Onward Homes Limited (202013067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013067

Onward Group Limited

26 August 2021

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 concerns:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
2. The quality of the completed repairs.
3. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord.
4. The formal complaint into these matters

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord’s repairs handbook describes the three categories it uses to prioritise repairs and its target response times. These are:
1. Emergency repairs (complete or make safe within four hours). Repairs which put the health and safety of the tenant or anyone else at immediate risk or can affect the structure of a tenant’s home or nearby properties.
2. Urgent repairs (complete within five working days). Repairs that require attention quickly but do not put the tenant’s home or anyone else in immediate danger.
3. Routine repairs (complete within 20 working days). All other repairs are classed as routine repairs by the landlord.
From March 2020 onwards, as a result of restrictions placed on it due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord only attended emergency repairs.
From 20 July 2020 the landlord also started attending urgent repairs, although due to the backlog of repair requests, its target response time for urgent repairs was extended to 20 working days.
From 5 August 2020, the landlord started attending routine repairs. It prioritised emergency and urgent repairs as well as repairs for vulnerable residents’ properties. It also advised its residents that due to the availability of contactors and supplies; significant delays may be possible.
On 14 November 2020, the landlord informed its residents that the restrictions on its services had been lifted, although delays to repairs could still occur due to the availability of contactors and/or supplies.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When it first receives a complaint, the landlord will attempt to resolve the matter at the first point of contact. If that is not possible, a formal complaint will be logged. An acknowledgement letter will be sent to the complainant within two working days and a stage one response will then be sent within ten working days.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. The escalation request will be acknowledged within two working days. The landlord will then consider the grounds that the complainant has requested the escalation on, and a stage two response will then be sent within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 1 February 2021 the resident wrote to this Service to state his dissatisfaction relating to how repairs at the property had been handled by the landlord. He described the elements of his complaint as:
1. Issues with water entering into the property due to the poor condition of the external door.
2. Patches of damp/condensation inside the property.
3. Leaks from the ceiling during periods of heavy rain.
4. The length of time it took for the landlord to respond to these issues.
5. The poor quality of work from the landlord’s contractors, which resulted in the resident redoing the plastering and painting himself.
This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, which wrote to the resident on 2 February 2021 and confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint into the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2021 and requested further information regarding the issues of the complaint. The resident replied on 12 February 2021 and informed it that:
1. For the last three years he had experienced problems with the quality of work from the landlord’s contractors and poor communication from the landlord.
2. As English is not his first language, the resident had requested to correspond via email. However, the landlord continued to contact him via the telephone.
3. The leak from the roof had caused damage to his and his family’s personal items.
4. He had received conflicting advice from contractors relating to the leak and what work would be required to the roof to fully resolve the matter.
5. It took three and a half years for the landlord to complete the work. This caused severe inconvenience to the resident and the finished work was of poor quality. This had resulting in him having to redo the plastering and painting himself.
6. The outside of the property was in poor condition as several months ago all the landlord properties in the street were painted except for the resident’s.
7. The landing light in the property did not work.
8. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested that the landlord apologise for the length of time the matter took to resolve the issues and the effect that this had on his family, complete the outstanding repairs to the roof, paint the outside of the property, and offer suitable compensation.
The landlord sent the stage one complaint response on 17 February 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. It received a report from the resident on 30 September 2019 of a moisture stain in the living room of the property and of water getting in during rain from holes in the structure of the building. A work order was raised, and its contractor attended on 14 October 2019 to investigate the source of the moisture, fill in the holes, and to re-seal and re-point the windows and windowsills.
2. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2019 to report that moisture patches were still an issue. A work order was raised. However, due to a system error, the contractor did not receive the order and no appointment was arranged.
3. The resident’s partner contacted the landlord on 25 and 26 August 2020 to report a leak from the roof into the loft space and that water had leaked through a light fitting. Emergency repairs were raised for both reports and contractors attended on the same day on each occasion to make safe the problem.
4. On 8 September 2020, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord regarding an appointment that its contractor was scheduled to attend the next day. However, the landlord had no record of any appointment.
5. A routine repair was raised on 14 September 2020 to complete extensive damp works to the property. This was completed on 10 November 2020.
6. It was advised by its contractor on 1 October 2020 that scaffolding would be required to be erected to inspect the front of the roof. This was scheduled for 7 October 2020, where the contractor fitted new lead flashing, repointed the existing flashing, cleared out the gutters and undertook mortar work to the chimney stack. The contractor advised the landlord on 30 October 2020 that the leak remained, and a further appointment was scheduled for 4 November 2020 to replace a broken tile and a section of lead on the roof.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2020 to report the poor quality of work that had been completed. A follow-on appointment was arranged for 14 December 2020 where a section of mortar was replaced, and a piece of verge refitted.
8. Further follow-on work had been raised on 2 December 2020 to fit silicone around the external door and replace a vent. This was completed on 26 January 2021.
9. An urgent repair to replace the landing light was made on 16 February 2021. This had been scheduled for 19 February 2021. A routine repair had also been raised relating to ongoing issues with the leak from the roof. Scaffolding had been scheduled to be erected on 22 February 2020 and a roofer would then attend on 23 February 2021 to complete repairs.
10. It explained that its records showed that the resident had refused the external painting of the property as he wanted it painted white from red and brown. This was declined by the landlord as it said it would have looked out of character for the area. It now understood that the resident had agreed to have the property painted brown and that it would arrange a date for the work to begin.
11. It apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused due to the length of time in resolving the roof leak and for the failure to book an appointment following the 28 November 2019 report. The landlord also noted that it was satisfied that it had acted on the resident’s reports of leaks and completed repairs when they were reported.
12. In relation to the plastering and painting the resident undertook himself, the landlord noted that as per the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for decoration at the property and that it could find no record of being informed of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the quality of the plastering.
The landlord concluded the response by partially upholding the resident’s complaint and awarding a £325 goodwill gesture in recognition of the delay in completing the mould and damp treatment due to the failed appointment and noted that this should have been resolved in a more timely manner following a visit from the resident to its offices in December 2019.
On 24 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
1. The timeline of work given by the landlord was incomplete as an inspection occurred a year previously where the outstanding issues were identified.
2. He was not made aware by the visiting operatives that no painting would be undertaken as it was his responsibility.
3. He had been lied to and ignored by the landlord, as appointments had failed on ‘many occasions’.
4. The quality of the completed work was poor, which was clearly shown in the photographs provided to the landlord by the resident.
5. The compensation offer of £325 was inadequate. In light of the length of time the issues took to be resolved, the effect this had had on the resident and his family, the inconvenience caused by pursuing the complaint and the hours of work lost by the resident; a compensation offer of £3,000 would be more reasonable.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 March 2021 and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and aimed to provide a response by 12 March 2021. It wrote again on 10 March 2021 to inform the resident that due to the complexity of the case and that an inspection of the property would be required before a response could be sent, the deadline to provide the response had been extended to 19 March 2021.
The stage two complaint response was sent on 17 March 2021. The landlord first addressed the inspection of the property made as part of the response. It noted that the inspection had confirmed that all repairs had been completed. The inspection also highlighted a section of skirting board that required to be replaced.
The landlord then explained that it had reviewed its repair records and that it was satisfied that it had responded to the reports and passed them on to its contractors. It noted that there had been extended periods where no new repairs had been reported, which suggested that many of the repairs were successfully completed. The landlord also explained that it was not always possible to resolve a repair in a single visit and additional visits would sometimes be required.
The landlord then recognised that there had been delays in completing the work in the more recent reported repairs. The landlord stated that it had experienced issues relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and that it had kept its residents updated on the status of its repairs service on its website. It apologised to the resident for the delays and the inconvenience that this had caused, but noted that all reports relating to leaks had the property had been acted upon when they were reported.
The landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied that it had attempted to resolve the repairs and raised work orders when it had received reports, as well as arranging inspections to identify all outstanding issues. It could find no evidence to suggest that it had acted with the intention to mislead the resident.
The landlord then addressed compensation. It explained that it believed that the £325 goodwill gesture was reasonable, but that it had reviewed the offer and that further compensation should have been awarded in recognition of the decoration undertaken by the resident to the affected areas. It had therefore added an additional £120 for a total goodwill gesture of £445.
The landlord concluded the response by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience that this matter had caused and confirmed that he had now exhausted its internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

