Onward Homes Limited (202419128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419128

Onward Homes Limited

21 July 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:
   1. The resident’s reported water leaks and damage caused;
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in the 2-bedroom property with her daughter, who was 7 at the time of this incident.
3. The resident first reported a water leak coming through the living room ceiling on 12 January 2024. The landlord raised an appointment for a contractor to attend and investigate the leak from a bath waste pipe on the same day.
4. The resident raised drainage problems from both the sink and bath on 13 January 2024 and 16 January 2024. The same issue with drainage reoccurred on 5 February 2024. Following two previous appointments to clear blockages, the landlord commissioned an imaging survey to establish the root cause. This survey highlighted an issue with the angle of the waste pipework.
5. The resident then experienced a new leak – this time from the hand basin in the bathroom – on 20 February 2024. The landlord completed a repair for this on 21 February 2024. The resident logged a stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2024 relating to the damage caused to decorations and belongings from these leaks.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered an apology and acknowledged it could not complete the repairs until 25 March 2024. On this date, the contractor did the following repairs:
   1. Bathroom – Renewed bath and sink waste, boxed in pipes and fitted a new bath panel.
   2. Kitchen – Replaced drawer stack, fitted 2 kitchen unit doors, removed old plaster, installed new plaster boarding and skimmed.
   3. Lounge – Removed damaged section of ceiling, installed new plaster boarding and skimmed.
7. The landlord confirmed it would arrange to decorate the lounge and offered a gesture of goodwill of £380 to the resident for her overall experience.
8. The resident requested a complaint escalation on 15 April 2024. She said that the damaged caused to her belongings – such as her daughter’s Christmas presents, living room rugs, carpet and blinds – would cost more than £380 to replace. She also asked that the landlord consider decorating costs as re-decorating was required following the leak and subsequent repair works.
9. The resident reported on 28 June 2024 that a third leak had occurred. Again, this caused water to enter the living room. The landlord’s contractor confirmed the leak was from the thermostatic mixing valve (TMV) under the bath.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the leaks and confirmed that decorating works agreed as a gesture of goodwill were completed. It stated that all work following the second leak was done in line with its policies. As a gesture of goodwill (and outside of its policy), it would replace all damaged flooring, including in the living room. It offered revised compensation of £710 as a resolution.
11. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 15 August 2024. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response regarding the level of compensation and response times for the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has referred to having to take unpaid leave from work to allow access for repairs. The Ombudsman does not order compensation for a resident’s loss of earnings for providing such access as this is required under the terms of their tenancy agreement. However, the Ombudsman does consider the distress and inconvenience a landlord’s failings caused the resident.

Policy and Procedures

13. The landlord’s repairs policy includes the following 3 categories and timescales:
    1. Emergency repairs with a response time of 4 hours which include water leaks that cannot be contained.
    2. Urgent repairs with a response time of 5 working days which include water leaks that can easily be contained, and blocked sinks.
    3. Routine repairs with a response time of 20 working days for all standard repair work.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy shows it can award discretionary compensation in the following instances:
    1. Where there have been delays in providing a service such as a repair.
    2. Where it has failed to satisfactorily deal with repairs and maintenance that are its responsibility.
    3. For circumstances which adversely impact the resident’s enjoyment of their home for longer than is reasonable.
15. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, upon receipt of a complaint, it will contact the complainant within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to in writing within 10 working days. At Stage 2, it will acknowledge receipt within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days.

