Onward Homes Limited (202413224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413224

Onward Homes Limited

21 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and the patio doors, and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 13 April 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident said he has COPD. The landlord said it is aware that the resident has poor mobility, mental health difficulties, a physical disability, a long-term illness, and cardiac problems.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first reported an issue with the windows and the patio doors on 4 January 2022. The resident said there was a cold draught coming into the property.
The resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 10 January 2023. The resident reported further issues with the windows, patio doors and damp and mould throughout 2023 and 2024.
On 16 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident said that there was reoccurring damp and mould in the property, and he was unhappy that the landlord had not identified the cause of it.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord explained:
1. it had attended the property on 27 January 2022 to assess an issue with the resident’s windows and patio doors. The landlord said it erected scaffolding and completed follow-on repair works in February and March 2022.
2. it had attended the property a further 4 times in 2023 to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould around the windows, and draughts coming through the patio doors.
3. it had completed mould washes in the property and renewed the patio door seals where required.
4. there was a delay in May 2023 in it responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, for which it apologised.
5. the resident contacted it again on 5 January 2024 to advise that mould had started to form again around the windows, and he was still experiencing draughts from the patio doors and the windows. The resident said the property felt cold, and he was paying higher utility costs to try and heat the property.
6. its contractor attended the property on 10 January 2024 and replaced the draught excluder to the patio door and sealed the windows where necessary.
7. the resident contacted it on 9 January 2024 and requested a survey of the property, because he had been experiencing damp and cold conditions in the property for 2 years.
8. a repair specialist attended the property on 17 January 2024. The repair specialist raised remedial works to renew the loft insulation above the bathroom, supply a dehumidifier for 2 weeks and undertake a further mould treatment.
9. the repair specialist noted that when they attended the property, the relative humidity (RH) was 56.6% and the temperature was 15.8 degrees. The repair specialist said that they could find no issues with the windows and patio doors that would cause the mould growth, as they were fit for purpose.
10. the windows were due for renewal in 2031, and the doors were due for renewal in 2032.
11. it would renew the resident’s boiler at the end of the financial year (31 March 2024).
12. it had upheld the resident’s complaint due to the length of time that it had taken for a property inspection to take place following his reports of damp, mould, and excessive cold.
13. the above repairs and the boiler renewal should resolve the issues and should reduce the conditions for damp and mould to form.
14. its repair specialist had advised the resident how to manage and lessen condensation within the property to prevent mould from growing.
15. it had offered the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused and the delays in scheduling a property inspection.
16. it had identified learning opportunities because of the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it would discuss the issue with its contact centre staff and ensure it refers for a property inspection where damp and mould has been reported within a property on multiple occasions.
On 1 and 15 February and 7 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said that he was still waiting for the landlord to rectify the issues in the property and there was still a cold draught coming through the patio doors and the windows. He was concerned that a surveyor had missed an issue relating to a recently fitted draught excluder. The resident also said he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs so that he could have a liveable and warm home.
On 12 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord explained:
1. on 2 February 2024 it provided a dehumidifier, and a mould wash was carried out to the bathroom ceiling, and to all windows and around the patio doors in the property. The landlord said the repair specialist did not identify any issues with draughts to the patio doors and the windows.
2. at the resident’s request, a different repair specialist attended the property on 6 March 2024 and carried out a further assessment of the patio doors. They requested that the patio doors be removed to see if further draught proofing could be installed, and that some thermal anti-condensation paint be applied to the bathroom ceiling to prevent the mould re-occurring. The landlord said it had since completed this work.