As part of its evidence, the landlord has provided its contact records for the property from August 2017 to February 2021. These records include the reports made by the resident and his partner, and the work orders raised by the landlord.
These records show that issues relating to damp patches were first raised on 30 October 2017, that an inspection was arranged for 12 December 2017 and plastering work was arranged for 15 December 2017. A report was made on 13 March 2018 to inform the landlord that damp patches had returned, and an appointment was made for 15 March 2018. The other repairs concerned in this complaint are as described by the landlord in its stage one complaint response (see paragraph 13).
The landlord accepted that the report made on 28 November 2018 regarding the return of damp patches was not responded to. It explained that it had passed the matter on to its contractor, but due to a system issue the contractor did not receive its report. The landlord also acknowledged that following a visit from the resident to its offices in December 2019, it should have rebooked the outstanding work in a timelier manner. This failed appointment was taken into consideration when it calculated its compensation offer.
Overall, the landlord followed its repairs policy in responding to the resident. The reports made about leaks were marked as emergency repairs and attended to on the same day, the light fitting was marked as an urgent repair and attended to within five working days. All other repairs were marked as routine and appointments were initially booked within 20 working days, although the records do show some appointments being rescheduled.
The issues involved in this complaint involved several complex repairs that required multiple visits to resolve. While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak into a property immediately and multiple visits may be required to find the source and fix the leak. In this case, the leak was only apparent during periods of heavy rain which made it more difficult to investigate. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors concerning the work needed to resolve the leak. As the contractors reported that the leak was repaired it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that was the case until further reports were received from the resident to suggest that the leak was still ongoing.
The landlord also experienced issues in attending routine repairs within its timescales due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resident was informed of this issue in his correspondence with the landlord between September 2020 and December 2020. The resident was signposted to the landlord’s website, which provided updates on its service status during the pandemic.
Where the delay to repairs was outside of the landlord’s control, such delays due to theCovid-19 restrictions, the landlord would not be at fault if an appointment had to be rescheduled. Therefore, although there were some delays in completing the repairs, most of these were outside the Ombudsman’s control and therefore it would not be expected to compensate the resident for any inconvenience this caused him. The landlord would be expected to compensate the resident for any avoidable delays caused by its staff and contractors. The landlord has provided reasonable compensation for one missed appointment and the delay from December 2019 onwards, which it was responsible for.

