A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202301098)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301098

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

20 June 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 concerns about the maintenance and servicing of the ventilation unit in her property.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom, 4th floor flat. She holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which started on 11 March 2013.
  2. On 23 January 2023, the resident reported that the landlord had not regularly serviced the ventilation unit in her property and that it had only been attended to once in 2019 when the appliance broke down. She reported that the appliance caused her health issues including shortness of breath.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 February 2023 as she had not received a response from the landlord.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 13 March 2023. In summary it said:
    1. The ventilation unit was last serviced on 4 June 2021.
    2. Its contractors attempted to book an appointment to service her ventilation unit in 2022 but did not receive a response from the resident.
    3. The landlord had not received any repair requests from the resident regarding the ventilation unit. It was happy to attend to any concerns.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2023. She wanted an explanation as to why the landlord had not completed regular services since she moved in. She reported that the air filters should be changed every 3-6 months due to the pollution levels where she lived.
  6. On 4 April 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. The landlord attended in 2019 to replace the ventilation unit and confirmed the last service was in June 2021.
    2. It reviewed contractor records and confirmed it attempted to arrange a service of the ventilation unit with the resident in 2022.
    3. Its contractors attended to inspect the ventilation unit following the resident’s concerns. The appliance was dissembled, and no issues were identified. It was left in working order.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 April 2023. She remains dissatisfied that the landlord did not complete regular services or maintenance works to the ventilation unit since her tenancy began. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking compensation for the reported failings between 2014 until 2022. Additionally, she is seeking compensation for the impact on her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident referenced how the landlord’s failure to maintain the air ventilation unit impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s inspections of the ventilation unit and problems with the resident’s health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident complained about concerns with the landlord’s servicing of a ventilation unit since she moved into the property in 2013. Under 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern matters which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 24 February 2023, the investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2013 until January 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from February 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in April 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the maintenance and servicing of the ventilation unit in her property.

  1. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord did not have an obligation to provide yearly checks to the air ventilation unit. Nonetheless, records show that its contractor made reasonable attempts to contact the resident to arrange an annual service of the appliance in 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident, phoned her, and knocked on her door on 3 separate occasions. Records show that she did not respond to any of the contacts. The resident did not dispute this. Given the circumstances, the obligation would be on the resident to follow this up with the landlord if she wanted to arrange the annual service of the ventilation unit. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to indefinitely chase up the resident for such inspections. The resident did not follow this up. As such, there were no failings in the landlord’s attempts to service the resident’s ventilation unit in 2022.  
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord previously experienced similar communication issues with the resident when it historically made attempts to book in annual services with the resident.
  3. In her complaint, the resident reported she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not regularly maintained the ventilation unit. The resident said that the landlord had not changed the filters. She also reported that the appliance caused her health issues. In accordance with her tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for reporting faults to the landlord. Therefore, although the landlord is responsible for completing repairs, it is expected to be reactive, rather than proactive. Records show that the resident did not report any concerns to the landlord about the ventilation unit prior to January 2023. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord explained in its complaint response that it had not received any prior call outs but would be happy to attend and investigate any issues with the ventilation unit. The Ombudsman would not have expected the landlord to act sooner, as no previous repair reports had been raised.
  4. It was proportionate that the landlord inspected the ventilation unit on 13 March 2023 in response to the resident’s concerns. A contractor dissembled and cleaned the appliance and found no issues. They recommended that a trap should be fitted to prevent smells affecting the unit, and that ceiling valves should be replaced. However, these were identified as improvement works rather than to address a fault. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the ventilation unit was unsafe as the resident suggested, or that any detriment was caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.
  5. The contractor was unable to complete their investigation into the ventilation unit as the resident requested them to leave due to a work commitment. However, the contractor recorded that the ventilation unit was re-assembled and left in working order. The landlord outlined in its final response that it wanted to re-attend to undertake the recommended works and complete its investigations. It asked the resident to advise of a suitable appointment time. The landlord was clear with the resident on its intended actions.
  6. Following the final response, it was appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a follow up appointment. The landlord was unable to access the resident’s property for a pre-arranged appointment on 12 April 2023. It phoned the resident on arrival, but she did not respond. Following this, the landlord offered the resident appointments for 27 June 2023, 7 July 2023, and 21 July 2023. Records show that the resident did not accept any of the proposed appointments. She failed to respond to some and requested more notice for others. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps in a timely manner. As the resident did not confirm an appointment, the delays for the landlord to complete its inspection and action recommendations for the ventilation unit were outside of its control. The resident is encouraged to engage with the landlord if the matter remains outstanding.
  7. The above demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s concerns with the ventilation unit. It was resolution focused and took steps to reassure the resident. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the maintenance and servicing of the ventilation unit in her property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the maintenance and servicing of the ventilation unit in her property.