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

Onward Homes Limited (202344126)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344126

Onward Homes Limited

17 March 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reported leak.
    2. request for a home visit.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in her 2 bedroom flat since May 1993.
  2. On 20 November 2023 the resident reported that water was coming through her ceiling. The landlord attended on 24 November. It was unable to resolve the leak as it was coming from the roof area. On 12 December 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had inspected the roof and was awaiting approval for the repair works.
  3. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update in January 2024 and throughout February 2024. She said that she was told in December 2023 that it would have to erect scaffolding to repair the roof and was told the same thing in January 2024. She said despite this, the landlord had not repaired the roof and the leak was ongoing. She said that she had been waiting for 3 months for the landlord to resolve the matter. She also asked for a home visit because she wanted to discuss other matters with the landlord.
  4. On 11 March 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. She reiterated her concerns that she made in February 2024.
  5. On 18 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. the initial response to the resident’s reported leak was “mishandled” which had caused a delay in assessing and repairing the roof. It inspected the roof in January 2024. The work was completed on 15 April 2024.
    2. as the roof works were completed it would schedule a further inspection to carry out the internal remedial works.
    3. the resident had asked for a home visit in February 2024 but it did not arrange it until March 2024. It apologised for the delay.
  6. It offered the resident £200 compensation, which comprised of
    1. £100 for the “delays that resident had experienced”.
    2. £50 for the failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in February 2024.
    3. £50 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.
  7. On 15 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that although the landlord had told her that the roof repairs had been completed, the chimney repairs remained outstanding, and the scaffolding was still up. The internal remedial works were also outstanding.
  8. On 24 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. the scaffolding had not been removed because further works were required to the chimney. Seagulls had nested which had delayed the works. It apologised that it had not kept the resident updated.
    2. it had now contacted the resident to arrange to visit to inspect the remedial works and complete the works.
    3. it had contacted the resident on 6 March 2024 regarding the home visit.
  9. The landlord told this Service that the internal remedial works were completed in September 2024.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak

  1. The landlord is responsible for the repairs to the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, including the roof. The landlord’s repairs policy states work will be undertaken within prescribed timescales. However, we have not been provided with further detail about what those timescales are. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs on the basis of reasonableness.
  2. The landlord’s attended the property within a reasonable timescale in response to the resident’s initial report of water ingress in November 2023. Following the roof inspection on 5 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had booked roof repairs for 22 December 2023. However, it noted that the resident was unable to make that appointment, therefore it would reschedule it and update her. While the landlord’s comments are noted, there is no contemporaneous that it did as advised. We have seen no evidence which suggests that the appointment was rearranged and the resident was left to chase the repair in December 2023 and January 2024. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience which could reasonably have been avoided.
  3. The evidence suggests that the landlord investigated the leak in January, February, and March 2024. It was not until 6 March 2024 that it raised a work order for the gutters and the chimney to be repaired in order to resolve the leak. It is unclear why there was a delay. The Ombudsman recognises that on some occasions, it is not unreasonable for landlords to carry out several inspections to find the cause of the problem when it may not be straightforward. However, we have not been provided with contemporaneous records of the landlord’s visits or what steps it took to progress the repairs at this time. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that each of the inspections was necessary and that the delay in commencing works was unavoidable.
  4. On the basis of the evidence we have been provided with, it was unreasonable that the landlord took approximately 4 months to identify the cause of the leak and progress the repairs. There is also no evidence that the landlord took any steps to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the resident during this period, or explored whether any interim repairs were necessary.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident that the roof repairs had been completed on 15 April 2024. It said that it would contact her and start the internal remedial works. However, when the resident escalated her complaint, she advised that some repairs remained outstanding and the scaffolding in situ. In response, the landlord confirmed that further works were required to repair the chimney at that time. It also appropriately explained the situation in relation to nesting seagulls. The response at stage 2 was appropriate. However, it is unclear why the landlord was under the impression that the necessary works had been completed at the time of the stage response. Providing the resident with incorrect information would not only have been the cause of confusion, but also exacerbated the resident’s feelings of frustration.
  6. Given that the roof repairs were completed in May 2024 the reason that the landlord did not contact the resident to progress the internal remedial works until 20 July 2024 is unclear. Nonetheless this was unreasonable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to chase it for an update and the works remained outstanding during that time.
  7. While it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation for the delays that she experienced, it is unclear how it reached its £100 compensation figure. Given the absence of a breakdown, it is also unclear what factors the landlord took into consideration when making its offer. Given the time taken to resolve the leak and complete internal repairs, 6 months and 10 months respectively, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate.. Therefore, in line with our Remedies Guidance we have made an order for the landlord to pay £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This award should replace the landlord’s original offer.
  8. It is noted that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it would “confirm the matter of financial redress” once it carried out an inspection for the remedial works. There is evidence that the landlord offered the resident compensation in early 2025 for damaged flooring and delays in replacing her doors. However, there is no evidence to show that its compensation offer was in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported leak as investigated in this case. If the landlord can provide evidence to this Service that it paid further compensation in relation to distress and inconvenience cause in relation to this complaint, the amount paid may be deducted from our award.
  9. Overall, given the failings we have identified, we have found that there was maladministration by the landlord.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of its visits and inspections in relation to this case. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it maintains a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions taken in any case. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, but they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
  3. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

