Onward Homes Limited (202228966)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228966

Onward Homes Limited

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s queries and concerns around heating bills.
2. Response to some related welfare issues (the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment and his requests for a reasonable adjustment).
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant. His tenancy began on 18 July 2022. It ended around May 2025. The property is a 1-bedroom home in a sheltered housing scheme for elderly persons. The scheme was a new build when the resident moved in. It has a communal heating system. A third-party agent (‘the agent’) provides metering and billing services for the landlord. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical health. These include a vision impairment and mobility issues. His carer helped him with his complaint.
In December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the property’s heating system. His complaint was prompted by contact with the agent. He said it had alerted him to a large debt on his account. Initially, the landlord did not respond through its formal complaints process. The resident complained again several days later. He said it had not given him sufficient information about the heating previously. He also said it had shared private information without his permission. He was unhappy with the landlord’s overall complaint handling.
In January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded him £50 in compensation. This was to address a billing delay and a separate complaint handling failure. However, the landlord said it had not breached any data protection obligations. The resident escalated his complaint later that month. He said a lack of communication from the landlord had reduced his ability to plan for, and ultimately pay his heating bills.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response in March 2023. It did not identify any additional failures at this point. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. By mid-May 2023, the landlord had issued him a further response to address his ongoing concerns. It awarded him another £50 in compensation for a complaint handling delay. Later, the resident’s representative updated the Ombudsman in June 2025. She said the landlord’s communication had eventually improved. Based on her comments, it was understood the resident’s complaint had become less important to him in the time since it was raised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint, the resident said the landlord had breached its data protection obligations. The landlord disputed this in its subsequent responses. The Ombudsman is not a specialist in data regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that specialises in upholding data protection and information rights. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the ICO. However, we can consider whether a landlord has responded to any data protection concerns accordingly.
Following its stage 2 response, the resident told the landlord that he felt it had treated him unfairly based on his age. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot reach legal findings. This means we cannot establish if a landlord broke laws such as the Equality Act 2010. We can assess whether a landlord considered its legal duties and treated a resident fairly. Typically, the courts have a strict 6 month time limit on legal discrimination claims.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns around heating bills

On 20 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about the property’s heating. He said the agent had asked him to set up a Direct Debit to pay his heating bills. He also said it had told him that his account was £1022 in debit. The resident said he was shocked by this figure. He also said the agent had promised to send him a bill which explained it in the coming days. He asked the landlord if he could switch to another provider. He said it should supply him with photographic evidence of his meter readings every month going forwards. Some of the resident’s comments are understandable in the circumstances.
The resident’s email suggests he had not received any heating bills since he had moved to the property. Based on the period between 18 July and 20 December 2022, this was around 5 months prior to his email. The email shows the agent was responsible for billing delays and failures. It also shows the resident was adversely impacted by these. Since the agent was acting on the landlord’s behalf, the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions. It should have promptly told the scheme’s residents about any problems with the agent’s billing services. This would have been a proactive and reasonable approach. There is no indication the landlord did this. This was inadequate.
The parties exchanged emails over the next few days. We have considered the landlord’s approach to these interactions in the complaint handling section below. During the email exchange, the resident told the landlord that the situation had caused him “stress and sleepless nights”. This was on the basis that the agent had presented him with a large bill unexpectedly. He questioned whether its information (about his account balance), was reliable. He said he should have been given more information about the heating arrangements previously. Again, some of the resident’s comments are understandable.
The resident complained to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 27 December 2022. He said he was having problems obtaining his meter readings. He also said the agent had given him conflicting information and this was confusing. To demonstrate this, he summarised 2 previous discussions with the agent. It is noted the landlord did not dispute that the agent had given him conflicting information subsequently. It is also noted that the resident’s summary shows the agent had offered to set up a payment plan for him. Given the significant debt on his account, this was a reasonable and supportive approach.
