A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202121643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121643

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

11 January 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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs to her roof and associated remedial work.
   2. The related complaint.

Background

2. The resident and her young child live in a two-bedroom second floor flat in a converted house owned and managed by the landlord, and have no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord. They have an assured shorthold tenancy which began in 2015.
3. Historical evidence indicates that there were repairs relating to a hole in the roof, mould in the hallway and a leak into the resident’s bedroom in 2015 and 2018. There is then a gap in evidence before a repair was raised in June 2020 for scaffolding to be erected in connection with a roof repair as there were tiles missing, the living room was cold, and birds were entering the attic. An asbestos report found ‘very low risk’ from high level roof tiles and cement slates to wall and pitched roof. In October 2020, the best value quote for replacing the roof was recorded at over £53,000.
4. There was considerable discussion following this between the resident and the landlord regarding temporary decant accommodation for the resident and her child. The resident stated that she had bowls collecting water from leaks, mould on the ceiling and pigeons in the loft. The landlord recorded a complaint made by the resident on 15 October 2020, but this has not been seen by this Service.
5. The landlord’s complaint response on 27 January 2021 said that repairs would be completed on 8 February 2021 and remedial work would begin on 15 February 2021. The landlord apologised for poor service, but said it was unable to provide satisfactory answers to repairs raised in 2015. Compensation of £560 was offered to include inconvenience, communication failure, quality of service and timescales in responding to the complaint. The landlord also said that it would consider payment towards additional heating costs upon receipt of evidence.
6. The resident appealed against the stage one complaint response on 22 February 2021, and stated that the landlord was aware of the issues prior to her moving in. The leak in her bedroom started in 2018 and continued until the roof collapsed in 2020. She stated that the living room had not been used for two years due to concerns about the effect of the mould on her daughter’s health. The resident felt the landlord had not sufficiently investigated or explained why no action had been taken before the complaint, and that the decant issue had been a debacle.
7. The landlord apologised for the delay in a complaint response in June 2021, and a final response letter was issued on 8 December 2021 which said that all repair and remedial work had now been completed, and the landlord was satisfied that the stage one response had offered appropriate compensation. It offered a further £40 in respect of the delay in the final response, to make a total of £600.
8. The resident feels that the offer does not reflect the 7-year battle she has had, the leaks in multiple rooms, animals nesting, and constant cleaning of mould while there was an obvious hole in the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has stated that the delay in the repair has affected her and her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repairs at the property and her family’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Assessment

