Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202124470)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124470

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 May 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:
    1. the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour, and;
  2. requests for additional security measures.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom fifth floor flat.
  2. On 21 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. He said that for three months there had been constant issues with anti social behaviour (ASB) in the block of flats where he lives. He said that groups of ‘youngsters’ smoked weed and cigarettes and that the Police had arrested some of them for possession of knives. He said that parcels were being stolen from the lobby and that the Police had suggested installing a fob sensor on the other set of entrance doors. He suggested that the landlord should install frosted glass in the downstairs lobby window, and asked if it would consider these additional security measures.
  3. On 16 March 2021 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his email. He followed this up with a further email to the landlord on 19 May 2021 and said that he would like to log a formal complaint.
  4. On 22 June 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary his complaint said:
    1. He had contacted the landlord a few times abut ASB.
    2. Teenagers visited the estate on a daily basis. They would sit on stairwells smoking cigarettes and cannabis and would litter and damage the property.
    3. Residents were verbally abused, and the Police had found knifes on one youth in the building.
    4. The landlord had not done enough to stop the issue. The patrols initially helped but they did not happen often enough.
    5. The Police had suggested installing a fob system on the second set of entrance doors and staining the glass lobby, but the landlord had not responded to this.
    6. As a resolution to the complaint the resident said he wanted the landlord to do whatever was needed to improve the security of the building.
  5. On 9 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. In summary the response said:

a.     The service the resident had received had fallen below what would normally be expected.

b.     Residents received an initial response to concerns on the 7 June 2021 and that the landlord had followed up with a plan of action.

c.      It would make arrangements for a residents’ meeting with the new property manager to allow the opportunity for residents to raise their concerns.

d.     It apologised for not responding to his correspondence within its advertised five-day service level agreement. It said that as a result of this complaint it had new colleagues in the leasehold team to improve the service it provided to residents.

e.     It apologised for the delays and the inconvenience the resident had been caused.

  1. On 11 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said that the ASB had been going on for about a year. He said that the Police had suggested the installation of a fob on the second set of doors and the frosting of the lobby windows, however nothing had been done. He said that he expected the landlord to improve the security of the building as soon as possible and that the landlord should award residents financial redress for the stress and anxiety caused by its lack of action.
  2. On 16 July 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents in the block. Its response outlined the actions it had taken to try and resolve the ASB. It said that it was working with the Police and that since October 2020 it had appointed an independent security company to patrol the building. It said that it had taken legal action against two perpetrators and that the security company would continue to patrol the communal areas.
  3. On 17 August 2021 the landlord issued its final response. In summary the response said:

a.     It was investigating how it could best resolve the fob issue and the request for frosted glass and that it would respond to residents in respect of this matter.

b.     It was investigating the possibility of providing further CCTV around the main and side entrances of the building and that it would communicate with all residents once a decision was made.

c.      It offered a total of £100.00 compensation for the inconvenience caused and the time taken to respond to the resident.

  1. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had ignored his emails and had failed to reply to him within its deadlines. He said that the final response had not addressed the issue in full. He said that he wanted the landlord to improve the security of the building by installing a fob entry on the second set of entrance doors and for it to tint the lobby windows. He also wanted the landlord to give him a 12-month rebate of his rent.
  2. The resident has recently informed this Service that the ASB is continuing, and that the landlord did not respond to the requests for a fob on the second set of doors or the requests for frosted windows in the lobby.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of anti social behaviour

  1. 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: 

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states ‘It will ‘positively contribute and participate in a range of multiagency initiatives and partnerships where these exist, to try to solve and prevent anti-social behaviour’. Evidence from the landlord’s records showed that in October 2020 it had appointed an independent security company to patrol the building and that the company conducted these patrols frequently over a reasonable period. The landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy by implementing a multi-agency initiative to resolve the ASB. This was a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy also states, ‘Where appropriate we will work with other statutory agencies such as the Police… to try and find solutions for anti-social behaviour…We will use a variety of available remedies to tackle anti-social behaviour including preventative and enforcement measures’. The landlord’s      16 July 2021 letter to the residents of the block indicated that it acted in line with its policy. The response said that it was working with the police to try and resolve the ASB. It explained that it had pursued a variety of remedies to tackle the issues, including enforcement action against two of the perpetrators. Although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, it was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident on the actions it had taken. Given the resident’s concerns it was also appropriate for it to continue with patrols of the block. Overall, the letter from the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns and it supplied clear advice to the resident on how to report further issues of ASB.
  4. Yet, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns within the timescales set out in its ASB policy. The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB made by its tenants within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will ‘Aim to respond to complaints within 48 working hours…’ It took the landlord nearly five months to respond to the resident’s concerns. This was a significant delay. The landlord’s stage one response said that it had responded to residents’ concerns on 7 June 2021, however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman showed that the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was on the 9 July 2021, as part of its stage one response. In any case, the delays in replying to the resident were considerable.
  5. The landlord did not take into consideration its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns within the timescales set out in its ASB policy. This failure led to the resident chasing the landlord on two occasions. It would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns within its set timescales would have delayed any actions it had intended to take (although it is noted that the patrols were already in place). This failure would have caused distress and time and trouble to the resident that has not been ‘put right’ by the landlord. The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards of between £90-£160 should be considered where there have been delays of between four to six months that have caused time and trouble to the resident. In view of this, the landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below.
  6. There is also no indication that the landlord took action to ‘learn from outcomes’ in this case. A further order is made in this regard.

The landlord response to requests for additional security measures.

  1. In his complaint the resident asked the landlord to install additional security measures in the block. He said that the Police had recommended the installation of a fob on the second set of doors and frosted glass on the lobby windows. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it would investigate the fob issue and the requests for frosted glass and would respond to the resident. The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to provide evidence of the outcomes of these investigations, which it has failed to do. In the absence of clear evidence, this Service can only conclude that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it took these actions.
  2. The resident has confirmed that he has not received a response to date from the landlord for his requests for additional security measures. This demonstrates a service failure from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. Avoidable delays will add to the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident and undermine the trust and confidence a resident has in their landlord. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation of up to £150.00 for any stress and inconvenience caused, where there has been a delay ‘that no one should be expected to tolerate’, and where the resident has had to wait over six months for their issue to be resolved. This falls broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own guidance which states that compensation of £100-£600 should be considered where there has been a failure from the landlord that has adversely affected the resident. The landlord should therefore compensate the resident for its failure to respond to his requests for additional security measures. The Ombudsman has made orders below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so, this Service notes that it took the landlord over two months to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which indicated that at stage one, the landlord will respond within 10 working days. The delays led to the resident having to raise a further complaint with the landlord. This was an avoidable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it made a total offer of £100 compensation. This took into consideration the resident’s inconvenience, as well as the time taken to respond him. Although it was not entirely clear if the compensation awarded to the resident was specifically for the landlord’s delays in responding to his complaint, the amount awarded is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance suggests that compensation between £50 – £100 should be considered where there is a service failure which has caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to requests for additional security measures.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
  2. Pay the resident £250.00 compensation (in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord),comprised of:

a.     £100.00 compensation for time and trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to reports of anti social behaviour.

b.     £150.00 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for additional security measures.

  1. Write to the resident with an action plan on what it is going to do investigate the fob issue and the requests for frosted/tinted glass. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed.
  2. Carry out a review of the handling of the resident’s ASB reports, to determine the cause of the delay in responding to these, and what actions has/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with details of the outcome of the review.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures and identify any training needs.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his reports of continuing ASB.
  3. The landlord to pay £100 compensation it previously offered the resident, if not already paid.