In his complaint, the resident reiterated that he was “stressed” by the debt on his account. He said he had turned the property’s heating off as he could not afford to run it. He also said the associated costs were not made clear to him at the beginning of his tenancy. He highlighted his vulnerabilities. He asked the landlord to answer 5 questions about the heating system and his bills. He also said it had shared details of his “private complaint” between its staff members. The resident’s questions related to the nature of the heating system and how bills were calculated. They are further evidence that the landlord did not clarify important information about these matters in the initial stage of his tenancy.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It responded to each of the questions in the resident’s formal complaint. Ultimately, the landlord accepted that it had not provided him an accurate account balance until late 2022. It apologised for the delay. It said it had upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded him £25 in related compensation. It promised to comply with his request for images of his monthly meter readings. Its response included contact details for the landlord’s financial support team. The landlord’s other key points were:
1. The scheme had a gas powered communal heating system. A central boiler supplied heating and hot water to every home within it.
2. It billed the scheme’s residents for their own consumption in line with regulations. Each home had a smart meter to monitor its usage (the evidence shows the meters are not located inside individual properties).
3. It did not benefit financially from the communal heating system. As a large consumer of gas, it sought to provide efficiency savings to its residents.
4. Recently, energy costs had increased significantly. The government had introduced schemes to support certain households. The resident may be eligible. The landlord had included links to information about the schemes.
5. If he was struggling with his bills, the resident could contact the landlord’s financial support team using the contact details that were provided.
6. Any information the landlord had shared was in line with its data protection obligations.
The landlord engaged with the resident’s cost concerns in its response. It signposted him to a number of internal and external support options. This was a reasonable approach. It also acknowledged that he had been adversely impacted by billing delays. Rightly, it awarded him some compensation to address this impact. However, its calculation was not consistent with the approach in its own redress guidance. The guidance says that delays in excess of 3 months should be classed as a medium impact. The landlord’s minimum compensation award for medium impacts is £150. The landlord should have followed its redress guidance. It did not do this. Its approach was unreasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 January 2023. He said he was pleased the landlord had recognised that it had breached its data protection obligations by sharing his complaint (internally). In contrast, the landlord had not accepted that it was responsible for a related failure. The evidence points to a procedural problem with the wording in its response letter. We have considered this issue in the complaint handling section below.
In relation to his main complaint about heating bills, the resident said the agent had still not sent him a bill as promised. He also said he had chased it 3 times for the information. In addition, he said it was unacceptable that he had not received a bill after 6 months. He also said the landlord’s lack of clear communication about the heating arrangements had reduced his ability to “make reasonable adjustments and provision to pay [his] bills”. He said he had been “forced into fuel poverty” and the property’s boiler was still switched off. It is noted the resident is an elderly person. It is likely his income was limited. If he had received bills promptly, this may have helped him to plan his spending and manage his funds. Ultimately, the above shows bills were important to him.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord’s scheme manager visited the resident at the property. The evidence suggests they were concerned about his decision to turn off the property’s heating. It was appropriate for the landlord to engage with him about this potential welfare issue. From the information provided, the resident still had access to hot water while the heating was switched off. Soon after the visit, the landlord emailed him a link to a benefit entitlements calculator on the government’s website. This was so he could check whether he was eligible for additional benefit payments. This was a reasonable measure. As mentioned, the landlord previously signposted him to its financial support team. We have seen evidence that extended payment plans were available through its agent. The above shows the landlord took various steps to support the resident. This was a positive and reasonable approach in the circumstances.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said there had been several problems setting up the scheme’s metering and billing services. It also said these were resolved on 27 February 2023. It said that, on this date, the agent had issued backdated bills to each of the scheme’s residents. The landlord accepted that the agent’s service had not met its expected standards. It apologised to the resident for the time it had taken to provide an accurate bill. It did not award him any additional compensation. The landlord’s other key points were:
1. It had checked the government’s information. It believed the resident could apply for support with his electricity costs.
2. In early December 2022, there was a spike in the property’s energy usage. This was due to a leak which had since been fixed.
3. The agent had added a credit of £694.88 to the resident’s account. This was to compensate the resident for his excess energy usage during the leak.
