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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202216290)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216290

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to his flat due to leaks in a communal cupboard.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat in a block.
  2. From around December 2021, there were issues with leaks and condensation in communal riser cupboards, which resulted in water damage and mould to a bathroom and bedroom in the resident’s flat. The information provided indicates a repair was reported by another resident on 14 December and the resident made his own reports from 15 January 2022, although information suggests he was in contact with the landlord’s leasehold department prior to this.
  3. There was a visit by landlord staff on 22 December 2021, and a repair was completed on 31 December. On 21 January 2022, further repairs were identified after the resident’s report, and contractors completed these on 9 February. On 23 February, contractors identified that pipework needed to be double lagged. On 15 March, pipework was lagged and a further leak was found which required a quote. On 8 April, the leak was resolved by replacing faulty pipework, and the landlord said some remaining condensation needed to dry naturally.
  4. The resident raised concerns from January 2022 about repairs delays, communication, and the impact on him and his flat. The bathroom and main bedroom were affected by water ingress and mould, leading him to sleep in the living room while his wife and children slept in the remaining bedroom. The air was affected by a mould smell. He and his family experienced mild but continued flu-like symptoms. The resident felt that the landlord was responsible and in complaint, building insurance and legal correspondence, asked the landlord to carry out inspections of his flat, provide support such as install dehumidifiers and other equipment to improve the air quality, and provide compensation. The landlord’s insurance department subsequently said the resident’s property was not covered by the building insurance, which he requested clarification about, and his account says surveyors carried out a visit in April, but further outcomes to this and insurance and legal correspondence is unclear.
  5. On 4 May 2022, the landlord provide a stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted the resident was unhappy he had not been told the job was completed earlier than he was; said there was damage to his bathroom; requested a full repair for the leak; and requested compensation for being unable to use a bedroom. It explained the leak was repaired on 8 April and condensation on walls now needed to dry out. It said that contractors would contact the resident to arrange remedial works. It apologised for the service he had experienced, and offered £230 for the inconvenience and the length of time taken to resolve the complaint.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the response and queried if the works were completed; raised concern that the landlord had not said how recurrence of the issue would be avoided; said he had not received a response to a request for equipment to improve air quality; and said he had not been contacted to book in remedial works. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and said a stage 2 response would be provided by 21 June.
  7. On 14 October 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It restated that the leak was repaired on 8 April, and said that when walls dried out works were raised to redecorate communal areas. It noted that although this was outside its responsibility, its contractors had investigated if remedial works were required in the resident’s property, but he had confirmed he had done his own re-decoration. It apologised for the service he experienced, offered a further £140 for distress and inconvenience and delay responding to the complaint, and said service issues had been discussed internally.
  8. The resident raised dissatisfaction that it took a complaint and numerous calls to resolve the issue; said he had had inadequate assistance addressing damp, mould and air quality issues; and said the compensation did not reflect the loss of use of a bathroom and bedroom, repairs he did, or air quality equipment he purchased. He said there should be further investigation of the leaks and the landlord should safeguard his flat from future water ingress.
  9. The resident provides information that there was a further leak in 2023 and that a surveyor who inspected in November said the leak cause was natural failure or wear and tear, and there were no specific building defects; there was no current evidence of mould or recent or current leaks; future water leaks were most appropriately addressed by effective repairs, and it was not practical to insulate the resident’s flat from these; and the resident should contact his insurer about more intrusive inspections of the bathroom floor, subfloor and partition wall towards planning any bathroom restoration works. The resident says that the landlord’s referral to his home insurance has led to uncertainty on his part about insurance responsibilities and the status of his claim.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to his flat due to leaks in a communal cupboard

  1. The Ombudsman does not determine liability or negligence for damage to property, or the impact on physical and mental health, but we can assess if a landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably.
  2. The landlord acknowledged distress caused to the resident by the leaks and its handling of aspects such as communication, and £200 of its compensation was for the repairs delays and inconvenience. This was appropriate, as there was limited communication with the resident despite his chasing repairs. However, there are further aspects of the landlord’s response which are not satisfactory.
  3. Our guidance for insurance confirms that a landlord is reasonably responsible for any damage if it has failed to carry out repairs obligations, and has responsibility to put right affected parties’ damage, directly or via its insurer. If fault is disputed or a complainant is unable to evidence the claimed damages, it may be reasonable to refer a complainant to their or the landlord’s own insurer to establish negligence and liability. However, if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask complainants to claim on their own insurance, since this may require payment of an excess and affect premiums. If liability is denied, a landlord should still consider if there was any service failure and respond as a formal complaint.
