A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202007934)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007934

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 February 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the consequences of local power surges to the building affecting:
      1. The water pumps;
      2. Emergency lighting; and
      3. The security of the doors and garages.
2. This Service will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupied the property in accordance with a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy which began in October 2019. He moved out of the property on 20 October 2020.

Policies and Procedures

4. The landlord has not provided copies of its most recent repairs policy but the previous version states that the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the external and internal structure of properties including fittings and services, including entry controls. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is obliged to take reasonable care to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by residents.
5. The landlord’s complaints procedure (relevant up until October 2020) sets out a two stage process whereby a resident can request escalation of their complaint for senior review or panel review if dissatisfied with a stage one response. Stage one complaints are to be acknowledged within two working days and residents are to be contacted to discuss their complaint within a further three working days. Where a review panel is to be held, this is to take place within 20 working days of the escalation request.
6. Its compensation policy (relevant up until October 2020) provides for discretionary payments of compensation to be made in cases “where an appropriate level of service has not been delivered.” Compensation may also be paid for loss of amenity where something has gone wrong, including payments of £2 per day for every day without water.

Summary of events

7. Around the time of the reported issues, there had been power outages in and around the local area. The local electrical supply provider later confirmed that “there is a known fault on our low voltage network in the local area.”
8. The effects of this were that the building in which the resident’s property was located, experienced electricity and water outages. The landlord’s records confirm that there were 11 episodes of water outages experienced in the block between 2 June 2019 and 10 July 2020, one of which lasted over 24 hours from 3 to 4 May 2020.
9. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 June 2020 in which he stated:
   1. The power failure meant that the communal garage door would not open. As there was no override function, residents were unable to get their cars out of the premises;
   2. Water was not being supplied to the building meaning that residents were left without access to washing, drinking or hot water; and
   3. Communal lighting was also failing each time the block experienced power cuts and the emergency lights were not working.
10. There is evidence that, from July 2020, the landlord began liaising with its contractor regarding the power supply and what it could do to mitigate the effects of further outages. At the beginning of July, the landlord arranged for a specialist contractor to attend urgently to inspect the emergency lights’ battery back-up. Surge protection was also installed in July ensuring that water supply would remain unaffected in the event of power cuts.
11. The landlord installed a water bower at the building in July, which it states has been used whenever there have been outages which have affected the water supply.
12. On 29 July, a contractor emailed the landlord confirming that “all three (water) pumps are healthy and the monitor shows they are running when required.” He stated that he was “confident the site will remain complaint free, unless there is a power problem with the electrical supply authorities.”
13. On 10 August the power company confirmed that it had been difficult to locate the fault with the power supply as it had been in the middle of the road. It confirmed that the fault had been cleared the previous week and that there should be no further interruptions to water supply.
14. On 21 August the landlord provided its stage one response. It offered a sincere apology for its delayed response:
    1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused as a result of the electrical failure but noted the power outage was due to circumstances outside of its control and it had followed the appropriate process to seek resolution;
    2. The failure of the emergency lights was also a result of the power outage as they did not receive adequate charge;
    3. Its records confirm that 11 episodes of water outage were experienced and that the pandemic delayed attendance by contractors, so it temporarily resolved this by manually resetting the system;
    4. It acknowledged that it had taken “longer than anticipated to assess and resolve the underlying issue” and arrangements to provide drinking water should have been more effective;
    5. It had introduced monthly monitoring assessments to ensure all electrical facilities were in order. Out of hours emergency teams had also been given clear instructions regarding local referrals in cases of similar incidents in future; and
    6. It apologised for the service failures and offered compensation for the loss of water, inconvenience suffered and for its delayed response, totalling £130.
15. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage one response on 24 August. He stated that he felt the investigation had “glossed over” the main point – that the landlord was aware that the pump was not fitted with surge protection but did nothing. He stated that the landlord’s response during the outage was “completely inadequate” and the compensation offered was based on a loss of hot water, which failed to acknowledge that there was no running water at all. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 4 September.
16. The landlord’s stage two response was provided on 9 October 2020, it stated the following:
    1. Better internal communication “would have led to the surge protection being installed sooner” and it had put “tighter controls” in place to avoid such situations in future;
    2. It had to await the outcome of the power company’s investigation before it could take action;
    3. Issues surrounding its out of hours service were being investigated separately and so it would not address this in its response to the resident;
    4. The issue regarding the emergency battery supply for the stairwell lighting was also being investigated by its Property Services department, however even if it had inserted a longer lasting battery it would still have required a power supply to charge, therefore the overriding power outage was still the issue; and
    5. It offered a total of £140 compensation, to include compensation for the lack of water, service failures in its complaint response and inconvenience caused.
17. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these various issues. As he no longer resides at the property, his ongoing concern remains the level of compensation offered, which he considers insufficient.