The resident’s request for a home visit

  1. The resident asked the landlord for a home visit twice in February 2024. It was not until 13 March 2024, a month later that the landlord visited the resident. The landlord’s lack of response and delayed visit caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to her request in a timely manner in its complaint responses. This was positive. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident financial compensation in recognition of the time, distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a home visit. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy stated:
    1. “a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
    2. it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    3. it would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days.
  2. Throughout February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with how it was handling her reported leak. She explained that she had been “waiting months” for it to resolve it. It is noted that the landlord replied to her concerns. However given the resident’s clear dissatisfaction of its handling of her repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered logging a formal complaint. This would have demonstrated that it understood resident’s concerns and taking proactive steps to investigate and resolve them. Doing so would have also been in line with its complaints policy.
  3. Subsequently in March 2024 the resident explicitly stated that she was making a formal complaint to the landlord and reiterated her concerns that she made in February 2024. The landlord acknowledged its failure to log the resident’s dissatisfaction as complaint in February 2024 and offered £50 compensation which was reasonable and proportionate.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2024. This was approximately 10 working days after its policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged this failure and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable and proportionate.
  5. On 22 April 2024 the reiterated her complaint, she explained that she had to chase the landlord about the leak and request a home visit several times. She explained that the landlord did not pay “attention to the stress and worry that it had caused since November 2023”. She asked that the landlord reconsidered the compensation offer. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Therefore, given the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered escalating her complaint to stage 2. There is no evidence that it did. That was unreasonable.
  6. The resident formally escalated her complaint on 15 May 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her complaint, nor to her further email when she chased it for an update on 4 June 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 14 July 2024. That was 42 days after she escalated her complaint. This was a significant deviation from the landlord’s policy timescale of 2 days. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. This meant that the resident had to wait for a prolonged period for the landlord to respond to her complaint. That caused her distress and inconvenience.
  7. It is noted that the landlord provided reasonable redress for its failure to log the resident’s stage 1 complaint and for its delayed stage 1 response. However, it failed to consider and respond to the resident’s April 2024 email that demonstrated that she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s formal escalated complaint within its policy timescales. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  8. On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a home visit.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £700 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported leak.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a home visit.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any outstanding concerns about the roof repairs and internal remedial works. If she does the landlord should take steps to resolve them in a timely manner.
    4. remind staff that they should:
      1. consider residents dissatisfaction of its services as a complaint.
      2. escalate complaints where residents show dissatisfaction of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, in accordance with the Code.
      3. consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.