A2Dominion Housing Options Limited (202004155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004155

A2Dominion Housing Options Limited

8 April 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of fence repairs;
2. the resident’s reports of damage to her carpet;
3. the related complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Housing Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that:

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.

Further, paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme states that:

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.’

The resident has told this Service that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damage to her carpet in September 2018. She has advised that this was subject to an insurance liability claim that was refused.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, this matter has not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process and is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Further, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or consider the outcome of insurance claims. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to make legally binding decisions in the way that a tribunal or the courts might.
However, I can confirm that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fence repairs and its handling of the related complaint are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate and are addressed below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant. The landlord has provided a tenancy agreement but the tenancy start date is redacted. The landlord has described the property as a two-bedroom terraced flat.
The landlord has stated that it was aware the resident uses a disabled badge for car parking. It was aware at least as early as August 2019 that she had arthritis and lost use of an arm and at least as early as August 2020 that she uses a wheelchair.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in repair ‘fences which are next to footpaths… and which have been put up by the Association’.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing fences. It states that all repairs will be classed as either ‘urgent’ (to be completed within 24 hours) or ‘standard’ (to be completed at the next available appointment).

It adds that its contractors will ‘behave appropriately whilst in the resident’s home, showing respect for both the resident and their belongings’ and that ‘residents will need to remove their belongings for repairs to be completed’.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it will not consider liability matters subject to an insurance claim through the complaints process.
The landlord has a complaints procedure that sets out a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord is required to acknowledge the complaint within two working days but there is no prescribed timescale for a full response. At stage two, the landlord is required to conduct either a service director (no prescribed timescale) or panel (within 25 working days) review.
The complaints procedure states that where the landlord upholds or partially upholds a complaint, it should review if compensation should be awarded. It shows that if there is a ‘claim that is linked to a complaint, the caseworker will send the complainant a claim form, explain it will take a number of months before a decision is made and close the complaint’. It adds that where a complainant is dissatisfied with the insurance claim timeframe, this will only be acted upon once the stage one is responded to and the insurance claims handler has decided on the claim.
The compensation policy states that if a ‘contractor working on behalf of the company, is liable for damage or personal injury then the claim should be assessed and referred to the appropriate insurance company.’ It adds that ‘claims for personal injury must be referred to our Insurance Section and dealt with outside of this policy.’

