Onward Homes Limited (202100742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100742

Onward Group Limited

23 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 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. How the landlord handled repairs to the windows in a leasehold property from 2020 onwards.
2. How the landlord handled her formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: how the landlord handled repairs to the windows in the property between 2009 and 2017.
The resident’s complaint included that the landlord had not handled historic repairs to the windows appropriately, in particular, that it had not referred the matter to NHBC in 2012 when she suggested this.
Under paragraph 39(e), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This complaint was raised by the resident on 2 March 2021, therefore the scope of this investigation includes the period from February 2020 onwards as the Ombudsman considers this a reasonable period and it includes the previous reported leak.
In accordance with this paragraph, this investigation does not include an assessment of how the landlord the leaks reported in 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2017. However, there is some reference to the history of the reports as these are relevant to the current complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder to a first floor flat (the property). The property is sub-let to a tenant. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a shared ownership leaseholder and owned 75% of the lease.
There is evidence of historical leaks to the windows in the property, including
1. The landlord raised a repair to leaking windows on 15 May 2009.
2. In December 2012, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of repairs to leaking windows in the property.
3. On 16 January 2013, the landlord raised an inspection to the windows and on 14 February 2013, the landlord raised a repair to reseal the windows.
4. On 28 June 2017, the landlord raised a repair to reseal the bedroom window due to a leak.
On 25 February 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the windows in the main bedroom were leaking again after recent storms. The following day, the landlord informed the resident that it had asked its surveyor to inspect. An inspection was booked for 11 March 2020.
On 2 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she considered that there was a “serious problem with some of these windows as this has been a continual issue for some considerable time”. She said that the windows had been resealed several times but each time there was still a slight leak and tenants only reported the issues when the leaks became severe.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord raised a repair to repoint silicone to the bedroom window. On 19 March 2020, the landlord advised the resident that following an inspection it had found that the UPVC arch above the bedroom window required re-sealing and it had raised a repair for its contractor to do this. The landlord advised that the contractor would also check for any issues with the “lintol/cavity tray whilst they remove the arch and before re fitting and sealing”. The Ombudsman requested the landlord provide evidence of when this repair was completed and what was done. The landlord has provided confirmation from the contractor that it checked for leaks and re-sealed the window on 26 March 2020. There is no evidence to confirm that it checked the “lintol/cavity tray”.
On 28 January 2021, the resident reported that the lounge and bedroom windows were leaking again. The resident said that it had been an ongoing issue for “the best part of ten years” and she considered it a construction fault.
On 7 and 10 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. She referred to damage to internal decorations, plasterwork and flooring. She said that the issue was caused by the windows being fitted incorrectly. She said that the windows had leaked on and off since they were sealed the previous year. She considered the landlord was responsible for the cost of internal decorations given the number of times repairs were requested but not correctly completed. She requested a schedule of works.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had arranged for a contractor to attend to:
1. Valleys: rake out & re-point both valleys.
2. Windows 2 and 3:

i. Remove arched trim and check for water ingress particularly the cavity tray, weep holes, if required remove the arched brickwork and re-lay.

ii. Rake out and re-seal the window frames all round.

