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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202122336)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122336

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 October 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 handling of reports of defects to the building causing water leaks, and the presence of       damp and mould.

2.             The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 2015. He lives at the property with his partner and 2 young children.

4.             In his communications with the landlord the resident’s partner has also contacted the landlord. All references to ‘the resident’ in   this report will also include his partner, where the landlord has liaised with her.

5.             Under the terms of the lease the resident is expected to repair and keep the premises and the floor of any balcony in good and   substantial repair and condition. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair, decoration, improvement and renewal   of all structural parts of the building including the roof, roof structures, internal load bearing walls, external walls, the external   parts of the windows forming part of the property, and the window frames.

6.             Complaints are dealt with as part of a 2 stage process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working   days, and the officer dealing with the complaint has a further 2 working days to get in contact with the complainant. It does not   provide a timescale for a complaint response in its policy or procedures, although the service standard on the website says it   will aim to provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the complaint will be reviewed within 25 working days. 

7.             In its compensation policy the landlord acknowledges that there will be circumstances where a discretionary offer of   compensation may be the only available option. Examples provided are where the landlord has taken appropriate action but has delayed in doing so and the delay has caused wrong, and/or the complainant has sustained financial loss or has suffered stress and inconvenience. Payments will not be made if the landlord has taken reasonable steps to remedy any failure of service delivery that has arisen due to unavoidable circumstances or if the resident prevents or delays the service delivery.

8.             A compensation matrix is used as a guide to compensation amounts. Factors the landlord will take into account when   considering compensation amounts include the passage of time, including response times of the landlord; the amount of time   expended by the resident; the difficulty experienced by the resident in dealing with the landlord; and the degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s responses to verbal or written communication.

Summary of events

9.             In September 2017 the resident discovered mould and water damage on several walls and reported this to the landlord. The resident states that it was discovered that the cause of this water entering the property was from an incorrectly installed external wall system.

10.        In March 2019 the resident contacted the landlord about the black mould and water ingress, stating that he had not received a schedule of works. He said there were points where walls had been dug out in several places and insulation had been removed from the external side. The resident expressed concern for the health risks of damp and mould, as his partner was pregnant, and said he had experienced new allergies in the last year. The resident stated he had to wait weeks and months between communication and visits from the landlord, and that he was very stressed about the ongoing situation.

11.        On 10 October 2019 the resident requested compensation for all the disruption, stating his family moved out for 8 weeks in June and July 2019 to allow for the flat to be repaired and redecorated. The resident contacted the landlord several times afterwards. The landlord acknowledged the responses, stating its commercial director would be considering his request, but did nothing further.

12.        On the 6 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord stating he had discovered new mould in the bedroom on a fresh wall. He said he was concerned about sleeping in a mouldy room with a young baby. The developer who had built the flat complex visited on 9 March 2020 and said the water may be coming from the neighbouring property. The developer advised the resident that they had contacted the landlord to ask it to instruct a surveyor to investigate urgently.

13.        On 11 March 2020 the landlord told the resident it had raised the matter with its surveyors asking this to be investigated urgently. The resident heard nothing further and requested an update on 17 March 2020, expressing concerns about the mould getting worse. He contacted the landlord again on 24 and 31 March and 2 April 2020 but heard nothing back.

14.        On 6 April 2020 the landlord responded and told the resident that it would need to contact the managing agent for the neighbouring property to request they check whether a leak could be coming from an ensuite bathroom which abutted the party wall of the resident’s property. The resident told the landlord that the plumber who attended on 15 April 2020 found no leaks from the bathroom, and suspected the leak could be from an external source. Later in his complaint he told the landlord had contacted it on numerous occasions but did not receive a response.

15.        On 8 June 2020 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its lack of communication regarding the leak that affected the shared wall with the neighbour. The resident said he had been ignored since 15 April 2020. He expressed concern about the leak being in the bedroom where he and his partner slept with their baby. The resident stated that the landlord was aware that he had suffered for years with mould caused by building defects and that the family moved out of the property for 6 weeks. He requested the leak was repaired as soon as possible.

16.        The resident told the landlord a contractor attended on 7 July 2020 to attempt to paint a wall where the mould was, but that the repairs required before painting had not been completed. The landlord then arranged a site visit to conduct water tests at the property. The resident liaised with the owner next door so that the inspector could see both flats at the same time, and provided both of their availability to the landlord.