Roof repairs

10. Section 2 (3) of the sample tenancy agreement provided by the landlord says that the landlord will repair the structure of the property, including the roof. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy – Appendix 1, shows the landlord as responsible for roofs/ceilings as a ‘standard priority’. Section 3.4 of the policy says that repairs will be allocated as ‘urgent’ (response time within 24 hrs)  or ‘standard’ (next available appointment convenient with tenant)  when booked.
11. There is a general lack of records relating to the repairs, both in terms of being reported and jobs being raised. The landlord has provided some database entries but as an example, there is an asbestos report dated June 2020 referring to the refurbishment of the roof, but there is nothing prior to this to explain how this repair arose.
12. There is then a gap of four months before the estimate for the replacement of the roof. However, there is no evidence of a report indicating what was found at the property, either regarding the roof itself, or the subsequent damage to the resident’s home, in terms of decoration. This points to a failing in record keeping as there is nothing from the landlord to support why the replacement of the roof was required, and what the effect on the property was from the leak. There is no clear explanation from the landlord as to what has occurred here in relation to the repair beyond that a repair was reported at some time prior to June 2020, and the remedial work was completed in March 2021, nine months later.
13. The landlord does not dispute that the leak from the roof was evident throughout the duration of the resident’s tenancy, or that it caused damp and mould inside the property. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records such as inspection reports and repairs conducted at the end of the previous tenancy. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence relating to the period prior to the resident’s tenancy.
14. After offers of temporary accommodation were made and declined, the resident was decanted to a hotel for two weeks in December 2020 for the purposes of working during the day only and remained resident at the property throughout the work. There is a lack of response from the landlord in respect of the changes around the decant, and no explanation as to why it took so long for the matter to be resolved. The resident raised this in her stage two appeal in February 2021. The reply ten months later provided no further clarification or remedy beyond a £40 increase in compensation due to the delay in the response.
15. However, while the records submitted by the landlord appear inadequate, there is nothing to support that the resident’s living room was uninhabitable for two years. There are no photographs, or statements by a third party to confirm or deny that this was the case. Given the absence of any contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding about the resident being unable to access any rooms in the property. This is not to suggest that the resident’s statement is doubted, but that it is not possible to find either way on this issue.
16. In terms of the additional heating bills, it is noted that the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of the additional costs and that it would consider reimbursing her for this. The resident responded that as the roof had always been damaged, she had always incurred additional heating costs at the property, and this seems reasonable. However, it should be possible at this stage, almost two years after the roof was repaired, to compare how much energy was used (rather than the cost, given the increases since this time) prior to the roof being repaired and since. The resident is on a prepaid gas meter, but as the landlord has said, if she gives permission, it can liaise with the utility suppliers to check the energy used at the address.
17. Regardless of the lack of detail, it is not in dispute that the roof at the property required replacing, rather than repairing, from at least June 2020. This suggests significant damage which the resident and her child lived with for the best part of a year, including through the winter. The compensation of £600 offered by the landlord (£450 of which was in respect of the repair, the rest due to delay in the complaint) does not reflect the severity of the situation the resident was in during this time.
18. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests sums of up to £1,000 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and this would appear to apply in this case. It is reasonable to conclude that having a leak in the roof of an attic property over such an extended period would have significant impact on the wellbeing of the resident’s family. It is fair in all the circumstances that a higher sum be paid in respect of the landlord’s delay in replacing the roof, lack of explanation about the delay, the confusion around the decant and the lack of adequate explanation regarding the historical condition of the property.
19. As set out above the landlord’s repair records are inadequate. It is vital that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate that the landlord has met its obligations under its repairs policy. The Ombudsman has made a further order below for compensation regarding this.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaint’s information online says that complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and a ‘comprehensive answer’ will be given at the first stage. A separate paragraph under ‘communication’ says that the landlord aims to give a response to complaints within 10 working days.
21. The complaints procedure says that if a review panel (to be decided by the complaints team as appropriate i.e., where a complaint will require major works of over £5,000 or involves significant or repeated service failures by more than one service area) is to be held, this should be done within 20 days.
22. The stage one response of 27 January 2021 does not outline the terms of the complaint and the landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint it was responding to. It gives a date of 14 October 2020 for information being submitted, and compensation offered for the delay in the response, this seems likely to be the date of the formal complaint. The resident appealed further on 22 February 2021, but the stage two response was not issued until 8 December 2021, almost ten months later. Both stages were inordinately late by the landlord’s published timescales, and this is not in dispute.
23. There is no explanation as to why the resident was not offered a panel hearing to investigate the stage two complaint. Although the complaints procedure does say this is a decision for the complaints department, the criteria quoted would appear to cover the resident’s situation, given that it concerns repairs valued at more than £53,000 and significant or repeated service failures by more than one service area (repairs and complaints). A hearing of this kind may have given the resident more confidence that her complaint was given an open and transparent investigation and provided the opportunity for her to highlight the effects of the delay in the repair.
24. Although there is no record of earlier complaints the resident refers to having made about staff in November 2020 and another regarding unmatched wallpaper when the living room was redecorated, these were raised by the resident in her email of 1 September 2021. This gave the landlord ample time to investigate prior to the stage two response in December 2021. However, there is no indication that this was done or has since been addressed.
25. The complaint responses did not deny the seriousness of the outstanding repair. While they did acknowledge and apologise for the effect on the resident, they did not offer any explanation as to why the matter took so long to resolve. The landlord did explain that the responses were delayed by the level of work outstanding. However, the £150 total compensation offered in the final response in respect of the delay in the complaint response does not reflect the period of 14 months from the start of the complaint process until the resident was able to refer the matter to this Service.
26. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance suggests sums of up to £600 for cases of maladministration where there has been a failure but no permanent impact on the resident. This can be used where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, a payment of £300 would better reflect the delay in the complaint response, and the failure to evidence any investigation into the complaint, or to include all the matters raised by the resident.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration  in respect of :
    1. The landlord’s handling of the roof repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has:
    1. Arranged with the resident to contact her gas supplier and request the usage for the period a year before the roof was replaced in February 2021, and the year after, and calculate a payment to cover any additional heating costs incurred by the resident.
    2. Conducted a management investigation into what went wrong, identifying learning and explaining what it will be doing differently in the future as a result.
    3. Liaised with the resident to investigate her complaint about staff made in November 2020 and another regarding unmatched wallpaper when the living room was redecorated, as raised by the resident in her email of 1 September 2021.
    4. Paid the resident £1,450  compensation, made up as follows:
       1. The £600 previously offered if not already paid.
       2. A further £550 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repairs.
       3. A further £100 in respect of the landlord’s record keeping failures.
       4. A further £200 in respect of the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of landlord’s complaint handling failures.