Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Onward Homes Limited (201915422)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915422

Onward Group Limited

8 November 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 leaseholder 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:
    1. response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress from the roof of his two properties;
    2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The person bringing the complaint is a leaseholder of two properties of the landlord, flat A and flat B. This service requested copies of the lease agreements from the landlord but has only been provided with an undated copy of the lease for one property. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The properties are second floor flats, adjacent to one another, and are immediately beneath the roof of the building.
  3. The leaseholder does not reside at the properties. At the beginning of the period of the complaint, the leaseholder sublet both properties. From February 2018, one of the properties became vacant for the remainder of the period of the complaint.
  4. The lease agreement provides that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in good repair the roof and main structure of the building.
  5. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that where a complaint requires an investigation, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and aim to resolve the complaint within 10 working days, unless it otherwise agrees a longer timeframe. A stage two response is undertaken on the same basis.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that between February 2016 and May 2017, the leaseholder experienced leaks from the roof of both properties, for which the landlord carried out repair works.
  2. Between May 2017 and approximately February 2018, the leaseholder and landlord exchanged a number of emails in relation to complaints raised about his tenant in flat A. During the course of this correspondence, on 30 June 2017, the leaseholder advised there was still damage to the kitchen ceiling in Flat A caused by the leaks and he queried when this would be addressed. The landlord did not immediately respond to this query, however, on 29 August 2017, the landlord advised it was attempting to gain entry to the property to complete plastering works following the leaks. On 30 August 2017, the leaseholder provided the contact information for his tenant. On 31 August 2017, the landlord advised it would pass this to its repairs contractor, but that if it got no response from the tenant, it may wait until the tenant had vacated the property (as the leaseholder was in the process of evicting him at this time).
  3. Additionally, between November 2017 and approximately August 2018, the leaseholder and landlord exchanged a number of emails in relation to separate leaks entering his neighbour’s flat located beneath flat A. This service has been provided with copies of correspondence between the neighbour and the leaseholder which sought to determine the cause of the leak. It was initially thought to have been caused by the washing machine in the leaseholder’s flat, but later determined to be coming through the neighbour’s ceiling where it met the leaseholder’s balcony.
  4. During the course of this correspondence, on 21 February 2018, the leaseholder advised that water was coming in through the roof of his flat again and queried whether this could also be the cause of the leak into his neighbour’s flat. On 22 February 2018, the landlord advised it would arrange an inspection of the roof. On the same date, the landlord’s contractor contacted the leaseholder to arrange access to both his properties on or before 28 February 2018. It is not evident, however, that the leaseholder replied to this message.
  5. On or around 18 June 2018, having identified the leak into the neighbour’s property appeared to be coming from the leaseholder’s balcony, the landlord advised the leaseholder his balcony decking would need to be taken up to inspect for a leak. The leaseholder replied on the same date and queried how the leak could be caused by his balcony. He also advised that the roof leaks into his properties were continuing and that the landlord still had not addressed this. He also noted he had reported this issue many times. On 21 June 2018, the landlord advised it would inspect both issues at the same time and requested his tenant’s contact information for access.
  6. It is evident that the landlord arranged for a leak detection specialist to investigate the balcony leak, however, in its subsequent communication with the leaseholder on 4 August 2018, the landlord only referred to a report from its contractor about the balcony, and not his roof.
  7. On 19 October 2018, the leaseholder reiterated that there was an ongoing roof leak into both properties and chased this issue up again on 31 October 2018. On the same date, the landlord queried if the leak was affecting both flats, to which the leaseholder replied it was and again noted he had raised this issue many times.
  8. On 18 January 2019, the leaseholder noted he had still had no update and that the leaks were getting worse. On 21 January 2019, the landlord advised it would arrange for an inspection of the roof. On 5 and 26 February 2019, the leaseholder chased the landlord for updates having not heard anything back.
  9. On 8 April 2019, the landlord queried if the leaks were continuing and advised it had carried out repair works on 25 February 2019. The leaseholder replied on the same day and advised that the leaks were continuing and that he suspected this was due to a leaking pipe in the roof space. He also noted that the redecoration works for the damage caused by the leaks needed to be done and that he intended to sell flat A but was unable to put it on the market due to the damage.
  10. On 22 May 2019, the landlord advised the leaseholder that it had attempted to gain access to the property to inspect the leak but was unable to do so. It is evident that this appointment was arranged with the tenant and not through the leaseholder. The landlord advised its contractor had left a card for the tenant to arrange a further date for access.