17.        Visits were undertaken by a contracted surveyor of the landlord between July and December 2020 to check the appliances in the bathroom, and to then check the roof. The landlord’s records show there was damp staining to the bedroom party wall. Water was penetrating into the flats from the coping stones but the origins of all the water ingress points was unclear. It was suspected that water was able to pass underneath the coping stones and through the membrane into the cavity below. Deteriorated and poor detailing was also identified to both the coping stone joints and where the roof membrane met the underside of the coping stones. Evidence of water staining and separation of the mastic at the windowsill timber joints were identified to both the kitchen and single bedroom windows. A water test on the affected windows to identify the exact cause of water ingress was recommended. The surveyor believed this to be under the developer’s scope of repair works (due to latent defects) but said as they had not been involved with the negotiation or arrangement of repairs between the landlord and developer, they could not confirm this.

18.        In November 2020 the landlord was in contact with the developer to discuss some issues with the failing of the waterproof membrane on a couple of balconies, and issues with the capping on the parapet wall asking them to meet it on site. The developer agreed and asked the landlord to propose some dates.

19.        On 18 December 2020 the resident requested an update from the landlord.

20.        On 30 December 2020 the landlord sent its stage 1 response:

  1. It said that some repairs had taken place and that it had met with the developer on 14 December 2020. It said temporary remedial works were carried out in September 2020, and following this decoration and carpet cleaning were undertaken in the resident’s property in October 2020.
  2. It said it was aware that there were outstanding issues, and it would continue to work with the developer to get these resolved. The landlord was not able to offer any firm timescales but expected the developer to have these resolved by the end of March 2021. The landlord provided email contact details for the officer overseeing the remaining works and said it would make sure work was completed to a good standard within the timeframe.
  3. It apologised for the delay in its response, poor level of communication, and the sub-standard service the resident had received. It offered him £160 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble he invested in pursuing the matter as well as the distress and inconvenience caused, plus an additional £50 for lack of communication.

21.        On 3 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord as it had been 8 weeks and there had been no action, and asked if the compensation would be applied to his account. He said he had been told all work was expected to be resolved by the end of March 2021, and raised concerns about the mould. The landlord responded by email to say that the resident needed to accept the compensation and asked whether he would like this paid into the rent account, which the resident agreed to.

22.        The landlord then inspected the property again on 21 July 2021. The resident showed the landlord various issues with the property. The landlord said it would provide the resident with an update in 2 weeks. The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 occasions requesting an update but did not receive a reply.

23.        The resident escalated his complaint on 11 August 2021, providing further information about the situation on 17 August 2021, including dates and details from 2017:

  1. He said 2 of his windows were still leaking water and had caused damage to the paint and wood around them. It had been nearly 18 months since he first reported the water ingress/mould issue and said he was concerned about whether there would be an impact on his family’s health.
  2. He said he had spent a lot of his time chasing the resolution of ongoing defects.
  3. He was worried about the mould, as experts who had visited the property in 2019 for the previous mould issue had said mould was extremely hazardous and would need to be removed professionally.
  4. He said communication from the leasehold team had been terrible, and he had not received a reply most of the time.
  5. If there were ongoing issues between the developer and landlord, he felt this should not prevent the landlord from delivering a safe and adequate service.
  6. He requested a timescale to have his property defects repaired and his other enquiries answered about:
    1. Compensation;
    2. Confirmation the roof was built correctly, so he could be assured there would be no more leaks in the future;
    3. Confirmation of the safety of balcony glass panels, as he stated many had spontaneously combusted;
    4. Information provided about other potential defects and estate issues that had been previously raised.

24.        The resident contacted this Service on 7 January 2022 as the landlord had not provided its stage 2 response to the complaint escalation.

25.        On 4 March 2022 the landlord sent its final stage response. It confirmed the following:

  1. The property was suffering from water ingress which had been identified following inspections carried out by specialist surveyors.
  2. Staining from damp had been identified to the bedroom party wall.
  3. On inspection of the roof, gaps were found in the mortar between the coping stones as well as the underside between the coping stones and wall membrane. This appeared to be a latent defect and was therefore referred to the original developer. The developer failed to respond in a timely manner, and the landlord would now refer this to the legal team for assistance. The resident could expect an update by 13 April 2022.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delays in resolving this issue which it said were partly due to a lack of resources within its technical team because of COVID-19, and compounded by the complete lack of response from its contractors.
  5. It offered £240 to the resident (in addition to the amount offered in the stage 1 response) because of the continuous delays to complete the works, as well as £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Post complaint

26.        The resident contacted this Service in April 2022 and said he would like the following resolution:

  1. Professional mould investigation and removal of mould from the internal bedroom wall caused by the roof leak (reported to the landlord 2 years previously with no action taken);
  2. Rainwater tests carried out to determine where the roof leak was;
  3. Water damage on the walls repaired and repainted as promised;
  4. Repairs to the kitchen and bedroom windows from the last “botched job repair”: the seals were replaced and were leaking within a year and had resulted in damage around the window.

