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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202223460)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223460

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

16 November 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 reports of water hammer noise.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat. There is another flat above the resident’s.
  2. The resident says that the issue with the water hammer has been ongoing for over 10 years and it is coming from the flat above his. He raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of the matter in 2021 and the landlord issued its final response in November 2021. In its response the landlord outlined the steps it had taken to address the water hammer issue and confirmed that it would carry out another inspection and agree an action plan.
  3. During November 2021 the landlord clipped pipework to stop the water hammer. Shortly afterwards, in December 2021, the resident reported that the water hammer had not been resolved. An order was raised to inspect both flats following this but it is not known if this went ahead.
  4. The resident raised a new complaint on 30 September 2022. He said that the water hammer issue had not been resolved and was affecting his health. The complaint was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  5. The landlord’s final response of 4 January 2023 did not uphold the complaint. The landlord said that it had taken all reasonable steps to address the reports of the water hammer noise since 2017. This included numerous alterations to pipework, installing water arrester valves and installing a new boiler in the flat above. It confirmed that it had inspected the property on 20 October 2022 and had installed a second shock arrestor valve on 28 October 2022. It considered that there were no more works required to address the water hammer noise.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had repeatedly failed to remedy the water hammer noise and had misled him about what repairs it had done. He said that the noise persisted and he had gone to excessive effort chasing the landlord to fix it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time, which is usually within 6 months of the matter complained about occurring.  Because of this there are limits to how far back an Ombudsman investigation can go and this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the most recent complaint. However, the historical events and ongoing nature of the resident’s reports have been taken into account for context.
  2. Assessment
  1. The landlord initially responded to the complaint raised in September 2022 appropriately. It inspected the flat above the resident’s and installed a second shock arrestor valve on 28 October 2022. Although the resident has disputed that repairs were carried out, there is evidence in the landlord’s repair records to show that the valve was installed.
  2. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint because he wanted the water hammer issue resolved. In its final response of 4 January 2023, the landlord concluded that no further follow on works were required. However, this was not a reasonable conclusion to reach. The resident had indicated that the water hammer issue had not been resolved, and accordingly, the landlord should have investigated further at stage 2 of the complaints procedure. This was a failing.
  3. It is acknowledged that the landlord has taken various actions over recent years to resolve the water hammer. However, it needs to investigate further to either assure itself that the issue has been resolved or to identify what other steps can be taken to stop the water hammer noise.
  4. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This award is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to arrange for a surveyor and suitable contractor to carry out a joint inspection of the resident’s flat and the flat above to identify if the water hammer has been resolved, and if not to complete any recommended works.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of water hammer noise.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports.
    2. Arrange for a surveyor and suitable contractor to carry out a joint inspection of the resident’s flat and the flat above to identify if the water hammer has been resolved, and if not to complete any recommended works.