4. It wanted to restore the resident’s confidence in the property’s heating and hot water supply.
5. It was willing to complete a full check of the property’s heating system. The resident could confirm a convenient timeslot.
6. The landlord’s data protection team had confirmed that the landlord had not breached any data protection obligations to the resident.
There were similar problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response. Based on the period between 18 July 2022 and 27 February 2023, the landlord was ultimately responsible for an unreasonable delay of around 7 months. It did not acknowledge the duration of the delay in its response. Similarly, it did not address the resident’s comments about conflicting information or the time he had spent chasing the agent. Significantly, it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures or the resident’s related distress and inconvenience. Had it done so, it should have awarded him a proportionate amount of compensation in line with its redress guidance. Its approach was unreasonable at this point.
There is a gap in the evidence following the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the landlord’s complaint records show it ultimately issued the resident a further response at stage 2. It had issued its further response by mid-May 2023 (the resident replied to it at this point). The evidence suggests it sent this response to the resident by email. The landlord did not provide a copy of its email to the resident. This is concerning and points to a record keeping issue.
The landlord’s complaint notes show its further response email contained a list of replies to specific issues that the resident had previously raised. Some of his questions/concerns appear to be missing from the relevant complaint notes. In summary, the key points from the landlord’s further response (as detailed in its complaint notes) were:
1. The resident had reiterated the distress and inconvenience he experienced due to the billing issues. The landlord said it had already resolved matters.
2. The landlord said there was a government scheme to offset electricity costs. It said the resident would receive £400 through this scheme. It also said, since his heating and electricity were supplied through different providers, he could not use the £400 payment towards his combined energy bill.
3. The landlord said the resident had not been disadvantaged by having 2 separate providers. Its further response included a link to the relevant government guidance (so the resident could check the terms himself).
4. The resident felt he had not given the landlord permission to share his information with a third-party (the agent). He said it should provide him with a copy of his consent form. In reply, the landlord quoted information from its privacy notice. It said it was entitled to share information with parties acting on its behalf.
Again, the landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of the resident’s distress and inconvenience in its further response. This was unreasonable. He had stressed the impact of its billing delays and failures several times. The landlord did not fully reflect his comments in its response wording or its compensation calculation. As a result, its approach can be perceived as dismissive. Its complaint notes show that its stance added to the resident’s overall distress. We have described these in more detail during the next section of this report.
It is noted the landlord had addressed data protection issues in each of its responses. The evidence suggests it engaged with the resident’s concerns and responded accordingly. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 May 2023. His correspondence included some additional questions and concerns. These covered a number of different topics. Records show the landlord discussed his case internally over the next few days. They suggest it ultimately decided that the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure. It is unclear if the landlord subsequently responded to his more recent points outside of its complaints process. This is concerning and points to further record keeping issues on its part.
It is noted the resident raised a second complaint about his heating bills in late July 2023. The evidence shows it was prompted by a bill that he had received around this time. The resident referenced some new issues in his complaint correspondence with the agent. He also referenced some of the events that were covered during his previous complaint (which is the subject of this report). The evidence points to a complaint handling failure by the landlord in respect of his second complaint. We have considered this in the relevant section below.
The resident’s representative updated the Ombudsman in June 2025. She said his complaint broadly related to the landlord’s communication around heating costs. She said its attitude was “intransigent” and it had been difficult for the resident to obtain information. The above paragraphs show that there is some evidence to support this assertion. She also said the landlord’s performance had eventually improved. It was understood that this had a positive effect on the resident’s situation. The representative also told us he had moved to a new home in the private rental sector and this took place around May 2025.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord had problems setting up the scheme’s metering and billing services. It did not keep the resident informed about this. Its communication was inadequate and it was responsible for an unreasonable delay of around 7 months. A lack of clarity and inconsistent information adversely impacted the resident. Despite his consistent comments about the level of distress and inconvenience he was caused, the landlord did not reflect the full extent of its failures in its compensation calculation. Its approach added to the resident’s overall distress. Ultimately, its offer of £25 in compensation was not sufficient to put things right for him. Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s applicable redress guidance, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to some related welfare issues

The resident’s complaint involved a number of different welfare aspects. We have addressed some of these (broadly related to his financial wellbeing) in the previous section of this report. Here, we have considered other welfare issues which arose during the relevant complaint timeline. We have taken care to ensure that any identified failures are not double counted in this report. The landlord has not responded to some of the issues that are referenced in this section. We used the Ombudsman’s inquisitorial remit to include these in our report. We did this to resolve matters swiftly for both parties. This was possible because we have seen sufficient information to make a fair assessment.
