A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202201960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201960

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to flooding at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the decant.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal data.
5. The landlord’s response to damage caused to the resident’s possessions by the flooding.
6. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom basement flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
On or around 12 July 2021, the resident’s home flooded to knee height due to wastewater overflowing from the bath and toilet. This was caused by heavy rainfall which caused the sewers to overflow, and which affected multiple properties in the resident’s neighbourhood. On 13 July 2021, the resident was decanted from the property as it was uninhabitable and in need of extensive repair.
The resident raised a complaint on 27 August 2021. He was dissatisfied that:
1. contractors had informed him that the flooding had been made worse by blocked drainpipes at the property
2. he believed that the landlord knew or ought to have known that the drainpipes at the property were blocked and that it was therefore responsible for the flooding
3. the landlord had informed him that the repairs would take 4 weeks to complete, but that no repairs had begun
4. he had not been provided with boxes to remove his possessions from the property until 6 August 2021 and that he was unable to remove anything on that date because the landlord had not disinfected the property
5. the landlord had not informed him that he was responsible for his possessions and arranging contents insurance
6. the utility company had offered to install a pump system in or around 2007 following a similar incident, which he believed the landlord declined
7. he had been decanted to an unfurnished property far away from his home, which he had found isolating and had incurred additional costs.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2021, the landlord stated:
1. it had attended the resident’s home on 26 July 2021 to clear the drain blockage, that it had been unable to do so on that date, and that follow-up works were arranged
2. it believed that blocked drains at the property did not cause the flooding, as it had been identified as a mains water supply issue which it was not responsible for, and had affected multiple properties in the area
3. it did not believe that there was any service failure in carrying out repairs to the blocked drains, as it had responded to this once it was reported
4. it acknowledged that there had been a delay in beginning repairs, which it stated was due to the resident taking time to decide what to do with his possessions and its insurers investigating the flood
5. the resident was responsible for arranging contents insurance as detailed in the tenancy agreement
6. it offered £25 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 November 2021. He was dissatisfied that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had been sent to an incorrect email address on 6 October 2021, which he believed was a data breach. He was also dissatisfied that:
1. he had not previously been informed he was responsible for contents insurance
2. he did not accept the landlord’s explanation that the flooding had been caused by a mains water supply issue
3. the landlord had not acknowledged that the blocked drains may have made the flooding worse.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would not consider his complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. Despite this, it also stated that:
1. the stage 1 complaint response had been sent to an incorrect email address and had been returned as undeliverable, and therefore it did not believe there had been a data breach
2. the resident had been informed of his responsibility to arrange contents insurance at the start of his tenancy
3. multiple properties across a large area had been affected by the flooding, and therefore it did not believe that the flooding was caused by blocked drains in the resident’s home
4. offered the resident a further £25 compensation.
Between 1 December 2021 and 5 May 2022, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and made further attempts to escalate his complaint on several occasions.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2022, the landlord:
1. acknowledged it had not provided the resident with information about his right to escalate his complaint to this service in its previous correspondence
2. explained that there had been no data breach because the stage 1 complaint response had been sent to an email address which did not exist and therefore had not been received by anyone else
3. reiterated that the resident’s responsibility for contents insurance as detailed in the tenancy agreement
4. reiterated that it was not responsible for the flooding because this was caused by a mains water supply issue
5. acknowledged that blocked drains may have made the flooding worse, but that it responded to this appropriately once it had been alerted to it
6. offered £100 compensation for the problems the resident experienced in escalating his complaint.
The evidence indicates that the repairs to the property were started in or around November 2022 and were completed on or around 6 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident’s complaints include a concern that the landlord breached data protection legislation and data handling guidance in its handling of his complaint. Complaints about data protection are within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, under paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, this service will not consider whether there has been a breach of data protection legislation or ICO guidance, as this falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. If the resident remains concerned about this, he can bring his complaint to the ICO, which may be able to investigate.
This service will consider how the landlord responded to the incident, and whether this was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Scope

In his complaints, the resident reported that the water utility company had offered to install a pump system in or around 2007 following a similar flooding incident. He believed that had the landlord accepted this offer, it would have prevented the flooding in July 2021, and therefore the landlord was responsible for this incident.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that due to the extensive period of time that has elapsed, it is not possible for this service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the actions which may or may not have occurred in 2007 or draw any meaningful conclusions as to whether such actions would have altered the outcome of events which occurred 14 years later. Therefore, this report focuses on events from July 2021 onwards.
Moreover, Ofwat has details about who is responsible for wastewater pipes. Its website states it can consider some complaints about wastewater together with the Consumer Council for Water.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s response to flooding at the property

In the resident’s complaints, he believed that the landlord was responsible for the flooding in his home and that this was exacerbated by the blocked drains, which he also believed the landlord was responsible for.
From the context of various items of correspondence and published information, including from the water utility company and local authority, it is reasonable to conclude that this was caused by a heavy rainfall which caused the sewers in the resident’s neighbourhood to overflow.
The evidence also indicates that multiple properties in the resident’s neighbourhood were also affected by flooding. This further indicates that the flooding was caused by the overflowing sewers.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it was not responsible for the flooding, as it was a mains water supply issue. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord’s reasoning. It also explained that although the blocked drains at the property may have exacerbated the flooding:
1. the blocked drains was not the cause of the flooding
2. the landlord had responded to the blocked drains once it had been made aware of it.
There is no evidence that the landlord was made aware of blocked drains at the property prior to the flooding. Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that had the drains not been blocked, the resident’s property would not have flooded.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to flooding at the property. There is no evidence that it was responsible for the cause of the flooding, nor that it could reasonably have known about the blocked drains.

