A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202227136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227136

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor maisonette. The landlord has no known vulnerabilities recorded.
4. The lease states the landlord must repair, renew, rebuild the structure and exterior of the property including sewers, drains and water course pipes. The landlord must make good any defects affecting the structure of the building. The lease also states that the resident is entitled to the free uninterrupted passage and running of water from and to the premises through the sewers, drains, water courses and pipes.
5. In August 2021 the resident reported drainage issues. Several weeks after this report his property was flooded with sewage. The resident was decanted through the landlord’s insurance company and in March 2022 the resident moved back in on the basis that all works had been completed. In August 2022 the drainage issues began again, and the resident reported the issues to the landlord.
6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 September 2022. He said that the property had been assessed but no action had been taken. The sewage had come up through the bath and the toilet as it had before. On 14 September 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It said that further works were required. It would be attending on 15 September 2022 to descale the drains. It offered £100 for the inconvenience caused as he had previously been decanted. It appointed a named person to oversee the works and make sure that they were completed to a good standard and within the timeframe.
7. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 26 October 2022 as the works had not been completed and he considered it was taking too long. The resident was decanted on 25 November 2022 to enable the landlord to complete works.  He moved back in as the works were completed on 29 November 2022.    The landlord sent its stage 2 response on the same day. It apologised that it had to move the resident again but was pleased to hear that the works had been completed. It said the remaining works were the bathroom floor and tiling which were due to be completed in the new year. It acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the works.
8. In addition to the £100 it offered in its stage 1 response it wanted to offer an additional £245. £25 for responding to stage 2 complaint. £120 for delays in completing works and £100 for communication issues both internal and external. It had spoken to its contractor to reinforce what level of service was expected.

Post complaint.

9. In January 2023 the resident reported further drainage issues. In November 2023 the landlord advised this Service that even thou works were done at the property matters were not resolved until a year after the stage 2 complaint was completed. On this basis it amended its compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint.  It offered £990 broken down as follows:
   1. £150 for stress inconvenience
   2. £150 communication issues
   3. £150 for its quality of service
   4. £240 length of time
   5. £50 complaint delayed response.
   6. £250 for time to complete the works.

Assessment and findings

Legislation and guidance.

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
11. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to urgent repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs on the next available appointment.  It is noted that in September 2023 the landlord has updated its repair policy so that it now provides timescales for standard repairs and planned works.
12. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, drainage, and sanitary conveniences, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.

Resident’s reports of drainage issues.

