Onward Homes Limited (202425515)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425515

Onward Homes Limited

16 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom house with her child.
3. On 23 March 2022, the resident reported damp around a bedroom window. The landlord called her to arrange an inspection.
4. The resident complained on 21 August 2024. She said the landlord had inspected twice but not resolved the damp and mould. She told the landlord her child has asthma.
5. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024. It said it had ordered repairs and its contractor would arrange an appointment with her. It accepted there had been delays and communication failings and offered £150 compensation for them.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 September 2024. She later told the landlord the compensation was not enough. She wanted it to do the repairs, replace her damaged belongings and pay compensation for the impact on her child’s health.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 26 November 2024 which said it:
   1. Had done repairs in October 2024 but accepted they were not done to the required standard and had not resolved the damp. It had asked other contractors to rectify the work done and carry out additional repairs.
   2. Had agreed to move the resident temporarily while the work was being done.
   3. Was sorry for its failings in handling her reports of damp and mould and her complaint. It offered £2,150 compensation for its failings and her damaged belongings.
   4. Could not address the impact on her child’s health through its complaints process. It gave details of how the resident could make a personal injury claim.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to resolve the damp and mould and her complaint. She wanted the landlord to complete the remaining repairs and pay her more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident believes the damp and mould affected her child’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence.
10. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord gave the resident details of how to make a personal injury claim from its insurance. The resident told us she made a claim. As such, the resident can pursue her claim and can also seek the intervention of the courts should she need to. 

Reports of damp and mould.