  11. On 23 July 2019, the leaseholder advised he wished to raise a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the roof leak, noting it had been an ongoing issue for over 12 months. He also noted he remained unable to sell flat A while the issue continued. On 31 July 2019, the leaseholder followed up his complaint request and noted he had not received any acknowledgement. On the same date, the landlord replied and provided its complaints policy. It requested the leaseholder send an email to a specific address if he wished to continue with the complaint and also that he forward his copies of the correspondence surrounding the repair requests.
  12. The leaseholder forwarded the requested correspondence, however, on 9 August 2019 the landlord advised its former staff member had not added the details of the repair request to its system correctly and so had no record of it. It subsequently advised it was chasing its contractor for an update. On 15 August 2019, the landlord advised it had been in touch with its contractor who had attended in June 2019 and had provided quotes for works to the landlord, which had been pending approval since this time. It further advised it had sought authorisation to commence these works.
  13. On 21 August 2019, the leaseholder noted that the contractor had recently attended the property, but that no works had been carried out and they had not returned. He also reiterated he wanted to make a formal complaint about the lack of works and that he was unable to sell the property until they had been undertaken. On 23 August 2019, the landlord acknowledged his complaint and advised it would respond within 10 working days. It also advised the roof works had been authorised and it would provide a date for the works shortly.
  14. On 10 September 2019, the leaseholder noted he was yet to receive the landlord’s stage one response and requested an update. On 12 September 2019, the leaseholder chased this up with the landlord on the telephone. The landlord advised there was no open complaint but that it would ensure the complaint was correctly logged and it would chase up a response from the relevant team. The parties had a further telephone conversation on 4 October 2019, in which the leaseholder reiterated his complaint and also advised he wanted the landlord’s poor complaints handling added to the complaint. The landlord advised on the same date that it would provide its stage one response by 14 October 2019.
  15. On 11 October 2019, the landlord advised it required further time to prepare its stage one response and advised it would be provided by 21 October 2019. On 21 January 2020, the leaseholder noted he was still waiting for a formal response and advised that the leak was ongoing. He also advised the cost to redecorate the ceilings in both properties would be approximately £550. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications which note that as of 23 January 2020, its draft stage one response was awaiting approval and it was again noted on 10 March 2020 that the draft was still awaiting approval.
  16. On 12 May 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It provided a detailed timeline of events and noted that while it had failed to provide satisfactory service, the repairs had also been delayed by difficulties arranging access. In particular it noted its contractor had difficulty gaining access in July 2018 when it intended to inspect both the balcony leak affecting the leaseholder’s neighbour and also the leaseholder’s roof, however, it accepted that when the inspection was carried out, no inspection of the roof took place. It also advised that its repair efforts had been delayed between July and August 2019 due to difficulty in its contractor obtaining the necessary equipment to access the roof. It advised it had carried out some repairs in October 2019, and subsequently that it carried out further repairs in January 2020 following the leaseholder’s further reports. It confirmed the redecoration works could now commence at no cost to the leaseholder and noted it had already paid him the £550 quoted for the costs of the repairs. Regarding its complaints handling, it also accepted it had failed to log the leaseholder’s initial complaint correctly. Regarding the leaseholder’s concerns that he was unable to sell the property while the repairs were outstanding, the landlord advised it had not been presented with evidence regarding his inability to sell and disputed that the damage would prevent a sale. It concluded that the works and its complaint handling had been delayed and it had missed opportunities to investigate the issue, for which it offered £300 compensation.
  17. On the same date, the leaseholder replied and disputed that he was responsible for any of the missed appointments and that the damage and unsolved leak would certainly have affected his ability to sell the property at market value. On 19 May 2020, the landlord advised it would provide further comments in due course, which it reiterated on 1 June 2020. On 16 June 2020, the leaseholder noted he was still yet to receive a response and requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two. He further advised that on the occasion his tenant had failed to provide access, he had not been informed of this arrangement so would have been unable to ensure access was provided. He further disputed that the contractor had shown up at all as his tenant had advised no one attended and so queried if the contractor had instead attempted to access the vacant property.
  18. On 1 July 2020, the leaseholder noted he was still yet to receive a stage two acknowledgement or response and on 15 September 2020, he referred his complaint to this service. Following correspondence from this service, the landlord advised on 20 November 2020 that due to staff turnover, this complaint escalation had been missed.
  19. On 8 December 2020, the landlord provided a stage two response. It reiterated there had been mitigating factors for its delays and noted a bird’s nest had delayed works to the leaseholder’s balcony. It subsequently offered £250 compensation. On 4 January 2021, the leaseholder responded noting the bird’s nest had nothing to do with his roof leak but was instead related to the repairs to his neighbour’s leak. He also queried why the offer of compensation had now decreased.
  20. The leaseholder tried to chase a response to his further comments on 12 February 2021 by telephone, but it is not evident he received a response. The leaseholder has since advised this service that the repair works and redecoration works have now been completed.

