Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Ongo Homes Limited (202211954)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211954

Ongo Homes Limited

30 November 2023

Amended 20 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

  1. The complaint is about the condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy and how the subsequent repairs were handled by the landlord.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house with a garden. The resident’s tenancy began on 13 May 2022.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 4 August 2022 about the landlord’s handling of various repairs that were identified when she viewed the property. The resident stated that the repairs should have been completed before she moved into the property, and that she had been required to chase up the outstanding issues with the landlord.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued on 9 August 2022. The landlord upheld the complaint and found that the property was not presented to a lettable standard. It identified that the bathroom extractor fan was not working correctly, that the garden was not free from rubbish or left in a manageable condition and that the garden fencing was not made safe or secure. The landlord set out the actions that would be taken in relation to each of the outstanding repairs. It offered the resident compensation of £400, made up of £200 for loss of garden and outbuilding facilities for approximately 4 months, £153 for 5 additional and unnecessary repairs appointments and £47 for inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 August 2022 because she felt that the compensation was not reasonable. The stage 2 response was issued on 12 September 2022. The landlord stated that it could have done more to meet the lettable home standards, and that it had learnt from the complaint. The landlord increased the amount of compensation offered to £483, made up of £280 for loss of garden and outbuilding facilities for approximately 4 months, £153 for 5 additional and unnecessary repairs appointments and £50 for inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 30 September 2022 and stated that the outstanding work had not been completed, despite the landlord informing her that this would be done by 19 September 2022. The resident stated that the compensation was insufficient given that she had paid full rent for a non-lettable property.
  6. On 20 November 2023, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had partially installed fencing between her property and one of the neighbouring properties. She said that the fencing was not on the boundary and this had resulted in her losing some of her garden. In order to resolve the complaint, the resident said that she wanted the fence to be moved to the correct position, and for a gate to be fitted as currently anyone could access her garden. She also noted that the a fence has not been installed on the left side of the garden. The resident also requested compensation for the loss of her garden, the inconvenience, time and trouble caused and in recognition of the long delays in resolving the issues. The resident stated that the landlord had not taken into account the risk to her son of the presence of asbestos in the garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to move the position of the newly installed fence or to order it to install a gate between the resident’s property and a privately owned property as these matters did not form part of the original complaint. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord about the position of the fence, and the decision not to install a gate on the boundary with the privately owned property. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Garden debris

  1. The landlord’s lettable homes standard states that gardens will be free from rubbish, adequately mowed and left in a manageable condition. The landlord appropriately identified that the property was not presented to a lettable standard because rubbish and debris had not been removed from the garden. The landlord stated that it attended the property 2 months after the resident had moved in to clear the garden. However, signs of asbestos were found in the debris and the matter needed to be referred to a specialist contractor, which contributed to the delay in resolving the issue. The evidence indicates that the use of a mini-digger was required to excavate the area.
  2. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that its contractor had been requested to attend the resident’s property to remove the debris, and it anticipated that the work would be completed by 13 September 2022. The evidence indicates that the contractors attended on 23 September 2022 and removed asbestos cement from a mound in the garden. As such, this was 10 days outside of the timeframe given by the landlord at stage 1.
  3. It is noted that emails between the landlord and the resident in October 2022 suggest that some items still required removal. However, there is no evidence to indicate that any further action was taken to remove this.
  4. On 24 October 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had inspected the resident’s property for outstanding repairs on 16 October 2023 and identified that an area of the garden had not been levelled, as agreed in the initial stages of the complaint. The landlord informed the resident that contractors would attend to complete this, and would install the fencing at the same time. The landlord also referred to the requirement to remove further debris from the garden. In November 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord concreted over the rubbish in the garden, rather than removing it.
  5. The landlord did not adhere to the timeframes given for completing the work that it set out in its stage 1 response. Although some work took place in September 2022, it is unreasonable that the works had still not been fully completed more than a year later. This reflects a clear failing by the landlord to restore the garden to a usable condition within a reasonable timeframe.
  6. On 23 November 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the garden levelling and concreting had been completed.

