Ongo Homes Limited (202325287)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325287

Ongo Homes Limited

30 June 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s report of a toilet blockage in the property and their request for compensation.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a fixed term tenant since 23 June 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house with their child. The property has a toilet on the ground floor and the first floor. The resident paid for laminate flooring in the property.
On 4 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that water in the downstairs toilet had been rising to the top of the bowl and draining slowly. The downstairs toilet overflowed on 9 August 2023. On this date, the landlord’s contractor unblocked the toilet and arranged an urgent clean to parts of the property that were affected by the overflow. The contractor told the landlord it had found evidence of wipes in the toilet pipeline.
The resident submitted a compensation form to the landlord on 15 August 2023. They said the toilet overflow caused damage to skirting boards, the kitchen wall, and contaminated the flooring and carpet. They wanted £3,095 to replace the flooring. The landlord explained to the resident it had denied their compensation claim.
The resident complained to the landlord on 29 August 2023 that their compensation claim was denied. They said they never used wipes to have caused a block, and that the cleaner had not sufficiently cleaned the property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 13 September 2023. It said the contractor reported that wipes had blocked the toilet and it was therefore not responsible for the toilet overflow. It referred to its compensation policy and explained it would not offer compensation where it was not at fault for the damage.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. They said that the toilet overflow could have been avoided had the landlord promptly responded to their initial report of the toilet blockage. They said that following the toilet overflow, the contractor did not clean the downstairs hall, living room, and kitchen floor. They reiterated the damage caused to the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It set out the same reasoning as it explained in its stage 1 response. It agreed to inspect the property, to see if it needed further cleaning. On 2 January 2024, the landlord attended the property to inspect the reported damage, including the flooring, kitchen wall and skirting board.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 23 October 2023. They said the overflow of the toilet caused damage to the property and they wanted compensation to replace the flooring.
The resident has since said they removed the flooring and underlay after the toilet overflowed, and that the landlord did not repair the flooring and possible damage in the property. They moved from the property on 28 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said they had not caused the block in the toilet pipeline and that the block could have been remedied sooner. The landlord said the evidence showed it was not at fault for the blockage.
The Ombudsman does not consider the matter in an adversarial way, such as the resident’s claims versus the landlord’s claims. Instead, we take an inquisitorial approach and consider objectively what happened, what should have happened and whether there is evidence to demonstrate that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate (with reference to the relevant policies and procedures).