3. whilst the resident was still dissatisfied with the windows and patio doors, its repair specialist had attended the property with a joiner and said that there was no further adjustment which could be carried out to the patio doors.
4. a third-party surveyor attended the property on 23 May 2024 and recommended a number of remedial works.
5. it had arranged to complete the above works on 26 June 2024. The landlord said on completion, a repair specialist would inspect the works.
6. it had replaced its previous offer of compensation of £200 to £1,300 which comprised of:
  1. £1,050 to recognise the distress and upset caused by the time taken to resolve the draughts caused by the patio doors since 17 April 2023.
  2. £150 to recognise the upset and inconvenience caused.
  3. £100 to recognise the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
On 11 September 2024 the landlord provided the resident with an update following its stage 2 response. The landlord explained:
1. it had completed most of the works on 16 August 2024.
2. a repair specialist inspected the property on 11 September 2024 and confirmed that the landlord had completed the remaining works noted in the property condition report. However, there were outstanding works to renew the external sealant on 2 windows. The landlord said it would install new glazing in the windows.
3. on the visit, the conditions outside were extremely windy, but the repair specialist found that there was little air penetrating through the windows, and the blinds did not move. However, they did find that the mastic sealant had been damaged due to continued exposure to the sun which had resulted in the mastic melting and transferring onto the glass. The landlord said whilst the units were well sealed and no condensation was evident, it would carry out repairs as per the report.
4. it had not used a thermal paint around the window reveals as the resident did not want to disturb the decoration in these areas. The landlord also said the resident had declined a mould wash.
5. there had been further delays to resolving the issues in the property, which was mostly due to further works needed to the windows.
6. it was aware that the resident had reported damage to his curtains because of the damp and mould. The landlord said it had offered the resident compensation for the curtains, as well as compensation for any redecoration works.
7. the resident should be aware of the increased risk of mould and condensation from drying clothes on radiators and from not opening blinds, windows, and trickle vents to allow air to circulate and ventilate the property.
8. it had offered the resident a further £575 compensation (£1,875 in total) which comprised of:
  1. £175 for delays in fully resolving the resident’s complaint.
  2. £50 for decoration following the window renewal.
  3. £350 compensation for damage to the resident’s curtains.
In referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. the landlord recently replaced 2 windows with new glazing. However, there is a crack in one of the windows and he is waiting for the landlord to replace this.
2. there are still issues with the patio doors. The resident explained that whilst the landlord fitted an external and internal draught excluder to the doors, he has concerns that the external draught excluder was not fitted correctly. The resident said that the landlord needs to seal the patio doors. The resident said the landlord had previously agreed to do this; however, the works are still outstanding.
3. whilst there is no damp and mould in the property, he is concerned this may return.
4. the issue has had a significant impact on him. The resident explained that the property was cold, particularly over winter months, and this affected his breathing because he has COPD.
5. the damp and mould caused damage to his curtains, and he has not yet received reimbursement from the landlord for these.
6. his desired outcome is to have all the repairs completed and for his home to be warm.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and patio doors, and subsequent damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend to emergency repairs on the same day.
2. complete all other repairs within 20 working days.
3. complete “bigger and more complicated jobs” within 90 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will:
1. attend to reports of damp and mould within 5 working days.
2. visit properties to check if a mould wash is required and carry this out.
3. inspect the property to check the root cause of the issue and carry out any repairs.
4. arrange for a surveyor to attend the property for “more complicated cases.”
5. contact residents 6 weeks after the work is completed to check that they are happy that the issue has been resolved, and it will only close the repair when the resident is satisfied with the outcome.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord must, in accordance with sections 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.