13. The evidence indicates that the landlord was put on notice about the issue with the drainage in August 2021. At this time, the landlord’s notes reflect that it asked for further investigation into the issue.
14. The resident’s property was flooded with sewage. He has advised that he was decanted from the property for almost 5 months until he moved back in March 2022.  The landlord states that the decant was arranged directly with its insurance company, and it has no records relating to the decant.  This Service acknowledges that under the terms of the lease the hotel accommodation could be arranged via the landlord’s insurance. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to record details of the decant to show that it was monitoring the situation against the scheduled works.
15. The landlord’s repair records for this period are not clear. The list of works provided for the first decant ends in November 2021 where the records state that it needed to “review CCTV footage and go from there”.  This Service has seen no evidence of the recorded outcome of the works undertaken.
16. The landlord states within its stage 2 complaint response a blockage was cleared, and then internal stack pipes were lined to ensure that items were not catching in the pipes. The resident also mentioned in his stage 1 request that an independent manhole had been created which was hoped would resolve the issue.
17. By keeping clear records, the landlord could have showed that works were being completed in a timely manner and that the resident was kept informed during the decant period. The lack of clear records was a failing in its handling of the issue.
18. The evidence then shows that the drainage issues reoccurred on 19 August 2022. The resident states he advised the landlord on 22 August 2022 that he had hired a private plumber who had advised that toilet paper was blocking the toilet, and the piping was broken. The landlord and the resident’s versions of events then differ.
19. The resident states that 2 assessments took place, after his report in August but no further works were completed which led him to raise his stage 1 complaint on 2 September 2022.  The landlord states in its stage 2 response that it was put on notice on 23 August 2022, and it attended on 24 August 2022 and restored the flow. It said further issues were reported on 31 August 2022 and it attended on 5 September to clear the blockage and complete a CCTV survey.
20. No records have been provided to this Service to evidence the landlord’s version of events. The drainage CCTV survey is dated 2 September 2022. It is therefore unclear which records the landlord relied upon within its stage 2 response and how it had concluded its version of events. This is a failing in its record keeping.
21. The fact the landlord had organised a drainage survey did however show that it was proactively trying to resolve the issues. The survey identified that there were no structural defects to the drainage system but there was a scale build up in parts of the system.  It recommended that full descale works were completed.
22. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord attended 4 times in September and 3 times in October 2022. The records state the landlord identified a blockage and then after the descale it became apparent that there were cracks in the pipe. The records show that on 10 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident a copy of a report and recommendations. It said it would continue to keep the resident updated.  It is unknown how it communicated with the follow up works after the 18 October which is a further failing in its record keeping. The records do however show that it attended on 25 November where it states all waste was cleared.
23. The landlord’s Internal email correspondence showed that the landlord also agreed an urgent decant on 25 November 2022 because the works undertaken that day meant that the resident was unable to access the bathroom facilities. This did not show that the landlord had considered the impact on the resident when planning the required works which was a further failing. This would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident having to move into hotel accommodation with minimal notice.
24. It was apparent the drainage issues were complicated, and the landlord was trying to determine the cause.  Due to the complexity of the issue, the delay from when the second repair started in August 2022, to when it was completed in November 2022, was not unreasonable. This is because investigative works and several repairs were required. The repair records however lack detail about what contactor was completing repairs, and there is very little in the way of recorded outcomes and how it kept the resident updated. This is a failing in its record keeping and has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue his matter further. This has been considered in the order and compensation below.
25. It is noted that shortly after the stage 2 complaint was issued by the landlord drainage problems were reported again by the resident in January 2023. This would indicate that the works completed so far had not been successful. The landlord advised this Service that it took a further year to resolve the drainage issues after it had issued its stage two response. On this basis the landlord said it re-assessed its compensation amount offered.  While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its failings. The landlord failed to learn from the learnings it identified in its complaint response. This is demonstrated by repeated mistakes following the internal complaints process.
26. The resident had been suffering issues for over a year while in the complaint process. He had to move out of his property twice. The first time was for 5 months due to the landlord’s failure to set out a reasonable time frame to complete the repairs.  He had also had to facilitate access for numerous appointments to try to get the matters resolved in between the decant periods. The compensation the landlord’s offered within the complaint process did not fully put things right given the period of time that the repair remained unresolved for the resident and did not reflect the impact on the resident.
27. While we welcome the landlord recognising the need to revisit the complaint. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation for over a year after its final complaint response.  This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that later offers of compensation were made. This Service however considers the subsequent offer made was for the detriment caused outside of the internal complaint period.
28. As such this Service has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues. The issues were clearly complex, and the landlord was taking steps to resolve the issues.  However, the repair records were inadequate. The outcomes of the repairs were not logged. The evidence failed to show that repairs were completed within a reasonable period of time. They also failed to show that the landlord had communicated with the resident to keep him updated. While there was an offer of compensation within the complaint process this did not reflect the full detriment experienced.

Complaint handling.

29. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the complaint will be responded to within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, where it will be responded to, within 20 working days.
30. The stage 1 response failed to assess how the failings had occurred.  It was also silent on what had happened during the previous reports of drainage issues in 2021. The comments that concerns would be raised with the contractor did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. It said its service had fallen below expected levels but did not explain how or why. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
31. It did however agree to monitor the works and keep the resident informed moving forwards and it said that works would be completed by 28 October 2022.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not provided until 34 days after the resident requested the escalation. This was outside its policy timescales and a failing. It acknowledged its delay and apologised within its response. The stage 2 response did address the history of the repairs although its chronology of events was vague and did not match the evidence that had been provided to this Service.  This coincides with the landlord’s poor record keeping which has been highlighted throughout this investigation.
33. The landlord agreed that it had failed to complete works in a timely manner, and it apologised. It explained that there was an internal communication issue that compounded delays.  It did not explain how this would be put right to offer some re-assurance that this would not happen again. Its offer of compensation for its failures in handling the drainage works have already been assessed above.
34. The landlord offered £25 for its complaint delays it then revised this offer a year later and increased it to £50. The final offer of compensation for complaint handling was made well outside of the complaint process so the additional £25 is outside the scope of this determination. That it decided to do so is evidence that the landlord sought to try and put things right.
35. In terms of its complaint handling, the landlord’s response apologised and acknowledged it had delayed in its complaint response, which was appropriate. The final offer of redress was made well outside the complaint process however and did not reflect the failings identified in this investigation. This has resulted in a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In addition to the delay, the responses lacked any explanation of what went wrong, any meaningful learning about the admitted failings, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1.        Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2.        Pay the resident £870 in compensation made up of:
       1. £245 as offered in the complaint response (if it has not done so already)
       2. A further £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the drainage issues.
       3. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
39. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1.        Complete a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and identify key points of learning to improve its service, with a particular focus on:
       1. Its poor record keeping.
       2. Its poor communication with the resident.
       3. The lack of oversight and coordination with its contractors.
       4. The recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management; and attitudes, respect, and rights.