A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202124116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124116

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 January 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of disrepair to the windows and condensation causing mould growth and high internal temperatures.
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner under a lease dated 19 February 2010.
The resident raised concerns about defects to his windows in 2018 and complained about the lack of progress in repairing them in November 2020. The landlord believed that the disrepair of the windows may have been caused by a complex latent defect that affected the resident’s property.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 3 December 2020. It told him that it hoped to resolve the matter by 31 March 2021. The landlord inspected the windows in February 2021 and arranged some adjustments to them in May 2021.
On 24 December 2021 the resident asked his landlord if it could do the window repairs more quickly. The resident complained to his landlord that he had to clean the windows multiple times a day to remove condensation and avoid mould growth. The resident also told his landlord in January 2022 that he had concerns that the mould in the property was affecting his baby.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 1 February 2022 and referred to:
1. his windows not closing properly
2. moisture coming in through the windows
3. cracks appearing in the windows
4. mould growth due to the high humidity levels in his property
5. having to clean the windows multiple times a day and replacing curtains damaged by mould
6. concerns about cracks.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 26 April 2022 and said:
1. it apologised for the distress caused by the delays in conducting window repairs
2. the delays had been caused by problems sourcing materials, other defects in the block and complications with the window manufacturer
3. it accepted that there was poor communication that caused unnecessary distress. It acknowledged its service was below-standard
4. it committed to complete the outstanding works in the week commencing 25 July 2022
5. it had provided staff training on record keeping and had allocated a specific officer from its buildings project team to function as a contact
6. it awarded £540 compensation, made up of £240 for the delays, £150 for the distress caused, and £150 for the poor communication.
The resident asked his landlord to escalate his complaint on 27 July 2022 because the landlord had not started the repairs. He disclosed to the landlord that he could not open the window in his toddler’s bedroom, and this made the property too hot.
On 12 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the contractors working on the scaffolding outside his property damaged his window.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 20 September 2022 and said:
1. it apologised that the work had taken longer to resolve than expected. It said an unresponsive contractor caused this delay
2. it had told the resident in April 2022 that it would be three to four months before parts would be available and the length of time taken to do the repairs was outside its control
3. it would complete the repairs in early October 2022
4. it was sorry for the lack of communication around the repair and the time taken to rectify this. It had offered the resident £540 compensation at stage 1 which the resident accepted. It accepted it should have offered more regular updates and upheld the complaint
5. it would monitor situations like this in the future.
The landlord told the resident on 30 September 2022 that it would replace the gasket, window mechanism, or windows between 4 to 6 October 2022.
However, by 18 October 2022 the landlord decided it needed to investigate a window and window ledge in the resident’s property. The landlord wanted to do this to check the insulation in the resident’s property. On 24 November 2022, the landlord told the resident it wanted to insert an insulated plasterboard in his property. It also planned to look at the flow under the carpet to see why the floor by the window was colder.
The landlord agreed to repair the chipped windows but was still waiting for a quote for this in February 2023. The landlord inspected the resident’s property for mould in March 2023 and this report recommended it assess the passive ventilation systems in the resident’s property. The report also recommended improvements to the airflow and ventilation.
The resident asked the Service to consider his complaint as he expressed dissatisfaction with his landlord’s handling of his repair request and complaint. The resident informed the Service on 14 November 2023 that his landlord had installed a new extractor fan that had prevented mould growth.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease and landlord’s obligations

Clause 3(3)(b) of the shared ownership lease required the resident to keep the internal glazing and fixtures in good and substantial repair. Under clause 5(3)(a) of the lease the landlord was responsible for maintaining, repairing, and renewing the windows on the outside and other parts that the resident was not responsible for.
The landlord did not need to repair the glass in the internal windows but would be responsible for structural elements like window frames. This is because window frames are the landlord’s fixtures as they are a permanent and integral part of the building the resident’s property is situated in.
The evidence shows that the landlord consistently represented to the resident that it would repair or replace the windows and the resident relied on this. The Ombudsman therefore considers, based on the landlord’s actions and lease provisions, that the landlord had a responsibility for repairing the windows including frames, seals, and handles.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs highlights the importance of landlords keeping clear, accurate, and easily accessible records. The report also recommends that where repairs are outstanding it is important to provide timescales for these and address all issues in complaints.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on mould recommends that landlords respond to reports of mould in a timely way and reflect the urgency of the issue.

