Onward Group Limited (202113638)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113638

Onward Group Limited

26 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower following a leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. She reported a leak from her shower into the kitchen on 19 March 2021. The resident was unhappy being informed on 23 March 2021 that the repair to the shower tray would take five working days as she did not wish to be without a shower during this time and raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. The landlord agreed to provide temporary accommodation in a hotel while the works were completed. The hotel stay was extended to 11 days before the works were completed and the resident returned to the property.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response offered £140 compensation for the inconvenience of the delayed works and paid £330 for her expenses while away from the property. There followed a period of two months when the resident made several attempts to contact the landlord’s resolutions team about her complaint before seeking the intervention of the Ombudsman. Once contacted by this Service the landlord escalated her complaint, inspected the shower tray and found that it had not been installed correctly. It raised more remedial works and offered a further hotel stay which was declined by the resident.
  3. The landlord’s final response increased its offer of compensation to £250, apologised for the standard of service she had received and provided dates for the further remedial works. These evidently went ahead and further works to install a shower screen and repair a tile broken during its installation were completed by 7 December 2021.
  4. The resident informed this Service that she continued to be dissatisfied with the resolution of the complaint as:
    1. It took too long to resolve the repairs to the shower.
    2. She was without a shower when the second remedial works were carried out in October 2021.
    3. She was unhappy with communication from the landlord
    4. She had been unable to take up the second offer of a hotel stay because the parking and meals other than breakfast were not provided. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that it considers an urgent repair as one which require urgent attention but do not put the property or people in immediate danger, such as a containable water leak. It will attempt to complete such repairs within five working days. This handbook also specifies that routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s guidance for goodwill payments provides for a maximum offer of £200 compensation when a washing facility, such as a bath or shower, is unusable for five months and there is no alternative washing facility. Where an alternative washing facility is available, up to £80 compensation may be offered if the bath or shower is unusable for five months. £20 compensation may be offered for each missed appointment after the second missed or cancelled appointment.
  3. The landlord’s complaints resolution policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure with responses due with ten working days at each stage. When a resident remains dissatisfied after a stage one response, they can ask for an escalation of their complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower following a leak

  1. The landlord had a duty, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to provide, repair and maintain the installations in the property for sanitation; these include a bath or shower. When it received the resident’s report of the shower leaking, it had an obligation to complete this repair within five working days in accordance with its repairs handbook. This was because the repair required urgent attention as it was tripping the electrics but was not reported as an immediate danger to life or the property. It would have been reasonable to consider the leak as containable as it could be prevented by not using the shower.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 23 March 2021 to carry out work. This was in accordance with the timeframe in its repairs handbook for an urgent repair. It identified that follow on works were required to replace the shower tray which was leaking. It advised the resident on 24 March 2021 that five working days were needed to order the replacement shower tray and install this. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of this; where parts are not readily available to complete a repair it is reasonable to carry out follow on works provided the delay is not excessive.
  3. The resident held that due to the medical vulnerabilities of her household, it was necessary for her to have washing facilities and requested to stay in a hotel until the repair was completed. The landlord’s records showed that it was aware of a disability in the household. A landlord would not be expected to rehouse a resident due to the temporary loss of a shower; provided that other sanitation facilities existed, such a bathroom sink, a resident could reasonably be expected to remain occupation at the property whilst they awaited completion of the work. There was no evidence that the property would be uninhabitable whilst the shower replacement remained outstanding.
  4. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to decant the resident and provide expenses of £30 per day while the resident and her partner were decanted. This was in excess of the landlord’s obligation but demonstrated that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household in its decision, although there was no evidence supplied to show how the temporary loss of a shower would impact on the medical vulnerabilities of the household.
  5. The landlord subsequently did not complete the repair within the five working days it originally specified; the resident stayed at the hotel for 11 days before being able to return to the property on 6 April 2021 when the works were completed. In its stage one complaint response, it confirmed that £330 had been offered to her for her expenses during the hotel stay and an additional £140 compensation was offered to her for the inconvenience. In this response it said that further appointments were to be arranged by its contractor to carry out painting of the ceiling following the leak and grouting of tiles.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £250 for instances of failure which had an impact on the resident but were of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. Given that the extended duration of the hotel stay was an additional six days in excess of the five days originally quoted by the landlord, the offer of £140 was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and was in excess of the landlord’s guidance for goodwill payments. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £140 was reasonable for the failures exhibited until that point.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 June 2021 to chase the painting of the ceiling that had been repaired following the leak. After experiencing unsatisfactory service from the landlord’s contractor on this and other repair issues, she requested that it provide her with a decoration voucher which it sent to her on 12 August 2021. While this delay was not acknowledged by the landlord in its final response to the resident, its offer of decoration vouchers was accepted by the resident and the additional compensation it offered, which will be discussed further below, constituted reasonable redress.
  8. The resident subsequently experienced further issues with the shower tray installation, although there was no evidence that this was reported as a repair to the landlord. These issues evidently came to light once the Ombudsman intervened on 29 September 2021 due to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the outcome of the complaint. When a landlord is made aware of a problem a repair, it would be expected to carry out an inspection of the issue. It duly did so on 14 October 2021 and recommended further works to make good the shower.
  9. When the resident was informed of the timescale for these works on 19 October 2021, she requested to be rehoused in a hotel again to have access to washing facilities. Again, over and above of its obligation, the landlord offered a six day stay in a hotel, which the resident declined the following day. This was not a failure on the part of the landlord as the accommodation was offered again over its obligations but was declined by the resident.
  10. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 20 October 2021 confirmed that it had offered her a hotel stay, relayed the schedule for the remedial works to her shower tray and offered a further £100 compensation for her inconvenience. Given that there was no evidence when the resident reported the subsequent fault with her shower tray, and that the landlord acted promptly to inspect this and carry out remedial works once the Ombudsman intervened, the £100 compensation it offered was reasonable to recognise the inconvenience caused to her by the subsequent fault.
  11. In conclusion, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its delay in completing the repair to her shower in April 2021 which led to an extended stay in a hotel. It offered her a hotel stay during both periods when works were being carried out on the shower, in excess of its obligations and this was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, of being fair, putting things right and learning from its mistakes.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on six occasions between 26 April and 14 June 2021 to request that its resolutions team call her back to discuss her dissatisfaction with the stage one complaint resolution. There was no evidence that it contacted her during this time. The final stage complaint was subsequently logged by the landlord after intervention from the Ombudsman on 29 September 2021. This was an unreasonable response from the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which member landlords are expected to comply with, sets out that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the service provided by the landlord. The resident made the landlord aware on 26 April 2021 that she had attempted to write to it to set out her dissatisfactions but there was no evidence that it took the opportunity to escalate her complaint. The landlord should have recognised the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and responded in line with its complaints procedure. That it did not recognise this led to the resolution of the complaint being unreasonably delayed and necessitated further involvement by the resident in approaching this Service to prompt a response from the landlord.
  3. As mentioned above, it was unclear when further repair issues presented themselves with the work to the resident’s shower. Had the landlord responded promptly to her, the repair may have been completed sooner, reducing the inconvenience caused to the resident. In recognition of this failure in handling her complaint compensation of £50 should be paid to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of repairs to her shower after a leak satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration (service failure) by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for its failures in the handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered her in its final response, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review its procedures for the management of its contractors to ensure that works are carried out promptly and appointments are kept.
    3. Carry out refresher training with staff to ensure that complaints are recognised in a timely manner and progressed in accordance with its complaints resolution policy.