27.        There was some correspondence between the landlord and the developer in June 2022. The landlord acknowledged that it did not get back to the developer in November 2020 to arrange to meet on site (regarding the failing of the waterproof membrane on a couple of balconies, and issues with the capping on the parapet wall). It proposed some dates it could meet in June 2022. The developer said it was quite a while since they were notified of the meeting. They said it appeared the issue was caused by the landlord’s abseilers dislodging the copings, and they were unable to assist on that matter. The landlord then sent an email to its legal team who were already in communication with the developer about other defects.

28.        The resident contacted this Service in April 2023 and said the landlord had painted the ceiling without properly removing the mould, as it was starting to show through again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

29.        Information from 2017 is included in the summary of events for history of the case and for context in relation to the issues experienced. No further detail about the events prior to March 2020 are provided, and no complaint was raised by the resident during this time. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the landlord’s actions during the period.

30.        This investigation will focus on the actions the landlord took from 6 March 2020 when the resident reported the mould in the bedroom. It will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint made in June 2020.

The landlord’s handling of reports of defects to the building causing water leaks, and the presence of damp and mould

31.        Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that repairs to the roof and the external parts of the windows are completed. From the information provided, the flat was newly built when the resident moved in. In this case, a contracted surveyor carried out inspections in 2020, identifying possible latent defects for which the developer would be likely be responsible, at least 5 years after completion.

32.        Email evidence shows the developer agreed to meet the landlord on site in 2020, but this was not followed up until 2022. There is also an email showing that the landlord potentially missed an opportunity to meet with the developer at an earlier point. There is little evidence throughout the case that the landlord pursued the developer. Despite stating it would refer the matter to its legal team in its final stage response, there is no evidence provided by the landlord that it did so until 3 months later.

33.        Although some work had been undertaken at the property, it is not clear whether the issues have been finally resolved. From the information provided there is a dispute between the landlord and the developer about the coping stones and latent defects. The landlord has not provided sufficient assurance to the resident or this Service that it has either pursued the developer or taken legal action within a reasonable timeframe.

34.        The information provided by the resident indicates that the landlord did organise some inspections and repair work. However, the landlord has not provided any repair logs or schedules, so it cannot be confirmed when repairs were raised and what work was carried out by the landlord, nor what was referred to or completed by the developer. It is unreasonable that in this case the landlord did not display accurate record keeping and management to show it was fulfilling its maintenance obligations.

35.        It is positive that the landlord arranged for some work to be carried out within the property to make good following the water ingress. What is not clear is whether it offered any solutions to the resident in managing the ongoing damp and mould issues in the property. There was no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the potential hazards of the mould that he had reported to it on numerous occasions. The resident explained he was worried about the effects of sleeping in a room with mould and how this could affect the health of his young family, which likely added to his distress.

36.        The landlord has not shown that it provided the resident with a detailed timeline of what work was required at the property, as requested. The repairs policy does not provide any clear timescales for non-urgent work to be completed, which gives no assurances to residents that their repairs will be carried out within a reasonable timescale. The landlord has taken a considerable length of time to carry out repairs, and the order below reflects the impact of water ingress on the resident’s living conditions during the period of the unreasonable delay.

37.        The communication from the landlord was poor throughout its management of the defects and repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions for updates about the repair work and to ask about compensation without it responding. The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on several occasions, and the lack of response likely added to the frustration and distress he experienced.

38.        The landlord did recognise that it did not meet a good standard of service and offered the resident compensation within its complaint responses totalling £550. However, the compensation was insufficient given the inconvenience caused to the resident over the course of 2 years, due to the landlord’s delays in resolving the issue, the landlord’s lack of communication, and in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble spent pursuing the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

39.        There have been unacceptable delays from the landlord throughout the whole of the complaint process. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 145 working days. This delay was inappropriate, and excessively outside of the timeframes stipulated within its policy.

40.        In its stage 1 response on 30 December 2020 the landlord said it expected the developer to complete all the work by the end of March 2021, but did not explain what repair work the landlord considered outstanding. It was promising that the landlord appointed a single point of contact to ensure the work would be completed to a good standard within the timeframe by the developer. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then took action with the developer when it did not meet the timeframes promised, and again the resident experienced the frustrating process of contacting the landlord on numerous occasions, without receiving a response. He therefore escalated his complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s internal complaint process in August 2021.