Unsecure fencing and gate

  1. The resident complained about the lack of fencing which had left her garden unsecure, and resulted in an antisocial behaviour issue. In its stage 1 response, the landlord found that the property was not of a lettable standard because the garden fencing had not been made safe or secure prior to the resident moving in. It stated that it had raised a job for the fencing and gates to be inspected to bring them to an acceptable standard. It said that the resident would be contacted to arrange for this work to be done after the garden had been cleared. However, it appears that the landlord took no action to secure the garden in the months following the stage 1 response.
  2. In an update to the Ombudsman on 24 October 2023, the landlord stated its contractors had attended the resident’s property on 23 October 2023 and measured the rear of the garden. It said it would schedule an appointment with the resident for the fencing to be installed.
  3. Approximately 14 months elapsed between the stage 1 response and the installation of the fencing. As such, the landlord did not carry out the work that it stated it would do within the stage 1 in a reasonable timeframe. The delay in progressing this repair was unreasonable, and is clear failing by the landlord
  4. This part of the complaint also refers to the gate at the front of the property which was unsecure due to a broken gate post. The landlord raised a works order in relation to this on 16 June 2022. The order stated that the gate post had been removed which meant that the gate could not be secured. Notes by the contractor on the works order dated 28 July 2022 state the gate had been inspected that day, and a further full day appointment was required to dig up the broken concrete gate post. On 16 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to state that contractors would attend on 23 October 2023 and ‘attend to the concrete gate post at the front of the property’. The indicates that the landlord did not schedule an appointment to carry out this work after the 28 July 2022 inspection, which reflects a further unreasonable delay. On 23 November 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the repairs to the gate post had been completed.
  5. The landlord’s November 2023 communication stated that fencing had been installed on both sides of the garden, but the evidence shows the left-hand side remains unfenced. The communication also implied that fencing could not be installed on that side due to private ownership concerns, yet no legal confirmation was provided to support this claim.
  6. The landlord’s unnecessary delay in clarifying the legal position or taking steps to secure the garden is unreasonable. It remains unclear whether the landlord is legally permitted to erect fencing on the left side of the rear garden, and no action has been taken to resolve this uncertainty over the course of more than a year, prolonging an already significant 14-month delay. This represents another service failure, and the landlord’s misleading communication has hindered efforts to resolve the issue and close the complaint. Orders have been issued to ensure the landlord seeks legal advice so it can confirm its position regarding the fence to the resident.

Extractor fan 

  1. The landlord’s maintenance service’s policy sets out three priorities for repairs:
    1. Same day priority for emergency repairs.
    2. Next day priority for urgent repairs.
    3. An appointment offered based on customer requirements and the availability of resources.
  2. It states that appointments will be offered for the repair of broken electrical fans. However, the policy does not specify timeframes for repairs that will be scheduled by appointment.
  3. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had attended the resident’s property on 27 June 2022 and replaced the extractor fan unit. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord later confirmed that this was incorrect, and the repair did not go ahead in June 2022 due to the appointment not being communicated properly to the resident. On 2 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the job had been re-raised and a request made for the fan to be replaced on the earliest date possible.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident emailed the landlord on 31 October 2022 and stated that the extractor fan had still not been repaired. The landlord responded to advise that a request had been made for the fan to be replaced as soon as possible. A further works order to fit a new extractor fan was raised on 2 November 2022. Notes on this works order dated 7 March 2023 state that an appointment needed to be postponed due to the resident’s child being unwell, and it appears that the appointment was rescheduled for 5 May 2023. The resident confirmed that this repair has now been completed.
  5. Given that the landlord identified that the property was not presented to a lettable standard partly because the extractor fan was not working correctly, it ought to have handled this repair in a timelier manner. The delay in completing this repair was unreasonable and the resident incurred time and trouble in chasing this matter up. This amounts to a further failing by the landlord.

Leaking boiler

  1. A works order was raised on 16 June 2022 for the boiler to be repaired due to it leaking ‘slightly’. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that contractors would attend on 2 September 2022 to carry out repairs to the boiler. The landlord said that the leak was considered to be minor, and had not resulted in a loss of service.
  2. The landlord has provided an email from the resident dated 24 October 2022 in which she reported that the boiler was still leaking. Notes regarding the scheduled 2 September 2022 appointment have not been provided and it is unclear as to whether an appointment took place on this date. On 31 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident that a new works order had been raised for the boiler to be inspected. On 18 November 2022, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the boiler had been repaired.
  3. The evidence indicates that the repair was not completed on the date stipulated in the stage 1 response, and the resident was required to spend time raising the matter again. Once the further works order was raised, the leak was repaired within a reasonable time.