The resident informed the landlord that the lounge window was also leaking and had not been mentioned and she was unhappy not to have been provided with a date for the work. She considered the landlord had breached the lease.
The resident contacted the landlord several more times about the repairs and requested a start date. On 19 February 2021, the landlord said that the lounge window had not been reported during the inspection but it had since reported this. It said that a surveyor would visit the property when contractors attend to carry out repairs to the bedroom windows and it would arrange for the lounge window to be repaired once the issue had been identified. It said that scaffolding was due to be erected the following week and it was waiting for a date from the contractor. In relation to internal damage, the landlord said that it was unable to carry out internal repairs under the terms of the lease, but it provided a buildings insurance summary of cover in case she wished to make a claim.
The resident disagreed stating that her son had reported that all the windows on the roadside leak. She also considered that the landlord should make an insurance claim through their policy and pay any excess.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that scaffolding would be put up on 1 March 2021 and the repairs booked for 4 March 2021. It said it had also asked for the lounge windows to be included.
On 2 March 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint, stating in summary:
1. No scaffolding had been erected.
2. The reseal completed in March 2020 was ineffective. The windows had shown signs of slight leaks since then.
3. The landlord had failed to successfully remedy the issue since 2009.
4. The leaks had damaged plasterwork, decorations and flooring.
5. The landlord refused to refer the matter to NHBC in 2012 stating it was not a structural issue but if it was not a structural issue, why had the resealing not worked.
Scaffolding was erected on 3 March 2021. On 4 March 2021, the resident informed the landlord that no work had started and the scaffolding had only been put up as far as the second bedroom window, not the lounge. The same day the landlord responded that the surveyor had attended that day and an issue had been identified with the cavity tray. It said it would put new cavity trays in the windows once sourced and ordered. Further that once the valleys had been repointed and windows resealed, the scaffolding would be moved to include the lounge windows.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that work had been completed the previous day and that the windows had been resealed and the contractor was sourcing cavity trays. It said the roof valleys had been repointed.
On 9 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint stating it was received on 8 March 2021 and it aimed to respond within ten working days.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that when previous issues with the windows had been reported, it had acted in accordance with the lease by arranging an inspection and carried out a repair. It acknowledged that the previous repair (2020) did not appear to have been successful.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that the resident had reported leaking windows on 28 January 2021 and it had booked an inspection for 1 February 2021. A repair was raised on 2 February 2021, scaffolding was erected 3 March 2021 and repairs to windows commenced on 4 March 2021. The windows were resealed however during the repairs it was identified that a new cavity tray was required. The landlord said it would update the resident once the parts for this had been received. The landlord concluded that it had taken reasonable steps to ensure the work was completed as quickly as possible and kept her informed of progress, therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident responded the same day stating that the windows were only reported as leaking by her son (the tenant) when they became “intolerable”, but the windows had persistently leaked and the 2020 reseal was largely ineffective. She considered the landlord was responsible for internal repairs as it had failed to complete a successful repair over a period of time. She disagreed that the landlord had acted in accordance with the lease stating that according to the lease a repair should be completed in a reasonable time to a satisfactory standard, not continue for a number of years.
On 24 March 2021, the resident complained that her complaint had not been handled in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that contractors would commence work to install the new cavity trays to the bedroom windows on 29 March 2021.
On 5 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again about her complaint. She said there had been a clear breach of lease, the delay to the repairs was unacceptable and scaffolding was in place longer than necessary. She said she had confirmed her dissatisfaction with the previous complaint response on 12 March 2021 and on 24 March 2021 but she had heard nothing further.
On 7 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO detailing the complaint including that the leaking water in the first bedroom was dangerous as it was pooling on the windowsill directly above an electric heater.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the cavity trays had been installed in the bedroom windows and it was waiting for the scaffold to be moved to cover the lounge windows. This would be done on 20 April 2021 and the contractor would attend on 23 April to carry out a repair.
On 14 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord setting out the reasons she was still unhappy. These included:
1. On 12 March 2021, there resident had replied to the complaint response making it clear that she was not satisfied. She had not received an acknowledgement of this.
2. The response of 12 March 2021 failed to address the breach of lease and the landlord had not complied with its repairing obligations or its repair policy.
3. The landlord had not properly inspected the windows to trace the source of any leak for over 10 years up until the current repair.
4. It had not complied with its Complaints Policy. Her request for a final response was ignored. It had not explained what stage 1.5 referred to.
5. She had informed it that one window leak was directly above an electric heater and this was ignored.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman several times in April and May 2021. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord requesting it respond to the complaint on 12 April 2021.
On 16 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated and said that it would respond by 29 April 2021.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the repairs to the lounge doors were completed on 23 April 2021, new cavity trays were installed above each door and they were resealed. The landlord’s works order records also note the cavity works as completed on 23 April 2021.
On 29 April 2021, the resident chased a response to her complaint.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord provided a Stage two response to the complaint. The landlord said the original repair request of 28 January 2021 was responded to in a timely manner and an inspection took place on 2 February 2021. Works were raised for which scaffolding was arranged and works completed. It said that while carrying out repairs, further works were identified which when then ordered and completed. The landlord said it had updated the resident throughout the process and it had not breached any terms of the lease. This was the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
On 5 May 2021, the resident set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaints response including that it had not addressed her complaint about the time it had taken to inspect the windows and find any source of water ingress over a period of over 10 years, including three repair reports in four years and including two in 12 months “proving that repairs had never been successful”. She also said that she was not given updates.
On 7 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that the scaffolding had been removed. The same day, it acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction at Stage two and said it would respond by 14 May 2021.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident providing a further explanation in relation to the windows. The landlord acknowledged that it was frustrating to have experienced leaks to the windows over a period of ten years. However, the landlord said it had responded to each report of a window leak by arranging a repair and each time a repair was carried out, it appeared to have resolved the problem. It explained that this type of repair can be difficult to diagnose and can appear to have been resolved but then present itself again at a later date. It said at no stage did it have any reason to believe that the window was defective or required anything other than a repair. The landlord said that the contractor who attended in February 2021 advised that cavity trays were required and these were installed, but this solution had not been reported to it previously by the contractors and it had always believed that previous repairs had been successful. In conclusion, it did not agree that it had breached the lease.
During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the resident requested compensation totalling £3,183.60 including various items such as the cost of internal repairs, the costs of communications with the landlord, stress caused, paint, and the inconvenience of inspections and delays.
The landlord offered £150 for delays in the scaffolding being moved (£50 per month) and £150 for distress to demonstrate its “ambition to rebuild” the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord acknowledged that repairs were not completed until 23 April 2021 and this was unacceptable. It referred to delays in sourcing, moving and removing the scaffolding.
The resident has recently informed the Ombudsman that the letting agent has recently identified condensation in the property, particularly on the bedroom window, and signs of damp and mould in the property. She is concerned that the issues with the windows may not be fully resolved.