 

Assessment and findings

Leaks

  1. For leasehold properties, the relationship between landlord and tenant is contractual, and the terms of the lease will determine who is responsible for what. It is not disputed that the terms of the lease agreement for both properties dictate that the landlord is responsible for the external structure of the building, including the roof. It would therefore be the responsibility of the landlord to carry out an investigation and any related works upon being alerted to an issue with the roof.
  2. While some landlords operate responsive repair policies, these often relate only to repair responsibilities for assured tenancies. For leasehold properties, the Ombudsman must instead consider whether an investigation was carried out reasonably. This includes assessing the timeframe in which the landlord responded to reports and whether it reasonably undertook its obligations as per the lease agreement.
  3. Following an earlier leak in 2016 for which the landlord carried out repairs in May 2017, the leaseholder initially raised the issue of outstanding redecoration works in June 2017, however the landlord did not initially respond to this concern. At the time, the leaseholder and landlord were in regular communication regarding the leaseholder’s tenant and their subsequent eviction, so the landlord had multiple opportunities to respond to this query but failed to address it. While it subsequently contacted the leaseholder to gain access information in August 2017, this was a considerable amount of time after the leaseholder initially raised his concerns, during which he would have been left unsure about how his concerns would be resolved.
  4. The landlord’s advice that it may be prudent to wait until after the eviction of the tenant was reasonable given the alleged damage to other parts of the building caused by the tenant, however, given that the leaseholder did not respond, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have chased this up to ensure a plan was in place for it to make good the damage caused by the leak, which was required by its obligations under the lease. The Ombudsman notes, however, that some onus is also on the leaseholder to follow up the arrangements for these works, which it is not evident he did on this occasion.
  5. As noted by the landlord in its formal responses, the leaseholder reported a further leak in February 2018. The landlord appropriately advised it would arrange an inspection and arranged for its contractor to investigate. The contractor contacted the leaseholder to obtain the contact information for his tenant, however, it is not evident that the leaseholder immediately replied. The landlord, however, would have already had the tenant’s contact information from its other correspondence with the leaseholder, which it could have provided to its contractor. Additionally, as with later inspections, the landlord could have used its discretion and approached either tenant directly to arrange access. Ultimately, the landlord had an obligation to investigate the reports and satisfy itself as to any requirement to carry out works as per its lease obligations. This obligation would not be extinguished following a single failed attempt to get the tenant’s contact details and the landlord had not carried out a reasonable investigation at this point.
  6. The leaseholder again reported the ongoing leaks in June 2018, following which the landlord appropriately advised it would investigate the leak in conjuncture with its investigation of a leak into the leaseholder’s neighbour’s property. It is evident that the landlord arranged access directly with the tenant and has advised in its formal responses that the investigation was delayed by the tenant’s failure to grant access on the agreed upon day. While the leaseholder has disputed he was aware of such an agreement for access, the landlord also admitted in its formal responses that once the leak specialist had managed to gain access and carry out an inspection, they did not inspect the roof leak as the landlord had failed to correctly instruct them to do so. In its formal responses, the landlord has noted the delayed access as a mitigating factor for the delay to the repair works, however, while the access may have been delayed for whatever reason, the landlord had not instructed its contractor to investigate the roof leaks and so this delay had no bearing on the delay to the investigation/works to the roof.
  7. The leaseholder subsequently raised the issue of ongoing leaks again on 19 October 2018, and following a lack of response, again on 31 October 2018. In addition to the repeated failure of the landlord to correctly arrange an inspection of the issues reported following the previous reports, its failure to acknowledge the reports in October 2018 would have caused further distress for the leaseholder. Once it did respond on 31 October 2018, the landlord queried with the leaseholder whether the leak was affecting both his properties. An important part of a landlord’s service delivery includes accurate record keeping. It is evident that the leaseholder had advised the landlord on numerous occasions that the leak was affecting both properties, and the landlord’s failure to have kept records of this would have been frustrating for the leaseholder.
  8. The leaseholder again had to raise this issue having had no further response, following which, the landlord again advised it would carry out an investigation. While the landlord later advised that some works were carried out on 25 February 2019, it did not advise this to the leaseholder at the time leading him to chase further updates on 5 and 26 February 2019, to which he did not receive a response. This would have again left him distressed and unsure as to how the issue would be resolved. While the landlord did appropriately make queries in April 2019 as to whether the leaks had been resolved, it did not provide an explanation as to what works it had carried out in February 2019, which would have been helpful for the leaseholder, nor has this service been provided with any repair logs from this time. While the landlord may have considered it had carried out satisfactory repair works at this time (prior to the leaseholder’s advice in April 2019 that the leaks were ongoing), the landlord was aware that internal redecoration works were also required, which it did not attempt to arrange.