The landlord’s handling of the decant of the resident from the property

The landlord’s decant policy states that:
1. in an emergency it will move residents to alternative accommodation within 24 hours
2. when decanting a resident, it will try to provide a property which is appropriate to their needs and in a suitable location
3. it may not always be able to provide a property which is appropriate to their needs or in a suitable location as it will be restricted by the resources available
4. it will consider a range of resources, including its own housing stock and hotels
5. it will make 2 offers of alternative accommodation
6. it will reimburse residents for any reasonable costs incurred by the decant.
In correspondence with the landlord and this service, the resident raised concerns that he had been decanted to a property which was an hour and a half away from his home. He reported that he found this isolating and that it had a significant impact on his health and wellbeing. He was also dissatisfied that he had been placed in an unfurnished property and had therefore incurred additional costs.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine:
1. whether the landlord gave adequate consideration to the resident’s needs or the impact of the decant on him
2. what options for a decant the landlord considered
3. what options the landlord offered the resident, if any at all
4. whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, and if it did, whether this was appropriate
5. whether the landlord made any offer to reimburse the additional costs incurred by the resident, and if it did, whether this was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the decant of the resident from the property. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of the decant was appropriate, reasonable, or fair in all the circumstances. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
The resident ought to be compensated for these failings, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each case. The Ombudsman also expects that where repairs are delayed, landlords take a proactive approach to keeping residents informed, including an adequate explanation of the cause of the delay and how the landlord intends to resolve this.
The evidence indicates that the repairs required to the resident’s home were extensive and included the replacement of:
1. timber throughout the structure of the property
2. flooring
3. walls and ceilings
4. electrical fixtures and fittings
5. kitchen fixtures and fittings
6. bathroom fixtures and fittings
7. waste pipes
8. doors
9. decoration.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine with certainty when these repairs started. However, from the context of the correspondence which has been made available to this service, it is reasonable to conclude that the repairs started in or around November 2022, which was 16 months after the flooding.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in starting the repairs and explained that this was due to the resident taking time to decide what to do with his possessions, and also an investigation being carried out by an insurance company. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for this service to verify the landlord’s account.
The resident approached his Member of Parliament (MP) for further support following the completion of the complaints process. In an email to the resident’s MP on 10 November 2022, the landlord explained that the delay in starting the repairs was caused by ‘protracted discussions’ between an insurance company and loss adjustors. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for this service to verify the landlord’s account.
In correspondence with this service, the landlord explained that delays in carrying out the repairs were also caused by unauthorised people sleeping in the property in February 2022. This prevented contractors from entering the property to assess the necessary repairs and prepare a bid for tender. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for this service to verify the landlord’s account.
Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord took a proactive approach to keeping the resident informed about the delays or provided him with adequate explanations. The evidence indicates that the resident chased the landlord for updates on the repairs on several occasions. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about the repairs without him prompting it to do so. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
The evidence further indicates that the landlord did not always respond to these requests, and when it did respond, it provided inadequate explanations for the cause of the delays or what it intended to do to resolve them. This was another significant failure by the landlord.
The evidence indicates that the repairs were completed on or around 6 April 2023, which was 4 months after the works had started, and 20 months after the flooding. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude that the time taken to complete the repairs was reasonable. There is also no evidence that the landlord inspected the property following the completion of the repairs to satisfy itself that they were full and effective. This was a failing by the landlord.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. It took at least 16 months for it to begin repairs and took a further 4 months for it to complete them. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delays were reasonable or unavoidable.
The resident ought to be compensated for these failings. The landlord must also inspect the resident’s home and check that the repairs have been full and effective.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal data

On 6 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response by email. The evidence indicates that there was a typographical error in the email address this was sent to, and therefore the resident did not receive the stage 1 complaint response on that date.
The landlord acknowledged its mistake on 13 October 2021 and provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on that date. It explained that there had been no data breach, because the email it sent on 6 October 2021 had been returned as undeliverable which indicated that the email address did not exist.
On several occasions following this, the resident asked the landlord to provide him with evidence that the email had been returned as undeliverable. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident’s request was reasonable in the circumstances because he was concerned about the security of his personal data.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with the evidence he requested. This was a failing by the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to respond to reasonable requests for information in a timely manner. It should not be necessary for the Ombudsman to make orders for the landlord to do so.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s personal data, for which the resident ought to be compensated. In addition, the landlord must provide the resident with the evidence he requested. If it is unable to locate this evidence, it must investigate this incident and provide the resident with a detailed explanation.
The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord review this incident and consider:
1. whether it ought to report this incident to its Data Protection Officer (DPO)
2. whether it ought to report this incident to the ICO.