The resident’s report of a toilet blockage

On 4 August 2023 the resident reported a blockage in the toilet system to the landlord. They said using the upstairs toilet caused the downstairs toilet to fill to the top and drain slowly.
The tenancy agreement says:
1. the landlord will keep in good repair the structure of the home, including internal walls, skirting boards, and floors (not including floor coverings).
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords are required to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation.
The landlord’s maintenance policy says:
1. the landlord will carry out repairs:
  1. as an emergency repair within 24 hours, including defects or faults that put the health of the tenant at risk.
  2. as an urgent repair within 7 calendar days, including a blocked sink, bath or basin.
  3. as a routine repair within 28 calendar days, which includes new skirting, and up to 84 days where there are no health issues.
The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. a resident is eligible to claim compensation if the landlord, or a contractor on its behalf, caused damage to personal property or internal decorations.
2. it will not pay compensation for circumstances beyond its control, including accidental damage or events that could not have been predicted or had not been reported.
3. it does not consider claims that could be covered by its liability insurance.
4. if a resident appeals the outcome of a compensation claim it will be reviewed and an outcome letter sent to the resident.
5. it is not a replacement for home contents insurance.
The landlord categorised the resident’s report of a toilet blockage as an emergency. It aimed to inspect the toilet within 24 hours by 5 August 2023. However, there is no evidence the landlord ensured it had inspected the toilet blockage in that time. This was not in line with its maintenance policy. This was inappropriate.
On 9 August 2023 the downstairs toilet overflowed onto the flooring. The contractors were in the vicinity of the property on that date, and so the resident directly notified the contractors about the issue.
The contractors unblocked the toilet on 9 August 2023 and arranged an urgent clean to the affected parts of the property. The contractor told the landlord the block was caused by wipes in the pipeline. It was appropriate and in line with its maintenance policy that the overflow of the toilet was resolved on the same day. It was reasonable that it arranged a clean of the property.
The resident submitted a compensation request to the landlord on 15 August 2023. They said the toilet overflow caused damage to the flooring, kitchen wall, and skirting boards. They wanted £3,095 in compensation to replace the flooring and provided a quote to support this.
The landlord explained to the resident that their compensation request had been declined. It said it was not at fault for the overflow of the toilet due to wipes the contractor found in the toilet pipeline. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the resident’s compensation claim. However, there is no evidence of when and how it communicated this to the resident. This is a failure of its record keeping.
Based on the evidence provided, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord provided the outcome of the compensation claim to the resident prior to 29 and 31 August 2023. This is because the resident complained about the landlord’s outcome of their compensation request on these dates.
While the landlord said it would not pay compensation for the damage to the resident’s flooring, there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s report of damage to the kitchen walls and skirting board. This was inappropriate and not in line with the tenancy agreement and maintenance policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have:
1. responded to the resident’s report of damage to the walls and skirting boards.
2. inspected the property to determine whether any repairs were needed which were within its repair responsibilities.
The resident appealed the landlord’s compensation outcome and made a complaint about it on 29 and 31 August 2023. They said they had not caused the toilet to overflow as they did not use wipes, and that the property was not properly cleaned after the toilet overflowed.
The landlord explained to the resident on 13 September 2023 that the contractors provided photographic evidence that the property had been cleaned. It was reasonable that the landlord investigated the clean of the property to ensure it had been completed.
On 19 September 2023 the resident reiterated to the landlord their concern that the property was not properly cleaned and there was damage to the kitchen wall and skirting board. They also said the overflow of the toilet would not have happened if the landlord had inspected it when it was first reported.
The landlord provided a compensation outcome letter to the resident on 24 September 2023. It reiterated the reasons it had previously given, that it was not responsible for the toilet block and the subsequent overflow of the toilet. It would therefore not pay compensation. It also explained that its compensation policy does not replace home contents insurance. It was appropriate that it had provided a response to the resident’s appeal to the compensation outcome.
However, the landlord had not responded to the resident’s concerns that if it had inspected the blockage when it was first reported, it may have cleared the pipework. This left the resident without a resolution to their concerns and how the damage may be remedied. This was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s concerns against its compensation policy and provide them with a response about the delay to inspect the toilet blockage.
The resident reported damage to the walls of the property, which they said was due to the landlord’s delay in actioning a repair. In the circumstances, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have provided details of its liability and/or building insurance to the resident, if they were unable to claim through any contents insurance. However, there is no evidence the landlord did this. This was unreasonable.
On 4 October 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and arranged to send a contractor to inspect the flooring, wall and skirting in the property within 28 calendar days. It was appropriate the landlord explained to the resident it would inspect the damage in the property.
However, the landlord had taken 50 calendar days to respond to the resident’s report of damage to the kitchen wall and skirting boards. The resident also felt they had to raise this again on 19 September 2023 before the landlord responded. This was inappropriate and not in line with its maintenance policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident on 17 October 2023, it reiterated it had not caused the downstairs toilet to block, and it therefore would not pay compensation. It also said the resident could consider their own home contents insurance, if they wished to do so.
The landlord’s maintenance records shows that a contractor inspected the property for damage on 2 January 2024. It is unclear from these records what it had concluded, what actions it had taken, and whether this was communicated to the resident. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord addressed the resident’s reports of damage in line with its policies and procedures. This was a failure in its record keeping.
The delay to inspect the damage in the property was outside of its maintenance policy. It had also not addressed with the resident the possible damage to the kitchen wall and skirting board and what it may do.
The resident confirmed with this Service on 26 June 2025, that there was no further action from the landlord in response to their concerns about the damage in the property. The resident said they had not made an insurance claim, but had removed the flooring as well as the underlay, and it had not since been replaced. They confirmed they are moving from the property on 28 June 2025.
In summary, the landlord attended to the overflow of the toilet, cleaned the property, and provided a response to the resident’s compensation claim and appeal.
However, the landlord had not:
1. considered the delay to inspect the toilet blockage as an emergency when it was first raised, in line with the timescales set out in its maintenance policy.
2. responded to the resident’s complaint that if it had inspected the blockage when it was first reported, it may have cleared the pipework.
3. responded to the resident’s report of damage to the kitchen wall and skirting boards in line with the timescales set out in its maintenance policy.
4. provided evidence of the actions it had taken to inspect the kitchen wall and skirting boards.
The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its complaint responses to the resident and therefore did not set out any learnings from this. The landlord’s complaint policy says it can consider redress where things have gone wrong, although it had not offered redress to the resident. The landlord’s response is not line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Considering the above, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a toilet blockage.
After careful consideration of our remedies guidance, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures of service set out in this report and explain the lessons it learnt from these.
2. respond to the resident’s concern that it had not addressed the toilet blockage when it was first raised and this caused subsequent damage in the property. It should consider its compensation policy in its response to the resident. It should also provide details of its insurance to the resident, including how they can make a claim for damage to their flooring.
3. pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of a toilet blockage.
These remedies are in line with our dispute resolution principles of to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

The associated complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) a landlord must ensure it:
1. acknowledges a complaint within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
2. responds to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days from the date it was acknowledged.
  1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the date it was escalated.
  1. if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree to it.
The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 29 August 2023 and so it had until 5 September 2023 to acknowledge it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 August 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
The landlord had until 14 September 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. The landlord had until 17 October 2023 to provide its response or confirm an extension. It provided the stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
In summary, the landlord had appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in the timescales outlined in the Code and its complaint policy. Therefore, we find there has been no maladministration in how it handled the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a toilet blockage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures set out in this report.
  2. explain the lessons it learnt from these, and how it will prevent them happening again in the future.
  3. address the resident’s concerns about the delay to inspect the toilet blockage and the subsequent damage to the property after the toilet overflowed. The response should set out:

(1) whether it will compensate for damage that may have been caused to the resident’s flooring due to the delay responding to the toilet blockage. This should include the landlord’s considerations of its compensation policy.

(2) if it does not compensate for this, it should explain why in the response and provide details of its insurance and how the resident could make a claim.

a copy of the correspondence should be sent to the resident and this Service.

pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of a toilet blockage.
provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

The resident said they will no longer reside at the property from 28 June 2025. The landlord should ensure it has ways to communicate with the resident in writing so it can comply with the orders in this report.