  9. While the landlord appropriately arranged to carry out a further investigation in May 2019 following this most recent report, it noted it was unable to gain access, however it is not evident that the leaseholder was involved in the arrangements for access. On this occasion, the landlord appropriately informed the leaseholder that it had attempted to gain access, following which, the leaseholder did not reply. As noted above, while the landlord is obligated to reasonably investigate the reports, there remains an onus on the leaseholder to also assist in this investigation where necessary.
  10. The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request to raise a formal complaint is discussed further below, however, as part of his request, the leaseholder noted the leak issues continued and that he was seeking to sell the vacant property. The landlord subsequently acknowledged its former staff member had failed to correctly log the repair in its system and that repair works were pending approval. While it appropriately advised it had now sought approval from its relevant team for the repair works, its failure to initially log the repairs is a further example of its poor record keeping and the Ombudsman notes that the turnover of staff should not prevent a landlord from keeping to its service obligations. Given the significant delays experienced at this point, it would also have been helpful had the landlord provided specific timeframes for it to obtain approval and carry out the works, which it did not do in this instance.
  11. While the landlord’s contractor subsequently attended the property, the landlord did not provide any follow up advice to the leaseholder, despite his multiple requests for an update. This would have further left the leaseholder unsure about how the issue would be resolved and would have added to his distress.
  12. Following the leaseholder’s further reports of the leak in January 2020 (referred to as December 2019 by the landlord), on this occasion, the landlord appropriately arranged for further repairs within a reasonable timeframe which resolved the leak. Following the leaseholder’s arrangement of redecoration works, the landlord also appropriately refunded the costs of the works, which the leaseholder has confirmed have now been completed.
  13. The landlord’s formal responses appropriately accepted it had failed to provide a satisfactory service and offered apologies. It also appropriately advised the leaseholder the reason behind some of the delays, being that it was unable to obtain the necessary equipment. While some delays due to equipment are understandable, this advice should have been provided to the leaseholder at the time. The formal response also went to some length to demonstrate how issues with access had been a mitigating factor and added to the delays. As discussed above, however, the delays around the investigation which also included an investigation of the balcony did not contribute to the delays to the roof investigation, as the contractor had not been correctly instructed to investigate the roof. Additionally, while there were other instances of failed access, this did not discharge the landlord’s obligation to investigate the leaseholder’s reports, and a single email not replied to by the leaseholder is not sufficient for the landlord to not make further attempts.
  14. Additionally, in the stage two response, the landlord referred to a bird’s nest in the balcony delaying the investigation. This further demonstrates the poor investigation and record keeping of the landlord, as it had been well established by this time that the balcony issue and the inspection of the roof were separate issues.
  15. In its formal responses, the landlord advised that it had not considered as part of its offer of compensation the impact of being unable to sell the property. It noted it had not been presented with any specific evidence that the leaseholder was actively attempting to sell or that he had subsequently struggle to do so. This approach was reasonable as there would need to be clear evidence as to the detriment caused to any sale by the leak which would need to be scrutinised carefully to assess any possible damages. This service has also not been presented with any such evidence and so any order of compensation will not be in specific reference to this impact. This does not prevent the leaseholder from seeking further legal remedies in relation to this.
  16. While the landlord made an offer of compensation in relation to the delays to the works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer does not adequately reflect the overall and cumulative impact of its maladministration in this case. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the leaseholder’s request for updates and repeatedly promised to arrange inspections without following them up or correctly logging them in its system. It also failed to correctly instruct its contractor to inspect the roof and once an inspection had taken place, failed to acknowledge or approve the recommended works for a significant period of time. While there had been issues with access, the amount of reports of leaks that went unanswered significantly outweigh the instances where access had been delayed, and this would have caused significant distress to the leaseholder, and also to his remaining tenant who had to live with the leak for over 12 months.
  17. As alluded to above, the landlord’s failings in this matter constitute maladministration and an increased amount of compensation is justified. Given the amount of time these repairs went uninvestigated, and the amount of time and trouble the leaseholder had to go to chase them up, an amount of £600 is appropriate in the circumstances. Additionally, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to improve its record keeping systems.