In his escalation request (on 26 January 2023), the resident said the landlord’s lack of clear communication had reduced his ability to “make reasonable adjustments and provision to pay [his] heating and hot water bill”. It is unclear what reasonable adjustments the resident wanted to make for himself. The landlord could have clarified this and asked if he needed any support.
Records show the landlord called the resident on 8 February 2023 to discuss his complaint. They also show the resident did not answer the phone. Soon afterwards, the landlord emailed him to confirm it had escalated his complaint. It did not ask him to clarify his previous comment. It may have missed another opportunity to clarify his vulnerabilities and provide some additional support.
After the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident updated the Ombudsman on 8 March 2023. He told us he felt that the landlord had acted in a way that was “age discriminatory” towards him. He did not explicitly say why he felt this way. Subsequent events suggest he may have felt it had belittled the concerns in his complaint. In any case, this was a serious allegation that warranted a proper response. In mitigation, there is no indication he had raised it with the landlord at this stage. There is a gap in the evidence after his email to the Ombudsman.
Later, the landlord referenced discrimination in its further response at stage 2. Its relevant complaint notes detailed the resident’s specific concerns and the landlord’s response to these. They show he had referenced an excessive increase in his meter readings due to the leak in December 2022. He said the landlord had minimised his concerns. He also said he felt it had treated him unfairly due to his age. He went on to say that he had reported the leak, but the landlord’s engineer had not investigated it properly. Other key points from the landlord’s complaint notes (which detailed its further response) were:
1. The landlord apologised to the resident for its initial response to his report of a leak. It said its engineer had “not done [their] best to identify the issue”. It also said another appointment was needed to successfully complete a repair.
2. The landlord said it had tried to meet with the resident on several occasions. It also said he had declined “all opportunities” to discuss his concerns directly. It said its scheme manager was available to support him if needed.
3. The landlord also said it was confident that it had measures to support elderly residents and it did not discriminate against them (in general).
Its further response shows the landlord has disputed that it treated the resident unfairly in relation to any protected characteristics (such as age). We checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns around discrimination/unfair treatment. There is no indication the landlord had treated him differently to other residents living in the scheme. Similarly, there is no indication that the failures it had referenced (in its responses) arose because the landlord had overlooked the resident’s age or its legal duties under equality laws. Overall, there is no evidence of any related failures on the landlord’s part.
However, there is evidence that the resident was adversely impacted by the general quality of the landlord’s service at times. There is also evidence that its complaint handling may have contributed to his sense that the landlord had treated him unfairly. We have considered this in the complaint handling section.
The resident replied to the landlord’s further response on 15 May 2023. He said he had previously requested a reasonable adjustment. Specifically, he said he had asked for documents to be sent to him by post in a large print format. He referenced his sight impairment and said he had difficulty accessing his emails without help. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s previous request. From the evidence provided, it is unclear if the landlord reissued its further response by post in line with his request. It is also unclear if it updated its records to reflect the resident’s request going forwards. This is concerning.
The landlord should be able to demonstrate that it responded accordingly to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. It has not done this. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find its approach was unfair. The evidence indicates it may have overlooked similar requests on 2 occasions. In mitigation, we have not seen evidence that the resident experienced a significant adverse impact as a result of this issue. However, the landlord’s apparent omission may have caused him some distress and/or inconvenience.