Summary of Events

It is not disputed that the landlord raised a fencing repair job on 10 February 2020. The landlord’s records show that it subsequently logged a complaint on 2 March 2020. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 19 March 2020 about the fencing works and she reported missed appointments on 13 March 2020 and another a few weeks before that.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 March 2020 to advise that there was a delay due to the pandemic lockdown. The resident replied the same day to advise that not being able to use the garden was having an impact on her and her daughter given the lockdown restrictions.
The landlord recorded that it attended the property on 8 April 2020 and gained no access although the resident reported on 14 April 2020 that an operative was advised by her to use the side gate but had then left the site.
This resident wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2020 to ask for the job to be delayed as she had a private gardener doing some work. The landlord replied the same day to advise it would close the complaint given the resident was unavailable for recommended appointments but it would complete works when allowed. The resident wrote to the landlord to ask that the missed appointments and bad communication be considered before the complaint is closed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2020. She asked for the fencing work to be done and stated someone had entered her garden from the street.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 27 April 2020. It confirmed that a fencing repair had been raised on 10 February 2020 and that contractors would now arrange an appointment as soon as possible. It awarded £50 compensation, made up of £40 for two missed appointments and £10 for lack of communication.
The landlord recorded that the resident contacted it on 5 May 2020 to express dissatisfaction with the quality of works. She wrote to it on 6 May 2020 to state that her grass had been ruined and raise concerns about a ‘solid metal thing around the base’ of a fence post.
The contractor reported back to the landlord on 6 May 2020 to state that they had used a ‘met’ post which are installed when a hole cannot be dug. It agreed that it looked out of place compared to other posts in the garden but that a concrete post would have been messier. It agreed to post-inspect the quality of works.
The contractor provided a post-inspection report to the landlord on 13 May 2020 following attendance the day before. It stated that it had not seen damaged astro turf but that the turf had risen due to the ‘met’ post being set above ground level which it agreed should not have happened. It suggested operatives return to attempt to hammer the ‘met’ post further into the ground or, failing that, to remove the ‘met’ post and replace it with a timber one.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 May 2020 to ask if her complaint could be re-opened given the post-inspection findings.
The landlord’s contractor records show that it recorded on 18 May 2020 that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of work. It noted that the resident’s astro turf would need to be peeled back as she had been asked to arrange this but had refused. Its repairs records show a job was raised on this date to use a hammer and wedge to push the ‘met’ post further into the ground or, failing that, to install a new wooden post.
Works were booked for 27 May 2020 but the contractor notified the resident that morning that the operative was ill so the appointment was rescheduled for 3 June 2020.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported on 4 June 2020 that the contractor had initially attempted to hammer the post further into the ground only for a manager to attend and state that this should not have happened.
The resident submitted an invoice to the landlord that was dated 10 June 2020 and was for £300 for repairs to astro turf. The landlord noted on 18 June 2020 that it had advised the resident that this would need to be made as an insurance claim.
The landlord’s internal records show that it made a record on 30 June 2020 that it had spoken to the resident and asked for her to roll back the membrane to allow for the fence post issue to be resolved and that it told her it could not accept responsibility for damage.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2020 to ask for the fence to be fixed. She asked to escalate the complaint on 14 July 2020 because there had been no response to the earlier email and the contractor had refused to remove astro turf and replace a membrane.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 7 August 2020, 24 August 2020 and 8 September 2020, asking it to progress the complaint and update the resident.
The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 11 September 2020. It stated that:
1. its contractors used ‘met’ posts for the fencing job to avoid digging post holes and damaging the resident’s astro turf but the resident had asked them to re-attend as she was dissatisfied with the appearance of the posts
2. when the contractors returned to remove the ‘met’ posts, one of these snapped and had to be dug out and the resident had reported damage caused to the astro turf
3. the contractor proposed to peel back the astro turf to postcrete the posts in before placing the astro turf back but the resident had refused this work
4. an apology was given to the resident as the landlord concluded it was not made clear by the contractor that they would not re-instate the astro turf ‘to its entirety’
5. the resident could make a liability claim for this damage and a form was enclosed
6. it expressed sympathy as the resident had reported a physical attack on her (that the resident had linked to the lack of security she stated was due to the lack of fencing) and it added that she had been advised to report this to the Police and could add this to her liability claim
7. it aimed to complete the fence repairs on 25 September 2020.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2020 and 5 October 2020, asking it to provide the resident with a final complaint response.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a job on 7 October 2020 for replacement of the fence and a note was made that the contractor would not be responsible for damage to turf.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 16 October 2020. It concluded that:
1. there was a lack of clarity given to the resident as to how she could pursue a liability claim in respect of damage to her property
2. an apology was offered for the delay, missed appointments and lack of clarity on the fence repairs
3. the fence works were completed on 10 October 2020
4. compensation of £235 was awarded, made up of £100 for in recognition of inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident, £75 for the quality of service and £60 for three missed appointments
5. training would be given to staff on liability claims and the contractor had been reminded of the landlord’s expected service levels.
The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 3 December 2020. It advised that:
1. damages claims are dealt with outside the complaints process and this had been reiterated to the service area in question
2. it understood that the resident had made a liability claim for damage caused and that she was to make a claim for injury too
3. it confirmed that the complaint had been upheld and it was willing to offer a further £75 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Fence repairs

It is not disputed that the landlord was made aware of fence damage in February 2020 and that it failed to complete the repair until October 2020. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not have a set timescale for ‘standard’ repairs but it was unreasonable that it took eight months for this repair to be completed.
It is of concern that the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerability during its handling of the fence repairs. The resident raised security concerns with the landlord from April 2020. She advised the landlord that the rear of the property was accessible from the street but there is no evidence that this information was used to prioritise the repair, even after she advised it of an assault. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not demonstrate that it took the resident’s circumstances or security concerns into consideration.
When the landlord carried out its initial fence repair attempt in late April 2020, it completed works that it subsequently concluded were not of good quality. It is therefore not disputed that the initial works were inadequate. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to identify the correct approach to complete the fencing repairs having had the repairs job open for more than two months. The landlord has apologised for this and stated in a subsequent complaint response that it has reminded its contractors of the service standards it expects.
The resident first reported damage to her astro turf on 6 May 2020 which she advised was caused by the contractors’ initial fence repairs. The landlord’s contractors post-inspected on 12 May 2020 and stated that they had been unable to confirm this damage although they noted that the turf had risen. It was reasonable for the landlord to visit the property to assess the damage although its assessment of whether damage had been caused was unclear.
The resident submitted an invoice for private astro turf works in June 2020. The landlord noted that it had advised the resident an insurance claim would need to be made although no evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm this or that it provided her with a claim form. There is no record of a claim form being sent to the resident until September 2020. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to make an insurance claim, it was unreasonable that there was a delay of three months in her being provided with the required form. It has acknowledged this delay in its complaint responses and advised that staff have been trained to avoid a recurrence of this issue.
The landlord’s internal records show that it advised the resident during May 2020 that she should peel back the astro turf to allow it to rectify its initial works but that she had refused. However, it stated in September 2020 that it was willing to peel back and reinstate the turf. It is not disputed that the landlord was not clear in its communications with the resident during this period and it acknowledged this in its September 2020 stage two holding response.
The landlord’s initial decision not to move the astro turf may have been appropriate and in line with its responsive repairs policy that requires residents to move their belongings to allow repairs to be completed. However, it failed to explain its decision in writing to the resident and was silent on her request in July 2020 for it to undertake works to replace astro turf membrane and remove weeds (that she stated were due to the delay in the landlord repairing the fence). The landlord’s failure to formally communicate decisions on this was unreasonable and may have caused a lack of clarity on what the landlord was, and was not, willing to do to remedy the dispute.
The resident advised this Service that she reported an assault to the landlord in early July 2020 that she linked to the lack of security caused by the collapsed fence panels. This Service has not been provided with evidence of when the landlord was made aware of this but it did refer to the assault in its stage two holding response in September 2020. The landlord expressed sympathy, reiterated that it had told her to report the assault to the Police and advised that she could make an injury claim on top of her claim for damage to the astro turf. This approach was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy that states that personal injury should be considered by an insurance claims handler. The resident has though subsequently advised this Service that the landlord’s claims handler has refused to progress this part of the claim.
The landlord made a compensation offer of £310 to the resident broken down as follows:
1. £100 in recognition of time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
2. £75 in recognition of ‘quality of service’
3. £75 in recognition of time and trouble related to the advice on the personal injury claim
4. £60 for three missed repairs appointments