The landlord’s response to damage caused to the resident’s possessions by the flooding

In his complaints, the resident reported that the landlord took an inventory of his possessions on 9 August 2021. A copy of this inventory has not been made available to this service. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for this service to determine the extent of the damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the flooding.
Section 3.8 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident was responsible for insuring the contents of his home and his possessions. That section further states that the landlord would not pay for any damage caused to his possessions, unless the landlord was responsible for the damage.
As noted at paragraphs 18 to 23 of this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the flooding in the resident’s home. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the flooding.
In correspondence with the landlord and this service, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that his responsibility for arranging contents insurance for his home and possessions was not explicitly made clear to him at the start of his tenancy. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that the resident’s responsibility for this was detailed in the tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the damage caused by the flooding will have caused the resident significant financial loss, as well as the loss of possessions with sentimental value. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that, having signed the tenancy agreement, the resident read and understood the agreement he had entered into.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to damage caused to the resident’s possessions. It reached a decision it was entitled to make and which was consistent with the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is best practice that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process. The landlord’s policy does not specify any timescales on which it will provide its complaint responses. The Ombudsman expects landlords to provide stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and provide stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days of being escalated.
The policy does state that where a resident expresses dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, the landlord will automatically escalate the complaint to stage 2. The policy does not detail any circumstances in which the landlord will decline to escalate a resident’s complaint to stage 2.
The resident raised his complaint on 27 August 2021. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2021, which was 33 working days later. This was not appropriate, as it was inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 November 2021. In its reply on 16 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would not accept his complaint at stage 2 of its process. However, it did then respond to the resident’s concerns and offered him further compensation. In addition, the landlord’s correspondence did not provide the resident with any information about his right to escalate his complaint to this service.
The landlord’s reply on 16 November 2021 was not acceptable. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with landlords’ policies and the Code. In exceptional circumstances, landlords may decline to escalate a complaint. In those cases, the Ombudsman expects landlords to clearly explain what exceptional circumstances apply, that its complaint process has been exhausted, and that the resident has a right to bring their complaint to this service. The landlord did not do so in this instance. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord’s reply on 16 November 2021 was inconsistent with its own policy. There was no scope within the landlord’s policy for it to decline to escalate the resident’s complaint. This was a further significant failure by the landlord.
On at least 5 occasions following the landlord’s reply, the resident made further attempts to escalate his complaint, which should not have been necessary. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to any of these attempts to escalate the complaint or provided the resident with any information about his right to escalate his complaint to this service. This was a failure by the landlord.
In the absence of a response from the landlord, the resident approached this service for further support. On 13 June 2022, this service instructed the landlord to either:
1. confirm that the resident had exhausted its complaints process and was therefore within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider
2. provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response no later than 21 June 2022.
This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints appropriately, without the involvement of this service. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2022, which was 179 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. It was also 20 working days after the deadline that was set by this service. This was not appropriate, as it was inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 for the difficulties he had experienced in escalating his complaint. It is unclear whether this offer was inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of redress was inadequate considering the extent of the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint, in that it:
1. unreasonably delayed in providing complaint responses
2. unreasonably delayed the resident in seeking redress through this service
3. provided responses which were inappropriate and unacceptable.
The resident has expended significant time and effort in pursuing his complaint, which should not have been necessary. The resident ought to be compensated for these failings, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to flooding at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s personal data.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to damage caused to the resident’s possessions by the flooding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must no later than 31 January 2024:
1. Pay the resident £1,950 compensation consisting of:
  1. £400 for its handling of the decant, its poor record keeping, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
  2. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs (including the delays), its poor record keeping, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident
  3. £100 for its failure to provide the resident with information that he had reasonably requested
  4. £250 for the complaint-handling failures identified in this report and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. Provide this service with evidence of the above payment.
3. Make all reasonable efforts to determine:
  1. what additional costs were incurred by the resident due to the decant
  2. whether it would be appropriate for it to make a further offer of compensation to reimburse the resident for some or all these costs
4. Provide the resident and this service with a detailed explanation of its decision regarding the reimbursement of additional costs incurred by the resident.
5. Inspect the resident’s home and ensure that the repairs have been full and effective. It must provide the resident and this service with a copy of its inspection report.
6. Provide the resident and this service with evidence that its email dated 6 October 2021 had been returned to it as undeliverable. If the landlord is unable to provide this evidence, it must investigate and provide the resident and this service with a detailed explanation.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the incident concerning its email on 6 October 2021 and consider:
1. ICO guidance
2. whether it ought to report this incident to its DPO
3. whether it ought to report this incident to the ICO.