In summary, the landlord missed opportunities to clarify the resident’s vulnerabilities and provide additional support. Later, there is evidence that it did not respond accordingly to his requests for a reasonable adjustment. This was unfair. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that he experienced a significant adverse impact. As a result, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this issue. This is a proportionate finding given the evidence we have seen.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the case evidence, the landlord’s applicable redress guidance, and our own guidance on remedies. It is consistent with the low impact category in the landlord’s redress guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has not supplied a copy of the resident’s initial complaint. This points to a record keeping issue. From the information provided, we estimate that he first complained around 20 December 2022. Subsequently, the landlord emailed him 2 days later. It said it had passed his previous message to the scheme’s local manager so they could investigate (his concerns). In reply, the resident said he wanted his “complaint” to be handled through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. The landlord declined his request. It said it was already handling the matter through its correct channel (the local manager). Given the resident’s stated preference, its informal approach is concerning.
The above information shows the resident had expressed clear dissatisfaction to the landlord on at least 1 occasion. Its relevant complaints policy defines complaints as, “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the [landlord] or [its agents]”. The evidence suggests the resident’s correspondence was consistent with this definition. However, the landlord did not raise a formal complaint for him at this stage. This was inadequate. If he was unable to pursue his concerns through the landlord’s relevant channel, this may have been distressing for him.
On 27 December 2022 the resident emailed a complaint letter to the landlord’s Chief Executive. This should not have been necessary. It is likely that writing the letter was inconvenient for him. There is no indication the landlord’s executive team acknowledged his email. Records show its general complaints team logged and acknowledged his complaint around 5 working days later (on 3 January 2023). The landlord’s complaints policy shows it should log and acknowledge complaints within 2 working days at each complaint stage. The evidence points to a short delay. In mitigation, there is no indication that the resident chased the landlord during the interim period for an update. In other words, there is no evidence to show that he was adversely impacted by it.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 January 2023. This was 9 working days after it logged the complaint. Its complaints policy says it should respond to complaints within 10 days of logging them at stage 1. The landlord adhered to its relevant timescale. This was appropriate complaint handling.
The landlord acknowledged its initial complaint handling failure in its response. It accepted that it should have adhered to its complaints process instead of passing the resident’s concerns to its scheme manager. It apologised and said it had provided feedback to its relevant department. These were reasonable steps. It also awarded the resident £25 in related compensation. Its redress guidance shows it can award up to £100 in compensation for poor complaint handling. The landlord’s award was in line with its relevant guidance. However, given the resident’s related distress and inconvenience, it could have reasonably awarded him a higher amount of compensation to put things right.
There was another issue with the landlord’s response. It said the landlord had upheld the complaint. This wording implied it had upheld the complaint in full. This was not accurate. The landlord did not agree that it had breached its data protection obligations. To make matters clear, it could have partly upheld the complaint or included a decision on each individual complaint issue. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.8 shows a compliant response must include a decision on the complaint in “plain language”. The landlord’s lack of clarity was inappropriate. The resident’s escalation request suggests this caused some confusion for him.
The resident escalated his complaint on 26 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged his request on 8 February 2023. This was 9 working days later. The landlord did not adhere to its acknowledgement timescale (2 working days). In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would issue a stage 2 response by 8 March 2023. It subsequently responded on 2 March 2023. This was 35 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Its complaints policy shows the landlord should respond to complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. There was an inappropriate delay of 15 working days. In mitigation, the landlord adhered to the timescale in its acknowledgement, which kept the resident updated in the interim period.
The landlord did not acknowledge the above identified delay in its stage 2 response. Given the limited impact to the resident, an apology may have been sufficient to address it. In any case, the landlord should not have overlooked its failure to comply with its policy. To avoid similar issues going forwards, it should routinely consider its own complaint handling at each stage of its complaints process. This will allow it to address any procedural delays or failures accordingly. In this case, the resident raised the delay with the landlord subsequently. It eventually awarded him £50 in compensation to address it. This award was in line with its redress guidance. It was also reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not say whether it had upheld the resident’s complaint or not. This is more evidence of an inappropriate lack of clarity. There were other problems with its complaint handling at stage 2. Significantly, the landlord departed from its complaints process by issuing a further response. This was inappropriate and represents informal complaint handling. Subsequent events show the resident was adversely impacted.