The landlord’s response to reports of window defects and condensation

The resident had concerns about the windows at his property as far back as 2018 and complained to his landlord in 2020 about these. However, this complaint did not progress beyond stage 1. The resident chased his landlord throughout 2021 and in December 2021 he disclosed to his landlord the presence of condensation and mould.
The resident specifically raised concerns with his landlord about cracks in the windows. He also said the windows were not closing and allowed water in and were causing mould growth. He expressed dissatisfaction at having to clean the windows multiple times a day due to the damage caused by mould growth.
The problems caused by the windows may have been due to a latent or inherent defect in the building. This is a defect that is not readily discoverable and relates to a design or construction fault.
However, as the windows were in disrepair and the only practical way to prevent further disrepair would be to repair or even replace (improve) them the landlord was under an obligation to explore this.
Despite this, this service has not seen evidence that the landlord took effective steps to identify the remedial work it needed to do, for example by inspecting and reporting on the defects.
The landlord arranged for adjustment works in May 2021 at the resident’s property and in June 2021 it inspected the resident’s property. However, the landlord has not provided information to show the scope or outcome of either visit. The resident also referred to the landlord using MDF in August 2022 and foam in November 2022 although it is unclear in what context.
The landlord has not provided details of what it did or how it monitored the effectiveness of its actions. It is therefore not possible to assess the adequacy of these measures or conclude the landlord had a robust monitoring system in place.
There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of what actions it was taking to resolve the problem throughout 2021, apart from one email sent in August 2021. This was a serious failure in communication. It was not until 22 April 2022 that the landlord told the resident that it was having difficulty obtaining parts for the window repairs. Whilst supply chain issues represent a legitimate reason for delays it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident regularly informed. This is good practice as recommended by the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports.
The landlord’s communication was also confusing. It told the resident on 22 April 2022 that it may take until the end of August 2022 to obtain parts and it could not provide a timescale for the repair. However, on 26 April 2022, the landlord told the resident categorically that it would complete all outstanding repairs by the end of July 2022.
The landlord did not complete the work by the end of July 2022 and there is no evidence that it told the resident that this would not happen beforehand. This was unreasonable as it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have told the resident about the delay before then. The failure to communicate caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
It took the landlord until 20 September 2022 to explain the delays to the resident when it said that the delays were outside its control. The landlord told the resident this was because the window manufacturer’s contractor was unresponsive and was the only contractor willing or able to do the repair work. It also told the resident it should complete the repairs by early October 2022.
However, the landlord pushed this back again and provided no evidence to explain or support its assertion that no other contractors could do the repairs. The landlord should have completed the repair works within a reasonable time, having been aware of defects since at least 2020. The landlord had not completed the repairs by October 2022. The Ombudsman considers that the lack of proper explanation given by the landlord and its failure to obtain a contractor to do the work within a reasonable period was unsatisfactory.
The resident continued to experience ongoing issues after the complaint closure, so it is fair to assess the landlord’s responses post–complaint.
It told the resident it needed to investigate the window ledge insulation in the resident’s property and reassess a defective window. Whilst these may have been appropriate steps to take it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have considered these earlier.
Despite the resident informing the landlord about external damage to his windows in September 2022 the landlord did not update the resident until 1 November 2022. It said it was still awaiting to obtain a quote to replace the scratched windows at the time the Service accepted the complaint for investigation.
The landlord explained to the resident on 24 November 2022 that it wanted to insert an insulated plasterboard into his property and look under the carpet to see why the window was colder. Again, whilst this action may have been appropriate it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have considered this earlier.