  4. The contractors generally attended and completed repairs within the timeframe of a standard priority repair which it is understood the repair had, and it is not uncommon for leaks to require repeat attempts at identifying and addressing the problem before an effective solution is found. However, the resident requested on more than one occasion for the leaks to be urgently repaired, and for the priority to be changed from standard to urgent. The landlord’s repairs service standards say that repairs to avoid damage to buildings and property are classed as urgent, so as part of its service review the landlord should have shown that it was satisfied that the repair had the right repairs priority, given the resident reported damage was being caused.
  5. The resident said that he held the landlord responsible for the damage to the property and the impact on living in the flat. The landlord’s complaint procedure at the time of the complaint says that damages and negligence claims should be referred to its insurance team to assess and decide the outcome (these are now referred to its insurer). It is not evident that the landlord referred the claim to its insurance department, or that the insurance department responded to it in any substantive way.
  6. The resident said he was unable to use a bedroom, and requested a rent reimbursement. The landlord’s compensation policy provides scope to consider such requests from a leaseholder and says 35% of the rent may be reimbursed for a loss of a bedroom. The landlord said that its compensation was for distress, inconvenience and delays, but it does not demonstrate that it considered the loss of amenity in line with its policy.
  7. The resident made requests for support, dehumidifiers and air quality improvement equipment during events, which the landlord did not address in the timeframe of the complaint. Until liability was agreed by either the landlord or the resident’s insurer, it may have gone beyond the landlord’s obligations to provide further support. However, as well as handling the claim appropriately, the landlord should have demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s requests and set out its position on these.
  8. The resident also raised some queries multiple times which the landlord did not address in the timeframe of the complaint. The positions subsequently set out after a surveyor’s visit in November 2023 seem generally reasonable, evidence-based and in line with landlord and leaseholder obligations, but it should not have taken so long to address queries the resident raised over a year earlier. It is also noted that the resident was again referred to his own insurer, which suggests there are ongoing issues with adhering to its current policy to refer claims to its insurer for consideration.
  9. The impression given is that there was a lack of an effective or coordinated response to the resident on a number of occasions. Concerns he raised to different departments, including the impact on him and his family’s health, seem to have been overlooked rather than referred to relevant departments and appropriately addressed. There was reportedly a surveyor visit in April 2022, but the resident says there was no real follow up to this, and there was no reference to this in the landlord’s investigation.
  10. Overall, the landlord was positive to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for some issues. However, it does not demonstrate that it considered if the repair was given the appropriate priority, if it failed to meet repairs obligations, and if it should put right damage to the resident’s property. It failed to refer the resident’s claim to its insurance team in line with its stated policy, and our guidance. It failed to consider loss of use of a bedroom in line with its compensation policy. It also delayed in setting out a position on a number of issues. This has resulted in a lengthy and ongoing delay in resolution for the resident and will have caused him frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble, as well as undermined his confidence in the landlord. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration for this aspect and to make orders that include a partial rent reimbursement, given the length of time this aspect has awaited consideration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged complaint response delays and offered £170 to recognise these, which was positive. However, the delays totalled around 8 months, which is a lengthy period of time. The landlord should have explained the delays reasons and what was being done to avoid similar delays in future.
  2. The landlord also failed to address some of the substance of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged but did not address that the resident requested compensation for being unable to use a bedroom. The resident queried the steps being taken to avoid leaks in future; the response to a request for air quality equipment; and when he would be contacted about remedial works. The complaints procedure missed opportunities to address these and some of them were not addressed until over a year later. The landlord noted that the resident carried out remedial works offered in its stage 1 response himself but did not recognise that the stage 2 response delay impacted its commitment, which will have caused additional frustration.
  3. Overall, the landlord was positive to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for response delays. However, it did not provide explanation about the reasons for the lengthy delays or what was being done to avoid similar delays in future. It also missed opportunities to resolve the complaint, by failing to ensure some substantive issues were addressed and failing to ensure the resident’s claim and request for compensation were handled in accordance with its policies. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure for this aspect.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress to his flat due to leaks in a communal cupboard.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks:
    1. pay the resident £600 for the issues identified, in addition to the £370 it previously offered.
    2. reimburse the resident 35% of 3 month’s rent for the 2021 to 2022 period.
    3. liaise with the resident to consider and set out its position on his claim. If it declines this, it should ensure that the claim is assessed and responded to by its insurer, and ensure that the resident is not disadvantaged by the delay in referring the claim to its insurer.
  2. The landlord to, within 6 weeks:
    1. review the training needs of appropriate staff, in ensuring that any claims for damages and negligence are referred to its insurer in line with its complaint procedure, and ensuring that any requests for unusable room compensation are considered and addressed.
    2. review how communal leaks are assessed and prioritised when it is reported that they are causing internal damage to properties, and ensure these are being handled appropriately.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure that it responds to complaints in a timely manner, carries out effective investigations, and addresses substantive issues raised in a complaint and relevant correspondence.
  2. The landlord to review its repairs communication processes to ensure that residents are effectively communicated with after repairs queries and surveyor visits.