Handling of reported water leaks and damage caused

16. It is not in dispute that, under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for water pipes as well as the internal walls and ceilings in the property. Nor does it dispute that the resident experienced 3 separate leaks in the property between 12 January 2024 and 28 June 2024.
17. The landlord responded to the initial report of a water leak in an appropriate and timely manner. It also provided the same timely service to reports of drainage issues on 13 January and 16 January 2024, all of which it attended in line with its repairs policy timescales.
18. The landlord responded to a third drainage report on 5 February 2024 – this was also within the required timescales. On this occasion, the landlord requested its contractor perform a CCTV survey to determine the root cause. This is an appropriate response where a repeat issue has occurred over a short period. It also demonstrates the landlord actively sought a lasting solution.
19. The resident reported a second leak on 20 February 2024 – this time from the hand basin in the bathroom. The contractor attended and completed a repair within the required timescales.
20. The landlord arranged for corrective works to the waste pipe, following the CCTV inspection, which would commence on 25 March 2024. Those works, along with the initial repairs to the kitchen and living room to address the leak damage, were completed on 27 March 2024. This was 35 working days from the initial report, which is outside of the landlord’s routine repair timescale by 15 working days and was a service failure.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing repairs. It noted further decoration work was still required to the kitchen and living room. It highlighted learnings in assessing repairs to ensure it could achieve a first-time fix. It awarded compensation of:
    1. £150 for the delays in the repairs.
    2. £150 for the inconvenience caused.
22. The landlord offered separate gestures of goodwill in the form of a replacement carpet and completing decorations to the living room. This was to recognise the delays in repairs and were outside of the landlord’s standard repair obligations. The carpet damage in particular would normally be resolved via an insurance claim. This gesture combined with the compensation offered represents an appropriate level of redress both for the repair delays across several weeks and level of impact the resident experienced. They are also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure where delays have had an adverse impact on a resident.
23. The resident reported a third leak on 28 June 2024 from the bath TMV. The landlord again responded that same day to make safe and fitted a replacement valve on 1 July 2024. This was an appropriate response and within the landlord’s repairs policy.
24. During this incident, there was further damage to the living room along with a tear to the kitchen lino. The landlord completed the repair works, including decorations and a kitchen lino replacement, on 8 August 2024. This took 29 working days, which was 9 working days outside of the landlord’s repairs timescales. This was a minor service failure.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord again apologised for the delays in completing leak repairs. It acknowledged that, while the third leak was unfortunate, it was unrelated to the first leak and that it had resolved the repairs within an appropriate timescale.
26. The landlord further advised it was aware of damage to decorations and some personal items. It stated that the decoration work was completed by its contractor as a gesture of goodwill. It advised it had not received images regarding the personal items damaged to allow it to undertake an assessment. Nevertheless, it re–calculated its original offer of £300 at stage 1 and increased this to £620, which consisted of:
    1. £100 in recognition of the distress and upset caused by the delays;
    2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by delays in handling the leak repair;
    3. £320 towards the cost of replacement items.
27. The landlord also advised that it would take on additional learnings which were to:
    1. Review the process for assessing repairs to ensure that a first-time fix is successful.
    2. Review the process for post–inspecting repairs to ensure a high standard of workmanship.
28. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
29. In this case, the landlord reconsidered its position following its stage 1 response and re–calculated its offer to accommodate the impact of the further leak and subsequent living room damage. Given the delays incurred, along with the impact to the household conditions, this was a suitable and proportionate level of compensation.
30. In reply to the stage 2 response, the resident advised the leak damaged various belongings and provided costs for these. An insurer would be best placed to assess the cause of the damage and the value of the damaged items as well as whether the landlord was responsible for the damage. The Ombudsman would only expect a landlord to consider evidence of damaged possession once the resident has submitted this. The landlord may provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details along with advice on how to proceed with a claim. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
31. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that reasonable redress was awarded by the landlord. It is positive that the landlord re–considered its position at stage 2 and awarded compensation for items damaged even before receiving evidence of this. It offered proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident endured as a result of the 3 leaks. It also applied appropriate learning – in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles – to ensure it avoids these types of delays in future. The landlord demonstrated a commitment to put things right for the resident by agreeing to additional decoration and flooring replacement.

The associated complaint

32. The resident first raised her complaint on 13 March 2024. The landlord requested an extension on 3 April 2024 with its stage 1 response issued on 15 April 2024. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident, its stage 1 response was still delayed.
33. In the stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delay and awarded compensation of £80 by way of an apology. This was an appropriate response and a reasonable offer of compensation given the limited service failings.
34. The resident requested a complaint escalation on 15 April 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge this request until 11 July 2024, despite ongoing communication with the resident discussing the repairs. This represented a 61 working day gap between the escalation request and acknowledgement, which was 59 days beyond its complaints policy timescale. This represents a significant period where the resident was left without an acknowledgement and was a service failure.
35. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024. Overall, there was a delay of around 2 months at stage 2, causing the resident unnecessary time and trouble. It acknowledged the delay and awarded £10 compensation for the late response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for delays at both complaint stages, the additional £10 offered at stage 2 was insufficient given the length of delay.
36. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the time and trouble this delay caused.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of water leaks and damage caused.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble caused by the delays in its complaints handling (in addition to the £90 it offered through its complaints process).

Recommendations

40. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the £620 compensation it offered due to the failings in its handling of the water leaks and damage caused. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim on its insurance for items she says were damaged because of its delays in resolving the leak(s).