The windows and patio doors

The resident first reported issues with the windows and the patio doors on 4 January 2022. The resident said that there was a cold draught coming into the property. The landlord’s repair records show that it categorised the repair as a “routine” repair, and it attended the property on 27 January 2022. The landlord said it needed to erect scaffolding to carry out further repairs to the windows and the patio doors. The landlord’s initial attendance at the property was within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord 5 times between 7 and 22 February 2022 to request an update on the repairs. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The evidence shows that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord about the status of the repairs. This was not appropriate.
The landlord said its contractors attended the property on 11 March 2022, which was 48 working days after the resident first reported issues with the windows and the patio doors. The landlord said its contractor replaced the gaskets to 3 windows, renewed the friction hinges on 2 windows and applied expanding foam and resealed the patio door.
As the landlord categorised this as a “routine” repair, it should have completed works within 20 working days in line with its policy. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing repairs to the windows and the patio doors between January and March 2022.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported further issues with the windows or the patio doors in 2022. Whilst the landlord did not complete a post-works survey of the repairs it had completed, in the absence of any further reports from the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the repairs had likely resolved the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 January 2023 and said that the patio doors were allowing draughts into the property. The landlord said it categorised the repair as a “routine repair.” The landlord attended the property on 25 January 2023 to adjust the patio doors.
However, the resident contacted the landlord again on 5 April 2023 and reported that the patio doors were warped and were still allowing cold draughts into the property. The landlord said it attended the property on 6 April 2023 and completed follow-on works on 12 April 2023 which included removing the patio doors and renewing the seals. The landlord attended in line with its timescales and made reasonable attempts to address the issue.
On 5 January 2024 the resident reported that the patio doors were again allowing cold draughts into the property. The landlord attended the property on 10 January 2024 and said it reinstalled a draught excluder into the existing seal that was replaced on its previous visit. The landlord also resealed the windows on the same day.
The landlord said it arranged for a repair specialist to inspect the windows and the patio doors on 17 January 2024. The landlord said the repair specialist could not find any issues with the windows and patio doors that would cause the mould growth, as they were fit for purpose. However, in an internal email, the repair specialist said a contractor had told the resident that the cause of the damp and mould was the windows and the patio doors. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report on 17 January 2024 or correspondence from the contractor to confirm this. The landlord should ensure that it keeps clear records of such attendances so it is able to monitor repairs, and so that it can evidence its decisions.
Whilst a reactive approach to repairs is generally considered appropriate for landlords, there is also a requirement for landlords to consider the history of serious issues, such as repeated issues with windows and doors leading to excessive cold, to identify how it can improve its service provision.
The number of reports the landlord received between 2022 and 2024 about the windows and patio doors, suggested that there may have been an underlying problem. The landlord should have considered whether a more extensive assessment may have been required sooner. This could have mitigated the resident’s complaint and the impact on the resident in relation to the frequency of the issues with the patio doors.
The landlord said it completed further works to the patio doors on 6 March 2024. The landlord said its repair specialist attended the property on the same date and advised that no further adjustment could be carried out to the patio doors. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report to confirm this. As above, it is concerning that there are no contemporaneous records to support this position.
Following further reports from the resident about issues with the windows and the patio doors, the landlord instructed a third-party surveyor to carry out a property inspection on 23 May 2024. The surveyor recommended that the landlord:
1. remove and replace a failed brush seal to the patio doors in the lounge with a more suitable flexi-rubber seal to eliminate the draught and incoming noise.
2. remove the existing mastic sealant to the perimeter of all the windows and patio doors, following shrinkage and deterioration, and replace them with a more suitable low modulus mastic sealant.
3. conduct a fungicidal mould wash to treat all the windows reveals internally where damp and mould was present, specifically bedroom 2.
4. inspect the existing weep vent arrangements to confirm the presence to bedroom 2’s windows.
5. overhaul the handle and locking mechanism to the bathroom window.
6. make good the inoperable loft hatch mechanism in the hall.
7. complete remedial repairs to the steel lintel to the head lounge window following corrosion.
The landlord said it arranged to complete the works on 26 June 2024, but it later rearranged the appointment to 4 July 2024 due to the resident’s availability. The landlord later said it completed most of the works in the property on 16 August 2024. However, as of 11 September 2024, the landlord said there were outstanding works to renew the external sealant on 2 windows and works to repair the damaged mastic.
Further, the resident said that whilst the landlord had recently replaced the glazing in 2 of the windows, there was a crack in one of the panels. The resident also said that there are ongoing issues with the patio doors and that he is concerned that the doors have not been correctly sealed.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a post-works survey to confirm:
1. what works it completed.
2. what works are still outstanding.
3. whether the repairs have resolved all the issues the resident complained of.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord has completed all the repairs to a good standard, and whether the repairs have resolved the issues the resident has complained of. As noted above, it is also the case that we have not been provided with copies of the inspection reports on which the landlord relied. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to complete a survey of the property to inspect the repair works it has completed and the outstanding issues the resident has complained of, providing all parties with copies of the report.
The landlord said it would renew the windows in 2031 and it would renew the patio doors in 2032. It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as replacement windows in advance and to have a programme for such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, landlords are expected to carry out works outside of such major works programmes if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property and to ensure the property is in a safe and habitable condition.