The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a case. A range of £250-£700 is recommended for cases where there has been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with a policy (such as addressing repairs). The landlord’s compensation offer of £310 was within this range and was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

In summary, the landlord was responsible for delays in completing fence repairs at the resident’s property, initially carried out inadequate repairs and was not timely or clear in its communications with the resident on her recourse to make liability claims and how it would rectify the incorrectly installed fence post. This will inevitably have been a source of distress for the resident, particularly given her security concerns.
However, when reviewing how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcomings and prevent a recurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this instance, the landlord has taken steps to acknowledge and apologise for its shortcomings, advised how its staff and its contractor intend to learn from the complaint and offered appropriate compensation. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress and acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint handling

The landlord recorded receipt of the resident’s initial complaint on 2 March 2020. Although it was in contact with the resident about the fence repair during the following months, it failed to offer a formal stage one complaint response to the resident until 27 April 2020. The landlord’s complaints procedure does not prescribe set timescales but this was an unreasonable period for the resident to await a complaint response and the landlord failed to apologise for this delay in its eventual response.
The landlord also attempted to close the complaint on 24 April 2020 on the basis that the resident had temporarily requested that fence repairs were suspended to allow her private garden works to proceed. This approach was unreasonable as the landlord acknowledged a few days later that its contractors were responsible for fence repair delays. It should therefore have not attempted to close the complaint without a response. This approach failed to demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s complaint seriously and meant that the resident had to ask the landlord for a response.
The resident asked the landlord to re-open her complaint on 14 May 2020 and asked it to escalate her complaint on 14 July 2020. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it escalated the case to be reviewed by a service director or panel as its complaints procedure requires – this was inappropriate.
A stage two holding letter was sent on 11 September 2020 and a stage two complaint response was issued on 16 October 2020. There was a period of delay of at least two months between the resident escalating the complaint and the landlord providing a final complaint response – this was unreasonable and led this Service making repeated requests for the response to be provided.
The landlord’s final complaint response on 16 October 2020 (and holding response of 11 September 2020) did offer apologies and a remedy for the service failures identified with the fence repair. It subsequently reviewed the complaint again in December 2020 due to further contact from the resident about the assault. This led to an increase in the compensation offer and a reiteration of the improvements it had made to ensure staff were aware of the liability claim process. These responses demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to use its discretion to review the remedy it had offered the resident.
In summary, there was unreasonable delay by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. It has failed to demonstrate that it escalated the resident’s complaint when she requested this and there were delays at the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process even after this Service approached it on several occasions during July-October 2020.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for the service failures identified in its handling of the fence repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the resident’s fence and failed to communicate appropriately with the resident during the period of delay. Its apologies, assurances on service improvement and compensation award of £310 were fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed in its handling of the related complaint at both stages of its complaints process and the resident and this Service had to chase the landlord for her complaint to be escalated.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling service failures identified in this report and to pay her compensation of £125 in recognition of the inconvenience and additional time and trouble caused by these failures.

The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the proposed compensation of £310 in recognition of the impact of its service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of fence repairs.
The landlord to write to the resident to confirm the likely timescale for a decision on her liability claim for damage to her astro turf and the personal injury claim; if it needs any further information to progress these claims, it should explain this to the resident.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should review its handling of this complaint and ensure that it is now dealing with complaints in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.