41.        The resident contacted this Service on 7 January 2022 as the landlord had not provided its stage 2 response to the complaint escalation almost 5 months previously. This Service requested the landlord provide its response to the resident on 7 January 2022 and 21 February 2022, before this was finally provided on 4 March 2022. The internal complaint process therefore took a total of 21 months before the resident could escalate his complaint to this Service for investigation.

42.        It is additionally concerning that the same pattern of late complaint handling was repeated at stage 2 of the landlord’s process, with the final response being provided after 144 days. This inappropriate delay compounds evidence that there has been a severe failure of the landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaint. It did not follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to ‘learn from outcomes’ by identifying what had gone wrong and putting measures in place to prevent the same mistakes happening again in relation to its complaint handling. This was unreasonable and likely added to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, who said he found the whole situation and experience of dealing with the landlord very stressful.

43.        Further, the complaint response did not respond to all the complaint points raised in the resident’s escalation request. The landlord explained that some latent defects had been identified for which the developer was responsible, and it would provide a further update on 13 April 2022 about its next steps in relation to legal action. In this case the landlord did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to ‘put things right’ as there is no evidence that the landlord provided this update.

44.        There is no evidence from the landlord, such as contact record logs or letters, that show it had provided regular updates to the resident following its complaint responses, or while he waited for a response. It was unreasonable that the resident had to repeatedly ask the landlord for an update. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did identify this as a failure in its complaint investigation.

45.        The landlord was also issued with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 14 October 2022 in respect of this case, as it did not provide the information requested by this Service once the case was accepted for investigation within the requested timescales. The landlord did then provide the information requested on 20 October 2022, and there was no negative impact the resident due to this delay. However, it is of further concern that the landlord did not in this case demonstrate that the resident’s complaint mattered to it by responding to any aspect of the complaint within reasonable timeframes, and following numerous requests from the resident and this Service.

46.        It is understandable that the landlord’s complaint handling will have caused additional frustration, uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident, leading him to feel issues raised were being ignored. This likely exacerbated the situation and further undermined the relationship the landlord had with the resident.

Review of policy and procedures

47.        The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould, repairs and complaint handling. The relevant cases and findings are set out below:

  1. 201905450 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, and maladministration in relation to its handling of leaks in the leaseholder’s property which led to internal damage;
  2. 202011791 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and in relation to its complaint handling;
  3. 202100078 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak that caused damp and mould and in relation to its complaint handling;
  4. 202115967 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak, and maladministration in relation to its complaint handling;
  5. 202216315 – we found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the property, and maladministration in relation to its complaint handling.

48.        The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation where similar issues have been identified. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures investigated in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

  1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of defects to the building causing water leaks, and the presence of damp and mould;
  2. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

50.        The landlord did not undertake all actions within a reasonable timeframe such as investigating and repairing the leaks to the property or starting legal action against the developer. Although numerous inspections and repairs were completed, work took an unreasonable length of time, and it is unclear whether there are still outstanding issues.

51.        The landlord did not adequately update the resident about repairs or respond to his contact. The resident felt ignored and that his issues with the property and complaint did not matter to the landlord.

52.        Both the complaint responses from the landlord were excessively outside of the timescales it promises. The length of time taken to respond to the complaint compounded the resident’s distress regarding the handling of the defects reported.

Orders

53.        The Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident to:

  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report;
  2. Provide a timeline for repairs still to be completed, and thereafter a monthly written update with action taken until all outstanding issues are resolved.

54.        The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £2,000 (including the compensation of £550 already offered to the resident in its complaint responses), made up of:

  1. £1,200 in recognition of the distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of reports of defects to the building causing water leaks, and the presence of damp and mould;
  2. £800 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the related complaint.

55.        The landlord is ordered to self-assess against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023).

56.        The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

57.        In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp and mould. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):

  1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident;
  2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by leaks, damp and mould from March 2020 to the present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure;
  3. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last 6 months with regard to leaks, damp and mould. Where findings of severe maladministration and maladministration have been made, the findings should be incorporated into the review, along with the relevant case reference number;
  4. Review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
    1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately, raise quotations for approval with major revenue, and progress works orders in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures;
    2. Are aware of the need to maintain oversight of repairs and communicate effectively with contractors to ensure works are completed;
    3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately, and keep complaints about ongoing outstanding issues open until their completion. Responses must provide completion timescales. The landlord should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code;
  5. Assurance of its future compliance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on damp and mould and knowledge and information management.

58.        Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:

  1. The findings and learning from the review;
  2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future;
  3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues;
  4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate with the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.

59.        The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.

60.        The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.

61.        The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.

62.        The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 12 weeks to confirm it has complied with the wider orders.