despite the service failures identified, the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation; compensation is not an automatic right in the circumstances described in this case. Further, the level of compensation offered was in accordance with its compensation policy and in excess of what the Ombudsman would award for service failure of this kind, which would be up to £250, as per this Service’s published ‘Remedies Guidance’. The landlord was not obliged to reimburse rent because there was no loss of amenity, in accordance with the definition of what this entails, and there was no loss of a room or any other factor that would warrant compensation to the level sought by the resident. 
31. The fact that the rent is expensive (a factor the resident has referred to in some of his communications about the problems he faced) is irrelevant to the amount of compensation he should be paid as the statutory requirement and threshold for compensation (that is, loss of amenity or loss of a room) is not met.
32. Compensation is only one way of resolving a complaint, often it is important that works are undertaken, that an apology is issued, that steps are taken to explain what went wrong and why, and actions are put in place to help prevent a recurrence. The landlord has met most of these criteria and the Ombudsman makes a recommendation in terms of root cause analysis and prevention of a recurrence in future.
33. Turning specifically to the landlord’s handling of the complaint itself, this was clearly delayed and the landlord did not respond as it should have done, in accordance with its complaints policy and procedural guidance. Additionally, the landlord appeared to offer compensation outside of the complaints process, prior to providing a stage one response, whereas an offer of compensation should follow an investigation of the issues. Without having investigated and responded to the complaint, it is difficult to see how this could have been done. A thorough investigation also demonstrates that a complaint and request for compensation has been taken seriously and the amount of compensation offered has been properly assessed. This helps to assure the resident that due diligence has been followed and supports any decision reached. The landlord did not do this.
34. The landlord’s response following the resident’s request for escalation of the matter was informally written and did not appear to be a formal stage two complaint response. The landlord simply added additional money to the original offer and the combination of this, in additional to the lack of formality, explanation or addressing of the wider issues, read for an unsatisfactory complaint response.
35. This response echoed some of the difficulties with the stage one response, insofar as it focussed purely on compensation, rather than what went wrong and why and how the landlord would prevent a recurrence. It also did not offer an apology or appropriate level of understanding or empathy for the experience the resident had had. Whilst the landlord apologised outside of the formal complaints process, responding to a complaint is an opportunity for it to thoroughly demonstrate that it has heard and understood the concerns and a chance for it to put things right in the different ways described in this report. It is not enough to refer to compensation alone, even if that is the sole focus of the resident.
36. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation with regards to the findings in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling, although does not order additional compensation because the level of compensation offered by the landlord already exceeds what the Ombudsman would deem to be reasonable redress in respect of the complaint as a whole. 
37. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.  The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as in this case.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reasons

39. The landlord carried out the required repairs and, having identified failures in service (particularly delays and poor communication), it offered compensation in accordance with its compensation policy and Ombudsman guidance.

Recommendations

40. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. re-offer the £560 compensation to the resident as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis;
    2. carry out a root cause analysis exercise to ascertain the reasons for the delay and poor communication identified in this case. It should create an action plan with timescales for implementation, with a view to helping to prevent a future occurrence;
    3. review its complaints policy and procedure to ensure that it responds to complaints in a way that is congruent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.