Mould and hot internal temperatures

There was a failure of the landlord to show sufficient regard for the resident’s well–being.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken prompt action to assess any risks caused by mould growth or internal temperatures and mitigate against any that existed. This is because the disrepair, which the landlord was responsible for, caused or contributed to the mould growth and hot internal temperatures. Both amounted to a potential health risk.
The landlord was on notice in January 2022 that the resident had concerns that there was mould in his property and that this may be affecting his baby. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took steps to investigate the mould during the complaint process.
The only evidence the Service could find to show the landlord offered any level of mitigation was to offer a dehumidifier to the resident in December 2022. It eventually arranged a damp inspection in March 2023. The landlord’s measures were appropriate but delayed and were insufficient to show it had proper regard for the potential risks caused by mould. It would have been appropriate to inspect the property for mould earlier and put in place a plan to mitigate the risk of mould growth.
The Ombudsman has identified the following failures in the landlord’s handling of the reported window defect that amount to maladministration:
1. a failure of the landlord to undertake a detailed inspection of the condition of the resident’s windows and produce a plan of remedial works
2. the lack of any evidence of the landlord monitoring the effectiveness of any measures it took to repair the window defect or prevent mould growth
3. the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping, including inadequate updates given to the resident
4. its decision to undertake insulation work for eight to nine months (October and November 2022) after the resident’s complaint. This delayed installation of replacement windows after the landlord had promised the resident this would happen in late July 2022 and then early October 2022
5. a failure of the landlord to demonstrate sufficient control measures concerning its contractor to ensure repairs could be progressed efficiently
6. the landlord showed insufficient regard for the well–being of the resident and his child. This is based on a lack of early steps taken to inspect the resident’s property for mould or mitigate and monitor the risks.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 1 February 2022, however, the landlord failed to respond until 26 April 2022. This was outside the 10-working day period the landlord had for responding. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 17 February 2022 and on 14 April 2022 before the landlord responded.
The resident requested an escalation of their complaint on 27 July 2022 and should have had a response within 20 working days. The landlord only responded at stage 2 on 20 September 2022, again after this service contacted it on 30 August 2022. The significant delays added to the resident’s distress.
There were also failures in the complaint responses that the Ombudsman considers unsatisfactory. Paragraph 3.14 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer the resident compensation and a date by which it would complete the work at stage 1. The Service also notes the landlord also explained how it would learn from the resident’s experience at stage 1. This demonstrated it was willing to put things right and learn from outcomes which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. However, the landlord did not engage fully with the resident’s complaint.
For example, the resident referred to a previous complaint he made in 2020 and mould growth. The resident also referred to the landlord knowing about the disrepair of the windows in 2017 and closing his previous complaint prematurely.
Despite this the landlord’s stage 1 response did not engage with these issues other than to provide a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay. We would have expected a more thorough explanation for the delay given the lapse in time. The Ombudsman also considers the landlord’s lack of response to the claim of mould growth and closing a previous complaint prematurely unsatisfactory.
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord’s failure to consider whether it was appropriate to offer additional compensation at stage 2 was unreasonable. This is because it upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted its communication with the resident was poor. It had compensated at stage 1 for these reasons and accepted the issues were ongoing, so it was unfair not to consider additional compensation.
In summary, the failure of the landlord to respond to the complaint within its policy timescales and engage with aspects of the complaint or consider additional compensation amounts to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of disrepair to the resident’s windows and his concerns about mould growth and high internal temperatures.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 28 days of this determination the landlord pay the resident additional compensation of £500 made up of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the window repairs.
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing this complaint and the complaint handling failures at stage 2.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. either confirm that it has completed all outstanding repairs to the windows or has replaced them
2. or that it has arranged a date to complete the repairs or window replacement, providing the resident and us with a schedule of the outstanding works.