A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202118562)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118562

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

10 March 2023

 

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 decision not to remove the steps at the front of the resident’s building.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord leases the building from the freeholder on a long term basis. The building lobby is accessed via three steps at the front of the building. Residents can also gain access from the back, via a gated car park.
  2. Members of the public had been gathering on the steps at the front of the building and causing anti-social behaviour (ASB). Due to multiple reports involving the areas at the front and back of the building, a community trigger was activated in late 2020.
  3. In April 2021 the landlord surveyed the steps to determine whether they could be altered to prevent the gatherings. It was decided that this was not possible. That same month, a number of agencies met (including the landlord) to discuss what actions could be taken to tackle the ASB. After the meeting, a decision was made to close the community trigger as the reports of ASB had reduced.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord in approximately September 2021 (this Service has not been provided with the exact dates of the initial complaint) regarding the landlord’s decision to not remove the steps. The resident felt that the removal of the steps would stop the public from congregating in this area and causing ASB.
  5. The landlord provided a stage one response on 21 September 2021, setting out its reasons for not removing the steps. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 November 2021, and this Service contacted the landlord the next day requesting that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the internal complaints process.
  6. This Service chased the landlord on 10 January 2022. The complaint was escalated on 17 January and a final response was sent to the resident on 17 February 2022. The landlord said it had:
    1. investigated the resident’s request to remove the steps but due to many factors it was not a viable option
    2. put a number of measures in place regarding the behaviour of non-residents using the public highway.
  7. The resident contacted this Service again on 4 March 2022 and confirmed that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted this Service to investigate the matter. In order to resolve his complaint, the resident is seeking the removal of the steps to the front of the building.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
  2. 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 only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  3. The information available to this Service shows that the resident reported ASB (including both verbal and physical assaults) from members of the public who gathered on the steps at the front of the building. In light of this, the landlord was obliged to take action to investigate and address this. The evidence shows that it did so.
  4. On 8 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended the building to establish if the steps could be removed, or if there were any other adaptations that could potentially be made. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has no specific policy relating to the request for the steps to be removed, but this shows that it acted fairly by considering this option, and was taking steps to investigate and find a solution to the issues that the resident had raised. Obtaining a professional opinion on whether or not the steps could be removed was an appropriate action to take. A copy of the surveyor’s report has been provided to this Service, which sets out why removal of the steps was not feasible.
  5. In addition, this Service has seen records dated April 2021, which outlined other actions the landlord had taken to address the issue:
    1. installed a new rear door entrance
    2. fitted CCTV to the front and rear elevations of the building
    3. worked with the freeholder to install a gate to the car park
    4. incorporated an external security presence to patrol the building, which (at the time) was still in place.
  6. Again, this shows that the landlord was working to try and find a solution to the issue.
  7. In September 2021, the landlord received the resident’s complaint and investigated the decision to not remove the steps at the front of the building. The stage one and two responses both detailed the following reasons why the landlord had made the decision that the steps could not be removed:
    1. A surveyor had assessed the work and due to the sheer change in level from the street to the lobby, but it was not feasible.
    2. Major structural alteration would be required including excavating the whole lobby area to make it level.
    3. Additional options were also considered, but due to planning and fire safety legislation, they were also not viable alternatives.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably in providing the resident with details of the action it had taken regarding the steps, and an explanation as to why their removal was not a feasible option. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its professional surveyor.
  9. The stage two response went on to say that that the landlord had a sizeable intermediate and private rental portfolio and that it was happy to work with the resident to explore the possibility of moving to another site. This shows that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was willing to explore other options to try and resolve the matter for him.
  10. It is clear that the resident has been distressed by the situation, and the Ombudsman empathises with the impact that the reported ASB has had on him, and his desire to have the steps removed. However, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s decision regarding removal of the steps.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to remove the steps at the front of the building.