The damp and mould

The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023 and said that there was damp and mould around the windows. The landlord said it categorised the repair as “urgent.” The landlord completed a mould wash in the property on 24 January 2023. This was 10 working days later. The landlord’s attendance at the property was 5 days more than the timescales set out in its damp and mould policy, which states it will respond to reports of damp and mould within 5 working days.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in the property again on 12 April 2023. However, the landlord cancelled the works order and raised it again on 10 May 2023. The landlord attended the property on 25 May 2023 to complete a mould wash. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised that it cancelled the original works order and explained that this was due to a change of contractor.
Whilst the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in it attending the property to complete a mould wash, it cannot be disregarded that the resident waited 29 working days for the landlord to complete a mould wash in the property. The delay was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 18 December 2023 to report further issues of damp and mould in the property. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 and 8 January 2024 to report that there was thick mould around the windows and the patio doors.
The landlord said the resident contacted it on 9 January 2024 and requested a survey of the property to be undertaken, as he had been experiencing damp and cold conditions in the property for 2 years.
The landlord said it attended the property on 10 January 2024 to complete a mould wash. This was 14 working days after the resident had contacted it on 18 December 2023. This was 9 working days outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy. Given the number of reports the resident had raised, and that he had made the landlord aware that he had COPD and breathing difficulties, the delay was not appropriate.
The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the effectiveness of the mould washes or that it contacted the resident to confirm if the mould washes had resolved the issues of which he had complained.
The landlord said a repair specialist attended the property on 17 January 2024. This was reasonable action for it to have taken to investigate the matter. The repair specialist noted that when they attended the property, the relative humidity (RH) was 56.6% (the majority of professional bodies recommend an ideal indoor humidity of 40-60% RH) and the temperature was 15.8 degrees. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report to confirm this. However, the landlord said it raised remedial works to:
1. renew the loft insulation above the bathroom.
2. supply a dehumidifier for 2 weeks.
3. undertake a further mould treatment.
The landlord said it completed the above works on 2 February 2024. However, the repairs records show that jobs were being raised to try and renew loft insulation in April 2024, and that this could not be completed as the loft hatch was inaccessible. The resident told us in August 2024 that this work has not been completed. Therefore, the landlord’s position here seems to be incorrect.
The landlord also said it also inspected the property on 6 March 2024 and it could apply a thermal anti-condensation paint to the bathroom ceiling to prevent the mould from reoccurring.
Following further reports from the resident about issues with the windows and the patio doors, the landlord instructed a surveyor to carry out a property inspection on 23 May 2024. This shows that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The surveyor said that persistent condensation was leading to dampness and to mitigate these issues, it recommended the landlord to improve the sealing of the patio doors. In relation to the damp and mould, the surveyor identified the following remedial works:
1. conduct a fungicidal mould wash to treat all the windows reveals internally where damp and mould was present, specifically bedroom 2, to the rear of the property.
2. confirm the presence of sufficient cavity wall insulation around the windows and confirm whether water ingress had not saturated these areas reducing the thermal efficiency or creating cold spots.
On 11 September 2024 the landlord said it had completed the damp and mould works, though we have not seen evidence of this and there is no indication that the landlord contacted the resident to check that they were happy that the issue has been resolved, in line with its policy.
However, the resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that there is currently no damp and mould in the property. However, the resident said he is concerned that the landlord has not fully resolved the root cause of the damp and mould, and he is worried that it will return.
The resident said the damp and mould caused damage to his curtains. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the damaged curtains, together with evidence of the costs incurred. However, the landlord offered the resident £350 compensation to recognise the damage to the resident’s curtains. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether he is happy with the offer of compensation for the curtains, or whether he is able to provide further evidence to the landlord for the costs incurred.

Conclusion

The landlord has offered compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. While we note that the landlord appears to have offered this mainly in relation to the door repairs (and did not mention its handling of damp and mould or communication issues as outlined in this report) the amount was in line with those recommended in our own remedies guidance and shows that the landlord acknowledged distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has made reasonable attempts to “put things right” in this regard.
However, the evidence suggests that there are some outstanding repairs in the property. The landlord does not appear to have provided a post-works survey or inspection report confirming that it has completed all outstanding repairs. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there is a crack in the glazing of the windows and there are still issues with the patio doors. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord has carried out all the repairs it was obliged to. Considering the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, patio doors and subsequent damp and mould for the reasons outlined above.
The landlord has been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for its failings in its handling of repairs, as identified by this investigation. The landlord must also contact the resident to confirm whether he is happy with the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation for the curtains, or whether he can provide further evidence to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
Additionally, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property and provide the resident and this service with a copy of the inspection report, together with a schedule of works. The landlord must then complete the works and provide evidence of compliance to this service. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 16 January 2024 via a telephone call. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 January 2024, which was 10 working days later. The landlord’s response time was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The landlord’s records show that the resident escalated his complaint on 1 February 2024. The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 1, and the issues were still outstanding.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 15 February 2024 and again asked to escalate his complaint. The resident asked to escalate his complaint a further 4 times between 19 February and 11 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 26 April 2024 and said it would provide a final response by 24 May 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 June 2024, which was 91 working days after the resident’s initial escalation request. In an internal email, the landlord said it would inform the resident that it had extended the deadline to provide its final response, as it was waiting for a third-party surveyor to complete a survey of the property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this decision with the resident. This was not appropriate.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to action several of the resident’s escalation requests. Landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do.
The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also likely made him feel frustrated and that the landlord was not taking his complaint seriously. The delays would have prevented the resident from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for the delays in it responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The landlord later offered a further £175 for delays in it fully resolving the resident’s complaint. The total of £275 and the apology it gave was a reasonable amount to remedy the impact the delay had on the resident, and so a finding of reasonable redress has been made. However, the landlord failed to recognise that the resident had asked to escalate his complaint several times, and it failed to provide an explanation as to why it did not escalate the complaint on 1 February 2024.
Considering this the Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord considers re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and patio doors, and subsequent damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. A senior director must make the apology.
2. pay the resident the £1,875 compensation offered, if it has not done so already.
3. contact the resident to confirm whether he is happy with the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation for the curtains, or whether he can provide further evidence to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified surveyor (to include the loft insulation). Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident, and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. address the resident’s concerns about the patio doors and the windows and determine whether there is anything further it could do to reduce the draughts in the property.
  2. confirm whether there are any outstanding repairs in the property.
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.