Complaints handling

  1. As referred to above, the landlord’s complaints policy requires that it acknowledge complaints within two working days and that it provides a formal response within 10 working days unless otherwise arranged.
  2. Following the leaseholder’s initial complaint on 23 July 2019, the landlord did not provide any sort of acknowledgement. After the leaseholder chased up a response, the landlord appropriately replied on the same date and provided the leaseholder with its complaints procedure. While it would have been helpful for the landlord to have forwarded the leaseholder’s complaint to the relevant team on his behalf, it was reasonable that it request he do so and that it provided him with the correct email address. While it is not evident the leaseholder specifically reiterated his complaint in full, he did forward the documents pursuant to his complaint as requested by the landlord. Should the landlord not have considered this to have been sufficient to indicate it the complaint was to proceed, it would have been helpful to have then clarified this with the leaseholder, which it did not do.
  3. Following the leaseholder’s repeated complaint in August 2019, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within the timeframes of its complaints policy and advised when it would provide a formal response. It did not provide any response, however, and following a telephone conversation with the leaseholder in September, it was evident that it had not logged the complaint on the previous occasion. This would have been very frustrating for the leaseholder as he had now attempted to raise a complaint on two occasions, which the landlord had failed to progress.
  4. Following the most recent complaint, the landlord appropriately arranged for a further telephone call to discuss the complaint, following which it set a date for it to provide its response. Prior to this date, the landlord also appropriately advised it would require additional time and set a further date. It did not, however, provide a response on this date, leading to the leaseholder having to expend further time and trouble in chasing it up.
  5. It is evident that the landlord had prepared a draft stage one response in January 2020, some five months after it had acknowledged the leaseholder’s complaint, however, it did not finalise this draft until May 2020, a further four months later. Throughout this period, it did not provide any explanation or update to the leaseholder about the delay to his complaint. This would have caused considerable distress to the leaseholder and left him unsure about how his complaint would be addressed.
  6. Within its stage one response, the landlord appropriately identified its complaints handling had been delayed, for which it offered an amount of compensation, being £100 (as part of the initial offer of £300).
  7. Following the landlord’s formal response, the leaseholder made further comments, to which the landlord advised on two occasions it would provide feedback. It did not do so, however, which would have caused further frustration for the leaseholder and leading him to escalate his complaint.
  8. Both the leaseholder and this service subsequently chased up the stage two acknowledgement on a number of occasions between July 2020 and November 2020 without a response, adding to the leaseholder’s distress, time, and trouble. The landlord eventually explained that its staff turnover had led to the stage two request being missed, however, as explained above, the landlord should have adequate systems in place to ensure that staff turnover does not affect its service delivery.
  9. The landlord’s subsequent stage two response did not adequately address its continued delays in relation to complaints handling and did not provide an explanation for why it had decreased its overall offer of compensation. The Ombudsman would also consider it best practice to respond to a complainant’s requests for further comments, even if just to refer them to this service, however, the landlord did not provide any further communication to the leaseholder.
  10. While the landlord did accept there had been delays and offer compensation, the amount offered does not reflect the significant period of the delays, the multiple occasions in which it failed to acknowledge of progress the complaint, nor the distress caused to the leaseholder. In reflection of the above cumulative failures, the Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling and an amount of £250 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress from the roof of his two properties;
    2. complaints handling.

 

 

 

Reasons

Leaks

  1. The landlord failed on a number of occasions to respond to the leaseholder’s reports of leaks at the property. Despite promising to arrange investigations, it also repeatedly failed to follow these up or provide updates to the leaseholder following his multiple requests.
  2. Additionally, the landlord failed to instruct its contractor correctly to investigate the roof and also failed to approve works recommended by its contractor for a significant period of time due to its ineffective record keeping.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord failed to initially acknowledge the leaseholder’s complaint, and also did not adequately confirm if he wished to continue after the leaseholder provided the requested additional documents. Once the leaseholder had made it clear he did wish to continue, the landlord failed to correctly log the complaint, leading to further delays.
  2. Following a further acceptance of the complaint, the landlord appropriately set out timeframes for its response and gave updates when these needed to be extended. It subsequently missed its extended deadline by a considerable number of months, during which it provided no updates despite the leaseholder chasing responses.
  3. Following the leaseholder’s request for a stage two response, the landlord once again significantly delayed in its response and demonstrated it did not have adequate systems in place to manage its complaints.
  4. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been delays, it did not fully recognised the impact of these on the leaseholder’s complaint, or offer sufficient compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £850, comprising:
    1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder by its failures to address the leaks to the roofs of his properties;
    2. £250 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its current procedures for keeping accurate records of current repairs and complaints so that any such matters are logged effectively and ensure that staff turnover does not affect the progress of its service delivery. The landlord to subsequently advise this service of any areas for improvement identified within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  2. The Landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/dispute-resolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.