Assessment and findings

Lease terms and landlord policies

Under the terms of the lease, the leaseholder is responsible to “keep from time to time and at all times during the term the interior of the Premises and the glass in the windows and doors (if any) of the Premises and the interior faces (including plaster and other internal covering or lining and any floor boards tiling and screeding) of the walls ceilings and floors of the Premises…clean and well and substantially repaired maintained and decorated…”.
The landlord’s responsibilities under the lease include to “maintain repair redecorate and renew…the roof foundations and main structure of the Building and all external parts thereof including all external and load-bearing walls the window frames and doors on the outside of the flats within the Building….”.
The landlord’s Repairs policy includes the following timescales for completing repairs:
1. Emergency: target to complete within four hours. These are repairs which put the health and safety of the residents at immediate risk or can affect the structure of the property or nearby properties.
2. Urgent: target to complete within five working days. These are repairs that require attention quickly but do not put your home, your or anyone else in immediate danger. These include minor roof leaks and broken windows.
3. Routine: target to complete within 20 working days. All other repairs.

Assessment: how the landlord handled repairs to the windows in a leasehold property from 2020 onwards

In response to the resident’s report of leaking windows on 25 February 2020, the landlord responded appropriately by arranging for a surveyor to inspect. Following the inspection on 11 March 2020, the landlord raised a repair to re-seal the bedroom window. The landlord also said it would check for any issues with the “lintol/cavity tray”.
While it would have been appropriate to treat this repair as urgent and complete within five working days in accordance with the repairs policy, it is noted that there is reference to there being difficulties in communications between the surveyor, the agent and the tenant in terms of arranging access which may have caused part of this delay.
Given that the resident had raised concerns about the number of times the windows had leaked and that she considered that resealing had not fully resolved the issue previously, it was appropriate for the landlord to check for further issues with the windows. However, in response to the Ombudsman’s request the landlord has only been able to provide evidence of having re-sealed the windows. There is no evidence to confirm that it checked for issues with the “lintol/cavity tray” as it said it would do. Had the landlord carried out these checks in 2020, it might have been able to identify the issues with the cavity trays earlier and reduced the impact on the resident and her tenant.
The resident also complained that the leaks had been ongoing between February 2020 and January 2021 but that they had not reported this due to frustration with how the landlord had handled their previous reports. While it is acknowledged that experiencing repeated leaks in the property was frustrating for the resident, as the landlord was not made aware that leaks were ongoing, it could not reasonably be expected to have addressed these concerns at the time. If the resident had reported that the leaks were ongoing, the landlord would have had the opportunity to address them earlier.
Following the resident’s report of 28 January 2021, the landlord appropriately raised a repair order to address the leaking windows. It is acknowledged that the landlord initially mistakenly only raised repairs in relation to the two bedroom windows, when the resident had also referred to the lounge window leaking. However, once the resident raised this issue again, the landlord acted appropriately in adding the lounge window to the repairs schedule and agreeing for the contractors to address this once the bedroom windows were repairs.
Scaffolding was erected on 3 March 2021 and the landlord informed the resident that the resealing and valleys repairs were completed that week and that it was sourcing cavity trays. On 9 April 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the cavity trays had been installed in the bedroom windows. The repairs to the lounge windows were completed on 23 April 2021.
In total, it took about three months for the landlord to complete these repairs. This was outside of the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy and it was understandable that the resident raised concerns about the time taken, particularly given her assertion that the interior of the property was being damaged by the leaks and that there was a safety concern over an electric heater under one of the windows. When responding to the complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge that there had been some delays to the repairs and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result, which it should have done. Neither did the landlord address her specific concerns about the electric heater.
However, during the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the landlord did acknowledge that the delay was unacceptable and referred to delays in sourcing and moving the scaffolding. It offered £300 in recognition of these delays. While this offer of compensation was modest, given that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to arrange the repairs, and the first part of the repairs were completed in early March 2021, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this offer was reasonable in respect of the delays to the completion of repairs in 2021.