11. The resident reported damp around a bedroom window on 22 March 2022 and the landlord called her to arrange an inspection. The resident said she would call back to make an appointment.
12. She called on 21 June 2022 asking the landlord to book an appointment but there is no evidence it responded at the time. This was a failing that meant the landlord did not respond to the repair it had been notified of.
13. The evidence suggests the landlord was in contact with resident in August 2022. Website messages she sent between 18 and 29 August 2022 said she had been given appointments but they were not convenient for her.
14. The landlord’s records do not explain what the appointments were for or show that it responded to any of her messages. This suggests the landlord did not have adequate record keeping practices in place at the time. If it had, its records would show what the appointments were for and the landlord’s responses.
15. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what happened next until the resident reported damp and mould again on 25 April 2023. This time the landlord arranged to inspect on 3 May 2023. The landlord’s repair policy at the time (effective from June 2018) did not specify timescales for responding to reported repairs. In our view, the inspection took place within a reasonable timescale from the resident’s report of 25 April 2023.
16. The landlord told us it could not provide a copy of the inspection report. This is an example of inadequate record keeping at the time. We know it has changed its practice since 2023 resulting in its surveyors being able to generate inspection reports during their visits. This is evidenced by the inspection reports seen in this case from July 2024 onwards. It shows the landlord took steps to improve its record keeping of inspections.
17. The landlord’s repair records show it raised an order for roof repairs on 3 May 2023 but there is no evidence it raised orders for any internal repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2023 saying it had not ordered all the repairs identified during the inspection. This suggests the landlord had not adequately addressed the damp and mould following its inspection.
18. There is no evidence it responded to the resident’s contact or took any further action to address the damp and mould at this point. These were further failings.
19. The landlord implemented a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy in July 2023. Its aim was to ensure the landlord responds to reports of damp and mould effectively.
20. On 19 February 2024, the resident reported defective plasterwork in her hall. The landlord initially raised an order to repair it which it cancelled the following day. Its records say a further damp and mould inspection was needed which it booked for 4 July 2024.
21. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why there was such a long gap between the resident’s report and the planned inspection. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy does not specify a timescale for completing an inspection. In our view, 19 weeks (from 19 February to 4 July 2024) was not a reasonable timescale and caused unreasonable delay in the landlord addressing the damp and mould.
22. The report of the inspection on 4 July 2024 confirms there was damp and mould in the hall but the resident’s home was fit for habitation. In our view, including an assessment of whether a home is fit for habitation in the inspection report is good practice. It enabled the landlord to decide its response and the priority it gave to its further actions.
23. The landlord promptly raised orders for the recommended repairs the same day. Its stage 1 complaint response of 5 September 2024 said it had given the job a 90 working day timescale. It would have been clearer if it had also told the resident the date it must be completed by. Doing so would have given the resident a better idea of how long she may need to wait for the work.
24. The repairs started around 15 October 2024 and this was within the 90 working day timescale set by the landlord.
25. The resident told us the contractor removed a radiator without turning off the water supply causing flooding to her hallway and living room. It also caused her boiler to fail leaving her without heating and hot water. Her account is supported by the landlord’s records which show she contacted the landlord multiple times between 21 October 2024 and 23 October 2024 regarding the leak and boiler failure.
26. The evidence suggests she was without heating and hot water for at least 15 days until the boiler was replaced on 4 November 2024. She explained this meant she could not dry out the water damage and there is no evidence the landlord offered temporary heaters or a dehumidifier to help with drying out. In our view, the landlord could have offered more help following the leak. The resident told us the contractor cleaned the carpets after it completed the repairs to address the damp and mould which was around 21 October 2024.
27. On 29 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord saying mould was growing on the new plaster and her door was still leaking when it rained. She also contacted the Council’s Environmental Health Team saying her home was not fit for her to live in.
28. The landlord inspected with an Environmental Health Officer on 5 November 2025. This was reasonable and shows it had taken the reports seriously. The inspection report shows the landlord found the contractor’s work was not satisfactory and had not resolved the causes of the damp and mould. It decided the work needed to be done again and also identified further rising damp in the lounge.
29. This time the surveyor assessed the resident’s home was not fit for habitation and recommended the resident be moved temporarily during the work needed. The landlord promptly started planning the repairs and temporary move. It also addressed the poor workmanship and resident’s concerns about staff conduct with the contractor and arranged for a different contractor to inspect and do the work now needed. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
30. The second contractor inspected on 8 November 2024 and the landlord installed a positive input ventilation system (PIV) on 11 November 2024. The PIV was to improve ventilation and reduce the risk of mould growth. This shows the landlord and contractor responded to the condition of the resident’s home with an appropriate level of urgency.
31. The resident told us the PIV had made her home too cold and stopped the drying out process. Her account is supported by the landlord’s records which show she reported the PIV making her home too cold on 21 November 2022. She told us the landlord had returned on 22 November 2024 to adjust the settings which had resolved the issue. The landlord responded reasonably to the issue of the PIV settings in our view.
32. The earliest date the second contractor could start the repair work was 25 November 2024. The evidence suggests the landlord was updating the resident about how long it expected the work to take and the temporary accommodation it could provide.
33. It appears the resident had concerns about being disrupted over the Christmas period. The landlord agreed to defer the start of work until 5 January 2025 and made arrangements for the resident to stay in a hotel during the work. It also inspected again on 19 November 2025 to check the condition of her home. This shows the landlord was still mindful of its obligations for the resident’s health and safety while she remained in her home after it agreed to defer the repairs.
34. The inspection report says there was “slight” mould around bedroom windows but none on the walls or ceilings. It says humidity levels were normal and while the rising damp was visible, there was no mould growth in the ground floor rooms. The surveyor assessed the home as fit for habitation and ordered a mould wash to treat the mould around the bedroom windows. This was reasonable and shows the landlord was proactively managing the situation.
35. However, the order for the mould wash was cancelled on 12 March 2025. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the work was done or why the order was cancelled.
36. The resident moved to a hotel on 5 January 2025 as planned and work started the following day. The landlord post inspected the completed work on 15 January 2025. The inspection report confirms the damp proofing and plastering work was done but the walls were still drying out in some places. The surveyor assessed the property was fit for habitation and raised an order to have the carpets cleaned.
37. The resident called the landlord on the morning of 17 January 2025. She said she had visited her home and seen some skirting board missing and some bare wires. The resident told us she had also raised concerns about condensation and mess left behind by the contractor but this is not reflected in the landlord’s note of the call.
38. The survey report of 15 January 2025 contains no reference to missing skirting boards or bare wires. It is not clear why the report and the landlord’s record of the resident’s call 2 days later appear contradictory regarding the skirting boards and wires.
39. The landlord inspected again on 20 January 2025. It offered to provide a dehumidifier to speed up the drying process. It also offered to extend the resident’s hotel stay but she decided to stay with friends instead. In our view, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about condensation during the drying out process.
40. The landlord did follow up inspections to check the progress in drying out and then arranged decorating work and ordered follow on work to replace an internal door and 2 double glazed window panes. The resident returned to live in her home around 22 January 2025.
41. Prior to our investigation, the landlord had completed the decorating and replaced the internal door. It had post inspected the work and its inspection reports show the work was done satisfactorily. It had also arranged to fit the new double glazed window panes.
42. The resident confirmed to us the damp and mould is resolved. She was unhappy with the time taken to complete the follow on works but there is no evidence the landlord was at fault. This is because the initial orders were cancelled due to the contractor not gaining access and the landlord promptly raised new orders for the work.
43. Overall, the resident experienced damp and mould in her home from March 2022 until repairs were completed in January 2025. In its stage 2 response of 26 November 2024, the landlord identified failings in its handling of her earlier reports and agreed the work done in October 2024 was inadequate. It apologised and offered £2,100 compensation for its handling of the damp and mould. This included £800 towards the damage caused to the resident’s belongings and carpets. In addition, it agreed to clear the resident’s rent arrears of £236.
44. The landlord then followed through with the commitments it gave to carry out the necessary repairs and paid £150 towards the resident’s heating costs whilst waiting for the repairs. In our view, the landlord’s actions resolved the complaint satisfactorily. As such there was reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

45. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
46. The resident complained on 21 August 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it the same day. The acknowledgement said the landlord would contact the resident within the next 2 working days to discuss her complaint. There is no evidence it did so within the timescale given. This caused inconvenience to the resident because she chased the landlord on 27 August 2024 when no one had contacted her.
47. The landlord’s records show it tried to call her 3 times and sent texts between 30 August 2024 and 5 September 2025. It also emailed her on 4 September 2024 asking when she would be available for a call. Its records do not show if the resident responded.
48. The landlord had not spoken with the resident by the time it gave its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024. The response was 1 day later than the 10 working day timescale required by the Code. In our view, it was reasonable the landlord wanted to try to speak with the resident before giving its response.
49. It would have been reasonable for the landlords stage 1 response to have recognised its failure to contact the resident within 2 working days of its acknowledgement.
50. The resident called the landlord on 6 September 2024 saying it had arranged to call her earlier that day but had not done so. There is no reference to the landlord making an appointment in its records. Given the landlord’s attempts to speak with the resident before giving its stage 1 response, the resident’s call could suggest its records of contacts with her during the complaint are not complete. There is no evidence the landlord returned the resident’s call as she asked and this was a failing.
51. It appears the resident had not received the stage 1 response when she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 September 2024. The landlord’s note of her call suggests she thought the landlord had failed to give a response. It is not clear why she had not received the response as the evidence shows the landlord emailed it to her on 5 September 2024.
52. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s contact of 17 September 2024 or that it escalated the complaint as she asked. These were further failings.
53. The resident then emailed the landlord on 1 October 2024 confirming she had seen its stage 1 response and wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord exchanged emails with her from 2 October 2024 asking what outcome she wanted and what it could do to resolve the matter. It took until 9 October 2024 before the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint.
54. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the Code which says landlords must acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. In this case, it took the landlord 15 working days to escalate the complaint. It should have escalated within 5 working days and found out why the resident remained dissatisfied as part of its investigation at stage 2.
55. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 November 2024 arranging to call her on 11 November 2024. It also extended its timescale for giving a stage 2 response to 18 November 2024.
56. The Code allows landlords to extend the timescale for responding to complaints in exceptional circumstances. This is to help landlords give a full response to complex complaints. The Code allows landlords to extend the stage 2 response timescale by no more than 20 working days.
57. In our view, the landlord’s extension in this case was not reasonable. This is because it extended its response timescale 37 working days after receiving the resident’s escalation request on 17 September 2024. As such the stage 2 response was already late. Further, the landlord’s records show it had not taken any steps to investigate the complaint since it acknowledged it on 9 October 2024. The landlord’s lack of action was not reasonable.
58. The resident called on 12 November 2024 saying the landlord had not called her the previous day to discuss her complaint as had been arranged. There is no evidence the landlord responded or returned her call as she requested. This was a further failing.
59. The landlord spoke with the resident on 19 November 2024 and offered compensation which she initially accepted. She then changed her mind and the landlord spoke with her again on 21 November 2024. It emailed following the call to confirm it had chased the repairs. It is not clear from the evidence what had been discussed regarding the compensation.
60. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 26 November 2024. This was 50 working days after the resident’s escalation request and later than the extended timescale it had given on 7 November 2024. As such the landlord failed to give its stage 2 response within the timescale required by the Code.
61. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the “inconsistency” in its communication and for not giving its final response by 18 November 2025. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in giving its stage 2 response.
62. In our view, the landlord did not fully recognise its failings in handling the complaint. Its apology and compensation offer did not accurately reflect how late its stage 2 response was. This meant it missed the opportunity to learn from its mistakes and did not offer sufficient redress.
63. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
64. We have ordered it to apologise and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It appropriately reflects the inconvenience likely to have been caused by the landlord’s failings. The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered at stage 2 if it can show it has already paid it.

Review of policies and practice

65. In this investigation we found failings in the landlord’s record keeping. We found similar failings in case 202204795 and ordered the landlord to review its practices. The landlord complied with our order in April 2024.
66. However, in this investigation we found record keeping failures after April 2024. This suggests further improvement may be needed. We recommend the landlord consider our findings and decide if it needs to make further improvements.

Determination

67. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
68. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

69. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for its failings in handling her complaint. Its apology must acknowledge the failings we identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience likely to have been caused by its complaint handling. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered at stage 2 if it can show it has already paid it.

Recommendations

70. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
    1. Pay the £2,100 compensation offered in its stage 2 response of 26 November 2024 and clear the resident’s arrears of £236 if it has not already done so. The compensation offer is part of the reason for our finding of reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Consider the failings we have identified in its complaint handling and record keeping. The landlord should decide if it needs to improve its practices to comply with the Code and support its service delivery.