Among other matters, the further response addressed some complex issues which the resident had raised at a late stage in the complaint timeline. These included the landlord’s response to his report of a leak, and his concerns around discrimination. It is likely these issues were important to the resident. However, the landlord did not address these matters in detail. It apologised to the resident for its initial leak investigation. There is no indication it attempted to unpack the duration of the related delay, or explore the associated impact to the resident. As a result, it was unable to show that an apology was sufficient to put things right. Similarly, there is no indication the landlord attempted to learn from the failure it had identified. Its approach at this point was inadequate.
In relation to unfair treatment, there is little evidence to show that the landlord attempted to explore the resident’s concerns around discrimination in any detail. It is important for landlords to consider allegations of bias and investigate them accordingly. Failure to do this can compound a resident’s view that they are being treated unfavourably. Ultimately, the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate this type of allegation thoroughly using their formal complaints procedure. Arguably, the landlord has not done this. As mentioned, its further response departed from its formal complaints process. The response also displayed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness in relation to key issues.
The landlord could have logged a new complaint to address any complex issues which the resident had raised later in the complaint journey. This approach would have allowed it to use both stages of its complaints process if necessary. This may have increased the accuracy of its overall findings. An increased level of accuracy may have benefited both parties in the dispute.
Later, the resident raised a second complaint about billing issues in late July 2023. It referenced a number of new concerns. For example, the resident said the agent had removed £400 from his account. He also said it had failed to pay this sum back despite a promise to the contrary. The were various interactions between the parties over the next few months. Complaint notes show the landlord declined to accept the resident’s second complaint on 29 November 2023. It told his representative that his concerns had already completed its internal complaints process. To support this assertion, it referred to its stage 2 response on 2 March 2023. The landlord’s approach at this point is concerning.
Under section 1.9 of the Code, a landlord must provide the resident a detailed explanation if it decides not to accept a complaint. This must set out the reasons why the issue is not suitable for its complaints process. In this case, there is no indication the landlord did this. There is also no indication that it subsequently changed its position on the resident’s second complaint. The landlord’s approach was contrary to the Code. It was also unfair to the resident. The evidence suggests his concerns remain outstanding to date. Similarly, that the landlord made a significant contribution to the related delay.
In summary, there were problems with the landlord’s complaint handling throughout the complaint journey. It adopted an informal approach at various points. Similarly, it did not adhere to its complaints policy or the Code at times. It also displayed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness in relation to some of the resident’s key concerns. Later, it unfairly declined his second complaint which included new issues. Its complaint handling added to the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience. The landlord has not recognised its key delays and failures or the adverse impact to the resident. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
Again, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. In line with the landlord’s own redress guidance, our calculation is based on 3 separate awards of £100. These address the delays and failures that occurred across its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord’s further response, and its subsequent decision to decline the resident’s second complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns around heating bills.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to some related welfare issues.
3. Maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for 1 of its relevant managers to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect our apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must ensure that its letter complies with any previous requests for reasonable adjustments from the resident. If it is unsure about these, the landlord could contact the resident’s representative before sending the letter. It must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation within 4 weeks. Our calculation replaces its previous offer. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct the £100 which it awarded him during the complaint journey (or any part of it that has already been paid). The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his queries and concerns around heating bills.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s response to some related welfare issues.
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
If the resident requests this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to log a new complaint. This will respond to any concerns which the landlord has not addressed thoroughly (such as the leak and unfair treatment), or that it has overlooked previously. The landlord could explain how the resident can request a new complaint in its apology letter. If it does log a new complaint, it can share the reference number with us. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It could arrange for a relevant manager to analyse these and create a high-level summary for its staff. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.