The resident informed the landlord about her safety concerns in relation to the electric heater on 7 April 2021. By 9 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the bedroom window repairs were complete, therefore while it was understandable that the resident was concerned about this issue, there was no delay by the landlord in completing repairs once it was aware of this. It is noted that it may have helped to resolve the complaint if the landlord had specifically addressed this concern.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s communication and chased up information about the repairs several times. However, there is evidence that the landlord updated the resident several times in relation to the proposed works and timescales.
In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord was responsible for the cost of internal repairs and decorations, the landlord explained that under the terms of the lease the leaseholder was responsible for this or she could claim on the buildings insurance. This response was in accordance with the lease terms under which the leaseholder is responsible for internal repairs. However, in the situation where the resident was asserting that the landlord’s actions or inactions had led to damage to the property, the landlord could also have considered whether it was appropriate to advise the resident if and how she could make a claim against its own liability insurance. The Ombudsman has therefore made a Recommendation in relation to this issue.
In addition to the time taken to complete repairs, the resident complained about the effectiveness of the repair completed in 2020 and asserted that the landlord had historically failed to identify a fault with the windows which could previously have been addressed by the NHBC. While the scope of this investigation does not extend to an assessment of the landlord’s actions prior to 2020, it is noted that the landlord could have gone further in explaining its position in relation to these aspects of the complaint. It could have addressed the resident’s assertion that cavity trays should have been installed at an earlier stage and explained in more detail why it considered its actions had been reasonable and in accordance with the lease.
In terms of the works completed in 2020, as set out above, there is no evidence of the landlord carrying out checks on the cavity trays, there is only evidence that the windows were resealed. Had the landlord responded in more detail to this aspect of the complaint, it might have identified this shortcoming.
Given the resident’s concerns about ongoing condensation and dampness in the property, the Ombudsman has included an Order (below) for the landlord to arrange an inspection in respect of this.

Assessment: complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two–stage procedure:
It will aim to resolve complaints at the first point of contact.
1. At Stage one, it will contact the resident within two working days and respond to the complaint within ten working days.
2. At stage two, a director will review the complaint. It will acknowledge receipt of a request within two working days and respond to the complaint within ten working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 2 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 March 2021 and provided a response on 12 March 2021. The resident set out her dissatisfaction with the complaint response in correspondence from 12 March 2021 onwards. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 April 2021 and responded on 5 May 2021. There was therefore a delay in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the complaint at Stage two. Given that the resident has specifically complained about how the landlord handled the complaint and the landlord’s communication, the landlord should have identified this shortcoming and taken steps to put things right.
The resident has also referred to the landlord informing her that the complaint was at stage 1.5. There is no evidence to confirm what the resident was advised in this regard, but the resident was confused about the status of her complaint due to the delay. It also caused inconvenience in that she chased up the landlord and the Ombudsman in relation to the response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the windows in the property from 2020 onwards.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has been unable to evidence that it carried out further checks to the windows in March 2020 that it agreed to do. Had it done so, it might have identified the issue with the cavity trays at an earlier stage.
There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the resident’s requests to escalate the complaint to Stage two and the landlord did not acknowledge or take steps to put this right.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £675 compensation within four weeks of the date of this Order, comprising:
1. £275 for its failure to check the cavity trays in March 2020.
2. £300 it offered previously for the delays in completing repairs in 2021 (if it has not already paid this).
3. £100 compensation for the shortcomings in its handling of the formal complaint.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns about ongoing condensation and dampness in the property and arrange for an appropriately qualified contractor to attend the property and investigate and report back on the cause of ongoing issues. The results of the inspection to be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman. (Within eight weeks of the date of this Order.)
The landlord to remind its complaints handling staff of the importance of responding to complaints in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy and the importance of acknowledging any shortcomings in its complaint handling when responding to a complaint (within six weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

The landlord to advise the resident if and how she can make a claim against its liability insurance in respect of the damage to the property.