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

Onward Homes Limited (202325270)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325270

Onward Homes Limited

3 July 2024


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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding bathroom repairs following a leak.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a physical disability.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2023, relating to leaks in the bathroom, missed appointments, and outstanding repairs. He stated that he was disabled and had been left without a working toilet.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 27 February 2023, the landlord provided a timeline of repairs raised and undertaken from 14 November 2022 to 6 February 2023. It apologised for the missed appointments and for the period the resident was without a toilet. It offered £200 for the lack of communication and failure to attend appointments, and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint, totalling £250.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 12 June 2023, stating that his shower and extractor had still not been fitted. There had also been miscommunication about him not wanting the work to be done until August.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 26 February 2024. It apologised for failing to respond when the resident had initially made the request to escalate his complaint, for the delays in completing the repairs, and for poor communication. It had considered the resident’s comments, about losing faith in its contractor, and arranged for an alternative contractor to complete the work. It offered compensation of £650 for time and trouble, £1,381.54 for distress and upset for the delays in completing repairs, £50 for complaint handling, and £100 for poor communication, rounded up to £2,200 in total.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He stated that the leak had resulted in damage to his personal belongings, he was concerned about potential health risks from damp and mould, and repairs had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he stated that the floods to the bathroom had caused challenges, and the landlord had not considered his mobility needs. He had concerns about damp and mould and the potential impact on his health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
  2. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he stated that the leak had resulted in damage to his belongings. However, there was no evidence provided by either party, demonstrating that the matter had been raised with the landlord as part of the complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This matter has, therefore, not been considered as part of this investigation.

Reports of outstanding bathroom repairs following a leak

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also keep in good repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The tenancy agreement also confirms this responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy was silent with regard to repairs timescales. However, its website states that emergency repairs are attended to within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The evidence, provided to this Service, demonstrated that the resident had been reporting repairs to his bathroom over a prolonged period of time. The landlord’s call logs and repairs records showed that:
    1. The resident reported a leak, from the flat above, on 8 March 2022. In July 2022 he reported that the bathroom floor was “bubbling and cracked” following the leak. He used crutches and this was causing a trip hazard. He chased the landlord for a response on 26 July 2022.
    2. He reported a further leak through his bathroom ceiling light on 14 November 2022. A contractor attended on 21 November 2022 to fix the leak and repaired the shower but failed to replace ceramic tiles. He also reported that there was damp and mould on the bathroom ceiling. He continued to report his concerns in December 2022 and January 2023.
    3. On 10 January 2023, he reported that he could not use the toilet without it leaking. He also reported, 2 days later, that the floorboards around the toilet were “mushy” from the previous flood.
    4. On 21 January 2023 he reported that the toilet was not secure and he had almost fallen. An operative attended the same day but could not resecure the toilet and a portaloo was required. Records for the following day showed that a portaloo was not suitable for the resident’s disabilities, and a job was raised to secure the floor and toilet.
    5. Records of 6 February and 6 March 2023 referred to the bathroom flooring needing replacing, and refixing ceramic tiles to the bathroom threshold.
  4. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his bathroom. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the repair delays, missed appointments, and for the period he was without a toilet. It offered £250 for poor communication, failure to attend appointments and its late response. It increased its offer on 22 March 2023 to £300, with a further apology in relation to being without a toilet for 24 hours and being inappropriately provided with a bucket by its contractor as a temporary solution.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing repairs to the bathroom. It listed the outstanding actions, to install the shower, fan and flooring, to investigate and resolve any leaks, and carry out repairs to the toilet to ensure the lid/seat stayed up. It had considered the comments in relation to losing faith in its contractor and had arranged an alternative contractor. It acknowledged that the further delays had led to further frustration and acknowledged the physical and emotional impact this had on the resident. It increased its compensation offer to £2,200 broken down as follows:
    1. £650 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble that the leaks had caused to the resident.
    2. £1,381.54 in recognition of the distress and upset caused by the poor handling of repairs, and time taken to fully resolve the reports of outstanding repairs originating from the leak. This was calculated at 67 weeks from 14 November 2022 to 20 February 2024, as a reduction in rent for the loss of enjoyment of 1 room for the period.
    3. £50 for complaint handling delays.
    4. £100 for poor communication and administrative failures.
  6. While the landlord’s compensation calculations did not add up to £2,200, it is assumed that it has rounded up to this amount. It would have been helpful for it to have confirmed this in its response.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response also detailed the learning opportunities it had identified. It stated that it would ensure that it kept in contact with customers who had cause to complain regarding incomplete works, or where the standard was not met. It had asked for better communication from its subcontractors to ensure its notes were recorded and provided an accurate record. It had also asked for better communication with customers from its subcontractors to ensure appointments were made and kept.
  8. The evidence demonstrated that the landlord post–inspected the work on 10 April 2024 and confirmed that the resident was happy with all the works to the bathroom.
  9. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  10. During the complaint process the landlord’s communication was poor, and it failed to meet its repairing obligations in line with its repairs policy. It also failed to recognise, at the time, any detriment to the resident, given that he had expressed his concerns about trip hazards due to his disability. This did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  11. That said, the landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for severe maladministration, in excess of £1000. Its response also demonstrated the following:
    1. It had considered the time and trouble experienced by the resident and offered £650 in compensation. This reflected that it had considered the impact the situation had on the resident. It also acknowledged the physical and emotional impact on the resident in its response.
    2. It offered £1,381.54 for the delay in completing repairs to the bathroom. This was calculated as a rent reduction, for the loss of enjoyment of 1 room, for the period of time the repairs remained outstanding.
    3. It offered a further £100 compensation for its poor communication.
  12. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its failings, offer of compensation, apology, and demonstrated learning from the complaint was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles and was appropriate in the circumstances. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding bathroom repairs following a leak.

Associated formal complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 7 February 2023, acknowledged by the landlord on 10 February 2023, 1 working day later than its complaint policy timescale. It responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 27 February 2023, 14 working days later, and 4 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. The delays were not significant and it offered £50 compensation for its late response. Its apology and offer was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. The evidence demonstrated that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 16 June 2023. There was further evidence that showed that he had chased a response in August 2023. Due to its failure to respond at stage 2, the resident sought assistance from this Service. This would have led to further frustration for the resident in resolving his complaint.
  4. Following the intervention of this Service, the landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate his complaint on 16 January 2024, advising that it would respond by 31 January 2024. It requested an extension to the timescale the following day and stated it would respond by 15 February 2024. It should have considered extending the timescale sooner, when it was aware that it was unable to respond by the expected date.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 26 February 2024, 178 working days from when it originally acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint, and 158 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  6. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint. It had provided feedback to colleagues involved to ensure accountability and prevent such oversights in the future. It would be implementing measures, including conducting regular audits of complaint cases, and increasing resources to improve contact and resolution.
  7. The landlord’s response also acknowledged that the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction in April 2023, and made further attempts to escalate his complaint in June and August 2023. However, while it apologised, offered £50 for the delay and £100 for poor communication, this was not proportionate to the 8 months the resident was waiting for a response. It also did not reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident or the need for him to contact this Service in order to resolve his complaint.
  8. While the landlord apologised for its failings and demonstrated learning from the complaint, the accumulation of complaint handling failures warranted further consideration. The compensation offered failed to appropriately recognise the detriment to the resident. This Service, therefore, finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident, £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures (This is in addition to the £50 and £100 offered at stage 2 for complaint handling and communication).
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £2,200 offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should ensure that due consideration is given to vulnerable residents, and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, where there are identified hazards to ensure it meets its repairing obligations.