Pests

  1. The resident complained about the presence of rats at her property and in neighbouring properties. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident had previously been advised that it would address the issue after the neighbouring gardens had been cleared. However, it said that due to delays in completing this, it had requested for pest control to attend to investigate and carry out treatments as appropriate. The landlord said that the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  2. The resident informed the Ombudsman that contractors had attended and told her that no action could be taken due to the bushes outside being out of control. No evidence has been provided to reflect this visit, and it is unclear when this took place or whether any follow up action was taken to remove overgrowth from neighbouring gardens. The landlord ought to maintain clear and accurate records to reflect what actions have been taken when pests are reported at a property. Such records have not been provided in relation to the report of rats and it is therefore difficult to determine whether the landlord took appropriate steps. This indicates a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident raised a further report of pests in her loft and a works order was raised on 7 February 2023. The landlord advised that pest control visited in October 2023 and laid rat poison in the loft area.

Drainage

  1. The resident complained that a drainage gully was broken which was causing drainage issues. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it had arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 18 August 2022 to make good or replace the gully, and that a follow up appointment would take place on 3 October 2022 for the brickwork around the gully to be repaired. The landlord offered compensation for the inconvenience caused by the 2 appointments and stated that the drainage should have been in working order when the property was let.
  2. The evidence shows that a works order was raised on 22 June 2022 for the drain to be repaired. The notes relating to the order indicate that due to a double booking, the 3 October 2022 appointment was rescheduled to 28 November 2022. While it is accepted that appointments may need to be rescheduled for various reasons, a further 8 week delay was incurred in this issue being resolved. There are no notes to reflect that the work was completed on 28 November 2022 however, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the drain has been repaired.

Outbuilding

  1. The resident complained that the doorframe on the outbuilding in her garden was broken. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord stated it had arranged to attend on 9 September 2022 to inspect and repair the outbuilding. The landlord offered compensation for the loss of facility which included both the garden and the outbuilding.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman that a contractor had attended to repair the outbuilding and informed her that the issue had been fixed. However, the resident stated that there are still issues with the door.
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord took appropriate action by arranging for a contractor to repair the door. However, a recommendation has been made below that the landlord conducts a further inspection to assess whether additional repairs are required.  
  4. Overall, there were failings by the landlord in the way it handled various repairs to the resident’s property. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was maladministration by the landlord.
  5. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience due to the condition of the property at the start of her tenancy. Significant further frustration was caused to the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs. The landlord failed to carry out various actions set out within its stage 1 response within reasonable timeframes. As such, the resident’s expectations were not met in terms of when the repairs would take place. The delays in resolving the issues have particularly impacted the resident’s ability to use her garden. She expressed concern about the risk to her son due to both the presence of asbestos in the garden and the lack of secure fencing. The resident also incurred time and trouble in contacting the landlord to continue to raise the outstanding repairs.
  6. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  7. The landlord made some attempt to put things right by offering £483 compensation at stage 2. However, this amount is not sufficient to remedy the impact on the resident of the ongoing delays in resolving several of the repairs issues since the final complaint response. The landlord should therefore pay the resident an additional £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of these delays. This amount is line with The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which suggests amounts of £600 to £1,000 for instances where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  8. While the landlord did make some attempts to learn from outcomes, as set out in the stage 1 response, the ongoing nature of the works needed shows that more needs to be done by the landlord to prevent failings recurring. The landlord should therefore take further steps to ensure that it learns from outcomes by undertaking a review to establish why the delays in completing the repairs occurred, and whether any measures can be implemented to avoid a recurrence.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord due to the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and how it handled the subsequent repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,383 compensation. This is made up of:
    1. £483 offered at stage 2, if this has not already been paid.
    2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the repairs.
    3. £200 for failure to erect fencing on the left-hand side of the rear garden or provide a legal explanation for not doing so.
  2. Review its handling of the repairs and establish why the delays occurred, and whether any measures can be implemented to avoid a recurrence.
  3. Obtain legal advice to confirm whether it can erect a fence to the left side of the back garden. If it can, this should be completed within four weeks of it receiving confirmation.
  4. Contact the resident and discuss her concerns around the repair to the front gate.
  5. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord arrange for a contractor to attend the resident’s property to assess the door on the outbuilding to establish whether any further repairs are required.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes, and take any necessary steps to ensure that robust repairs records are kept.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its maintenance service’s policy and updates this to include timeframes for when it will respond to repairs that will be been arranged by appointment.