The quality of the completed repairs.

The resident stated his dissatisfaction with the quality of the work undertaken by the landlord’s contractors. He informed the landlord that he had to redo the plastering himself and also provided photographs of the repairs to both this Service and the landlord.
The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, whilst we assess all the information provided to us, we do not generally place significant weight on photographs when reaching decisions.
The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor was recalled twice when the resident reported that damp patches had returned, and for a third time when the resident reported issues with the repair to the chimney stack which required a section of mortar to be replaced.
The landlord recognised that these return visits added delays to the work being fully completed and further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord apologised to the resident and has indicated that it considered these return visits when calculating its compensation offer.
The resident also informed the landlord that he had to redo the plastering due to the poor quality of the original work by the contractor. The correspondence between the landlord and resident does not raise the issue of the plastering until 17 November 2020, when the resident first requested to raise a formal complaint. This email included photographs which showed what additional work the resident had done himself.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord not to consider this element of the complaint when making its compensation offer as it had not been given the opportunity to inspect the contractor’s plastering and then put right any issues it identified prior to the resident’s own plastering work.

The amount of compensation offered by the landlord

The landlord offered a total of £445 compensation in recognition of the service failures it identified and as a contribution to the resident’s decoration expenses. The resident described this offer as inadequate and that an offer of £3,000 would be more reasonable.
The resident wrote to this Service on 27 April 2021 and explained how he reached that figure. The resident noted that he had lost 101 hours of work (at £10 per hour) and that the situation has had an adverse effect on his and his family’s health which had not been recognised by the landlord.
Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments about his and his family’s health, it is outside the expertise of this Service to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by residents and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord’s goodwill payment guidelines suggest a maximum payment of £100 for delays in resolving a leak and £125 for delays to resolving mould/damp. No guidance is given for failures in customer service, although it is reasonable to assume that this was calculated at £100 as the offer at stage one was for a total of £325.
The landlord then offered an additional £120 at stage two of its internal complaints process. towards decoration, which it explained it calculated as £40 each for the three areas in the property which required decoration.
The total award of £445 is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends a payment of £250-£700 in cases where there has been considerable service failure which may have no permanent impact on the complainant. An example of this type of service failure is described by the guidance as ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.”
The resident is seeking compensation for his loss of income as he had to take time off work to attend repair appointments. Whilst it is understandably inconvenient for residents to have to take time off work for such appointments, in line with the tenancy agreement, tenants are expected to provide access to the landlord’s staff and contractors as required and the landlord would not be expected to compensate for this.
The landlord would only be expected to provide compensation if appointments were cancelled without giving notice. It is general practice amongst landlord to pay £10 to £20 missed appointment to reflect the inconvenience caused to residents. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation is reasonable taking into account the one missed appointment which it identified as well as the additional appointments needed to complete the work to an acceptable standard as the original repairs were unsatisfactory.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first requested to raise a formal complaint on 17 November 2020. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 December 2020.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it “always aims to resolve complaints at first point of contact. We [the landlord] will make every effect to work with our customers to achieve a satisfactory resolution’.
It was reasonable, and in line with its complaints policy, for the landlord to first look to resolve the issues the resident had raised informally prior to opening a formal complaint. The resident sent further emails on 13, 17 and 18 December 2020 which described his ongoing dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling repairs. However, it was not until the intervention of this Service on 2 February 2021 that a formal complaint was opened.
Not progressing the complaint to the formal stage for almost two months is likely to have caused significant inconvenience and delay to the resident. Therefore, this was a service failure by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this delay in the stage one complaint response and considered when the landlord calculated its goodwill gesture.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50-£250 in circumstances where a complainant experienced service failure of a short duration, such as a landlord failing to meet service standards.
Therefore in view of this, the landlord should make a compensation payment of £75 to the resident for the inconvenience caused by delays in its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. How it handled the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
2. The quality of the completed repairs.
3. The amount of compensation it offered.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling

Reasons

Overall, the landlord followed its repairs policy in responding to the resident’s reports. However, it recognised that there were avoidable delays in the process, including a failed appointment and instances where its contractors had to return as the original work was not completed to an acceptable standard.The landlord apologised to the resident for these issues and awarded compensation proportional to the service failures identified.
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy as there was an almost two-month delay from when the complaint was made until a formal complaint was opened. Therefore, a further compensation payment is warranted to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Orders

For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £75. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. This compensation payment is in addition to the compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process.