Assessment and findings

Water pump issues

18. It is accepted that the power outages which led to the water issues were outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord has acknowledged that it was aware of issues with the water pump back in June 2019, however there is no evidence of any action having been taken to mitigate the issues until June 2020. Surge protection was installed in July 2020, over a year after the landlord acknowledged there were issues. This is an unreasonable delay demonstrating maladministration, for which the landlord offered insufficient compensation.

Emergency lighting

19. The resident first raised a complaint regarding the emergency lighting in June 2020, however there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any action in relation to this issue until October 2020, when it stated that it was looking at how to ensure the emergency battery could retain charge. There is no evidence that any temporary measures were taken. This again is an unreasonable delay and left residents without communal lighting for an unreasonable amount of time and amounts to service failure.

Security of doors and garages

20. The landlord has stated that every time it became aware that garage gates had been affected by power outages, it would ensure contractors were sent each time within 24 hours to override the automatic closure. While it states this, no evidence has been provided to support its assertion.

Complaint handling

21. There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint response at both stage one and two. Its stage one response was provided 51 working days after the complaint was submitted; its stage two response 24 working days after the escalation request. Whilst its policy does not set out specified timescales for formal responses to be provided, this is an excessive delay and one which was recognised by the landlord.
22. It did not offer in its responses any explanation as to the historic failures regarding the fitting of surge protection or any other mitigation works. This again was inappropriate as its complaint response did not adequately address the issues complained of.
23. It also failed to deal with its out of hours response and emergency lighting to the stairwell, both of which it stated were being dealt with by other departments, but it would have been helpful for it to relay any findings by those departments.
24. An apology and compensation were offered. However, the compensation offered was insufficient, particularly considering the lack of action taken in response to the water outages which had affected residents on several occasions. For these reasons together the landlord demonstrated service failure in its complaint response and orders will be made in recognition of this.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the consequences of the local power outages in the building.
26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

27. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it took any measures to temporarily resolve the issues complained of before July 2020, despite being made aware of them in June 2019. This is inappropriate in line with its obligations to its residents. 
28. Its complaint response did not adequately address the issues, nor was it provided in good time or did it offer reasonable redress for its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £490 to the resident within three weeks of the date of this report, to include:
    1. £140 already offered in its complaint response (if not already paid);
    2. An additional £300 for the maladministration in its responses to the issues complained of as experienced by the resident for 9 months of his occupation of the property; and
    3. An additional £50 for the service failure in its complaint response.

Recommendations

30. It is recommended that the landlord write to the residents of the block confirming:
    1. What actions it has taken/ intends to take to mitigate the effects of any future power outages, including its out of hours response and emergency lighting in the stairwell; and
    2. The findings surrounding the out of hours service and the emergency battery supply which were investigated by other departments.
31. It is also recommended that the landlord carries out staff training on effective complaint response in line with its own policy and this Service’s complaint handling code: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/

It is recommended that the landlord complies with the above recommendations within four weeks from the date of this report.