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

Onward Group Limited (202203912)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203912

Onward Group Limited

26 October 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 the resident’s windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident’s lounge windows were originally replaced in September 2019 as she had reported that they were bowing. The resident then reported that the windows were bowing again in October 2020. Following several rearranged appointments, further measurements were taken on 27 November 2020. The resident followed-up with the landlord on 29 April 2021 and an appointment to replace the glass and frames was scheduled for 11 August 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in August 2021 as the window issues had been ongoing for over a year and she was dissatisfied with the workmanship by the contractors. She explained that the operatives had broken the pane of glass they were due to fit on 11 August 2021 and had also broken the pane of glass currently in the window when fitting the new frame, meaning that her window had needed to be boarded up. She was concerned about the security of the property and was also dissatisfied with the quality of the new frame, noting that there were scratches and damage.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the glass pane was fitted on 7 September 2021. The resident then raised further concerns about the condition of the frame, which had scuff marks and chips, and the need for internal plastering where the window had been fitted. External repairs to the frame and a full clean of the windows were completed on 11 November 2021. The resident advised that the internal works could be put on hold until a convenient time could be found. She then raised concerns regarding the external tiles, windowsill, and the sealant around the external parts of the window. She wanted the windowsill to be replaced due to its condition. She continued to pursue her concerns in December 2021 and asked that the complaint was escalated on this basis as the issues had not been fully resolved.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord initially advised its contractors had identified that the glass did not fit correctly in the frame on 27 November 2020, however, it noted that this information was not passed to its repairs team and works did not progress, for which it apologised. It acknowledged that the resident had immediately raised concerns following the window replacement in September 2021 and that there had been a discrepancy about the works required. It confirmed that it had inspected the windows on 2 February 2022 and had attempted to complete the works required to the external tiles and sealant on 7 February 2022 but that a member of the resident’s household had refused the work.
  6. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had asked for the internal plastering works to be deferred to a convenient date and asked the resident to make contact to book an appointment. It apologised for the delays to the repairs and failure of service. It offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the delay in completing works to the windows and the time and trouble spent pursuing her concerns. Works to repoint the external window sill, reseal the windows and complete the internal plastering were completed in May 2022.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to complete repairs to her windows and the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the window repairs over two years. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor communication and wanted additional compensation in view of this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the external and windows of the property as well as the internal walls and plasterwork. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. In some cases, repairs may take longer due to the need for additional planning or time to allow for the manufacture of parts. In these cases, the landlord should clearly explain the expected completion date to the resident in order to manage their expectations.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident experienced several delays and poor communication from the landlord in pursuing her concerns regarding her windows. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delays, its failure to communicate effectively and the number of appointments required. It is noted that the works have since been completed and the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is not considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident as a result of the delays in completing works and the landlord’s poor communication.
  3. Following the resident’s initial report that her window was bowing on 19 October 2020, there was a significant delay in completing works until 5 May 2022, approximately 18 months later. It is understood that work to replace windows can take a longer timeframe compared to the standard of 20 working days due to the need to source and manufacture parts. However, 18 months is not considered a reasonable timeframe given the nature of works required.
  4. There was a delay in inspecting the windows until 27 November 2020 due to repeated rescheduled appointments. The records indicate that there were three cancelled appointments and one appointment where the operative could not gain access to the property, although it is noted that the resident disputes this. Ultimately, there is no contemporary evidence to confirm the record of events on this date and whether access was refused or not. However, the repeated failed appointments were likely to have had a cumulative impact on the resident who was awaiting a resolution and there is no clear evidence to suggest that the resident had been informed of the cancellations in advance.
  5. Following this there was a significant delay in arranging for any part of the window to be replaced until 11 August 2021, over eight months later. This was the result of the works not being sent to the landlord’s repairs team and further rescheduled appointments. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised to the resident which was appropriate given that the works had not yet progressed and she had spent significant time and trouble pursuing the repairs.
  6. On 11 August 2021, the window pane due to be fitted was broken in transit and the glass in place was also broken when a new frame was fitted. The contractors acted appropriately by boarding the window temporarily to ensure the security of the property, however, the errors understandably caused the resident concern. These errors were unforeseen and somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. Whilst this was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident, the pane was ultimately fitted on 9 September 2021. This was within a reasonable timeframe given the need to source and manufacture a new pane.
  7. The resident initially raised concerns about the condition of the window frame within her complaint on 16 August 2021. However, the evidence shows that the resident needed to pursue her concerns again on 27 September 2021, following which the repairs were completed on 11 November 2021. Some of the delay at this stage was due to the need to source a specialist contractor for the hard-surface window repairs and a discrepancy regarding the works required as the resident wanted the frame replacing. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it would complete repairs in the first instance in order to progress the repairs at this stage. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have progressed any inspection or repairs required when the issue was first raised on 16 August 2021 to prevent any avoidable delay.
  8. The resident advised the landlord that further works to the sealant and tiles around the window as well as grouting and pointing were still outstanding on 15 November 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord had sufficient opportunity to identify that these repairs were needed at the time of the window frame replacement on 11 August 2021 or following multiple inspections as these issues would have been apparent. It would have been appropriate for it to have acted proactively to see the repairs through to completion at an earlier stage to prevent any avoidable delays and the need for the resident to raise the issues. The repeated need to raise further issues was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who had been awaiting a resolution to her window repair issues for over a year by this stage.
  9. Following this, the additional repairs to the windowsill, external pointing and sealant as well as internal plasterwork were completed on 5 May 2022. It is noted that the resident needed to repeatedly raise her concerns throughout November and December 2021 and there is no evidence to suggest that she received a response which was likely to be frustrating by this stage. It was reasonable for the internal works to be put on hold at the resident’s request as these were not considered emergency repair issues. There was a discrepancy regarding the nature of works required and the resident refused works on 7 February 2022 as she wanted the window sill to be replaced. Whilst the Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining repairs at this stage, the landlord would not be at fault for any delay as a result of her not providing access.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that replacing the windowsill would require the window and frame to be removed and reinstated which may cause further issues and that it was not prepared to risk this. It also noted that the windowsill was otherwise in a reasonable condition. It was reasonable for the landlord not to replace the windowsill as there is no evidence to suggest that it was beyond economical repair or in need or a full replacement. 
  11. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delays in completing works, its failure in service and its poor communication. However, its offer of £200 compensation is not considered proportionate given the cumulative impact on the resident as a result of its failings in this case. There were repeated failed appointments and delays in proactively progressing the works raised. In addition, the resident needed to repeatedly raise new repair issues following each repair appointment which could have been identified at an earlier stage. The evidence shows that the resident also needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing updates which was likely to have caused inconvenience.
  12. In view of this, the landlord is to offer the resident an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the delays in completing works and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing her concerns. This brings the total amount of compensation to £400. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts between £100-£600 are considered reasonable in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration but where there was no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, or a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is to pay the resident a further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing works to the resident’s windows and the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £200 which should also be paid if it has not already done so.