Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Onward Homes Limited (202100271)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100271

Onward Homes Limited

7 April 2022


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 repairs to an ongoing leak from a porch roof.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The location of the porch has been undetermined as it was described to this Service by the resident as being a rear porch, whereas the landlord described the porch as being adjoined over the front door.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord and reported an issue with her porch on 18 February 2020. The corresponding repair log noted an issue with the porch door but made no reference to the porch roof. A repair was raised, and an appointment scheduled for 14 April 2020. Following attendance, the operative reported that more materials were needed to complete the required works. As a result, a follow-up appointment was arranged for 24 April 2020. It is not apparent whether the follow up appointment took place.
  3. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2020 requesting an update on the outstanding repair. The landlord advised the resident that it would send an email chaser to its contractor. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 August 2020 as she said she had not yet received an update.
  4. Over the period of September 2020 to November 2020 the resident was given a number of repair appointments. An appointment was made to paint the porch but was cancelled due to the roof having not yet being repaired or replaced. Three of the appointments were missed, the first due to the operative running over on a previous job, the second due to staff illness, and the third for an unspecified reason.
  5. An operative attended the resident’s property on 6 November 2020 who reported that the porch roof required a full replacement. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 November 2020 due to the repair delays. The landlord noted that the resident wanted the roof to be replaced with more durable materials or wished for the porch to be removed in its entirety, to prevent ongoing issues.
  6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 27 November 2020. It advised the resident that the work to replace the porch roof was passed to a repairs specialist who had referred the work for authorisation due to the scale of the task. The referral was still awaiting decision. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint.  It acknowledged the length of time taken to rectify the leak and carry out repairs was unacceptable. It also accepted that the contact history on the resident’s account showed that it had failed to communicate with her effectively, and that she had had to continually chase it for updates. In light of its service failings the landlord offered the resident compensation of £250.  The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s complaint was escalated in March 2021 due to the unresolved repairs. It sent its final complaint response on 31 March 2021. It explained that other properties in the area were also having similar porch problems, and the condition of the porch was such that it needed to be removed in its entirety to ensure safety, and the surrounding exterior to be made good.  It repeated its earlier apologies and its offer of £250 compensation. The landlord confirmed that’s its stage two response concluded its complaints process and provided details for the resident to refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She remained dissatisfied that as of 02 Jun 2021, the repair had still not been completed and that having to continually chase up the repair since February 2020 had caused her much stress and the outcome she sought was for the repair to be completed. It is not apparent from the evidence when the work was finally completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the porch roof and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. 
  2. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will pay compensation up to £250 when leak repairs have required multiple appointments and have gone on for up to five months. It does not provide guidance for repairs that continue longer than that.
  3. The landlord has a repair response time policy which sets out the timescales within which a resident should expect repairs to be responded to depending on how the repair is categorised. Whilst the landlord has not specified which category it classified the repair under, according to its policy, routine repairs are expected to be responded to within twenty working days. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes for reasons outside its control, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and difficulties may arise or further works identified after initial investigation. In such cases basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations, and take meaningful steps to resolve the outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
  4. In this case, the landlord did not keep the resident informed, nor carry out necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acknowledged where its service was less than it should have been, and upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage one response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and awarded compensation of £250. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its service failings, although it did not offer an explanation as to what had caused the delays and the lack of communication. While the landlord did not explain how it calculated its compensation (and good practice would have been for it to do so) the amount offered appears to be broadly in line with its compensation guidance. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for a complaint where service failure has been long running, and required regular follow up by the resident, but where there is no apparent long-term impact. Overall, at the time of the landlord’s first complaint response, it provided reasonable remedies to the resident’s concerns.
  5. However, the call records provided by the landlord show that the resident had to chase it for updates regarding the ongoing repairs for a considerable time following the stage one complaint response. The logs showed the resident chased the landlord for repair updates throughout January and February 2021, and there was inconsistency in the landlord’s responses to her.
  6. After further investigation, in its stage two response in March 2021 the landlord advised that the condition of the porch meant that further repairs were not viable, and an assessment was needed to establish a long-term plan for the affected properties. It said this would be done as soon as possible but did not set out any specific timeframes. Meanwhile, the landlord advised it was aware that measures needed to be taken to remove the existing porch to ensure safety which would include the making good of the surrounding items. The landlord apologised again for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the unresolved repair situation and poor communication, but did not acknowledge or remedy the further trouble the resident had been put to since the first complaint response four months earlier, or that the repair issue still had no clear resolution timeframe more than a year after it was originally reported. The final complaint response was therefore incomplete, leaving the resident’s concerns unremedied and unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £175. This is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, which it should now also pay if it has not already done so.
  2. Given that it is not apparent from the evidence if the work to resolve the problem with the porch has been completed, the landlord should write to the resident, with a copy to this Service, explaining when the work was completed, or if it has not yet been, a clear and firm timeframe for completion in a reasonable period.