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

Ongo Homes Limited (202209615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209615

Ongo Homes Limited

9 March 2023


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 the resident’s request to remove the solar panels from the roof of his property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, a one-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2007. The property had solar panels installed on the roof at some point after 2012.
  2. In November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the solar panels on his roof had created a habitat for pigeons which were nesting and leaving faeces. He stated that he had not seen a reduction in his energy bills and believed the panels should be removed. He followed this up in April 2022 when he raised concern about the length of time it was taking for the landlord to resolve the reported issues with pigeons.
  3. In response, the landlord explained that it was aware of the pigeon issues, and advised the resident that his property was on a list of properties due to have their panels cleaned. Additionally, it advised that pigeon netting would be fitted to protect the panels and deter the pigeons. The landlord later wrote to the resident in June 2022 regarding the length of time taken to provide an update regarding the pigeon-proofing works. It apologized for the ongoing delay and explained that, due to a health and safety incident, it had been instructed to cease work while the incident was investigated. The landlord advised the resident that it would not remove the solar panels based on his concerns, but it would inform him of when it was able to re-commence works.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint in July 2022, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to remove the solar panels from his property. He listed the reasons he wanted the panels removed, which the issues with pigeons and the fact he believed the solar panels were costing him money rather than providing any savings. He also believed the panels were unsafe because of a previous fire (although it was not clear which incident the resident referred to). The resident explained he had asked the landlord’s contractor not carry out the cleaning and netting installation works because he wanted the panels removed instead. He also stated he was interested in buying the property in the future, and a neighbour had informed him that it would cost £12,000 to remove the panels himself. As such, he believed he was being discriminated against because the neighbour had had their solar panels removed before buying their property and questioned why it had granted them permission. The resident reiterated that he wanted the landlord to remove the solar panels from his property.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised it believed it had acted to rectify the pigeon issues and noted it was not responsible for the maintenance of the panels or pigeon–proofing work. It explained it had taken several months to tender (bid submitted to approve) the work and arrange for a specialist contractor to carry out the cleaning and installation of netting. It further explained that fitting the netting was due to start earlier in 2022 but due to a health and safety issue, all work was placed on hold while it carried out investigations and risk assessments. It apologised for the frustration and delay in completing the work. The landlord stated it was satisfied that the procurement of work was carried out as quickly as possible and the subsequent delays had been unavoidable. The landlord informed the resident it did not have a specific date for works to be completed, as this was dependant on its contractor. It noted his property was listed as number 40 of 63 properties due to have netting fitted, and that its contractor would confirm with him when the work would begin.
  6. The landlord further explained that the solar panels were installed with the aim of: reducing energy costs, making homes more energy efficient, and carbon reduction. In reference to the resident’s concern that the panels were not saving him money, it advised it would be able to monitor the solar panel usage and could check the operation of his panels. It also responded to the resident’s concerns regarding a fire, advising that this had been due to an electrical failure which was rectified by engineers at the time. It advised it was satisfied there were no fire or safety risks associated with the panels and they were kept properly serviced and maintained. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority, as the owners of the solar panels, regarding the removal of them if he wanted to purchase the property.
  7. It confirmed that it would not remove the solar panels because: it considered it a negative step for the work completed, and to be undertaken to reach net zero targets set out in its policies, plans and government expectations. The landlord assured him that it had not authorised the removal of any solar panels with other residents and that it would only consider removal in exceptional circumstances. It advised him that the same rules applied to all residents and that he had not been discriminated against.
  8. The resident brought his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He reiterated that his desired outcome was for the landlord to remove the solar panels from his property, or permit him to get them removed himself.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint, the resident advised that he had been discriminated against because he stated that the landlord had granted the neighbour permission to have their panels removed. However, within his complaints and correspondence with this Service, it is noted that the resident has not advised how the landlord has acted in a discriminatory manner or which protected characteristic it has failed to consider, such as his age, sex, race or religion. The resident’s allegations of discrimination appear to simply be related to the landlord allegedly carrying out a function for another resident which it has declined to do for him. Therefore, this investigation will assess this matter in the context of whether the landlord has acted consistently and applied its policies fairly rather than making any assessment of whether the landlord has acted in a discriminatory fashion.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove the solar panels from the roof of his property

  1. The resident asked to have the panels removed in July 2022 because he did not believe they saved him money, there were issues with pigeons nesting on them and he was concerned about the potential cost of removing them himself if he were to purchase the property in the future. The landlord’s guidance on solar panels states that a large number of its solar panels are owned by a third-party organisation, which in this case was the local authority. It was therefore reasonable that, in its complaint response, the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations and advise him of the limited actions it could take, by signposting him to the local authority to gain further information on the removal or purchase of the panels and any charges that may have applied.
  2. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the panels attracting pigeons, which then nested and left faeces on his roof, in line with the landlord’s guidance on solar panels, the local authority owned and was responsible for the maintenance of the solar panels. Therefore, there was no obligation for the landlord to carry out any pigeon-proofing works to the solar panels as this would be the responsibility of the local authority.
  3. Despite this, the landlord took the step of assuming responsibility for handling the issues with pigeons by arranging to carry out the work required to clean and protect the panels in the future. This was a positive and proactive step for the landlord to take. Following its recognition of the issue, and confirmation that several other residents within the block had experienced similar problems with pigeons, it was reasonable for the landlord to list the resident’s property for cleaning and fitting of netting to try and resolve the matter. Based on the information available the landlord’s response was appropriate and it was positive that it used its discretion to take responsibility for the issue.
  4. While the resident raised concern around the length of time taken to resolve the pigeon issues, in its complaint response the landlord explained it had taken several months to get works approved and for it to arrange for a specialist contractor to carry them out. It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing for the resident and the delay in progressing the issue would have caused frustration. However, a landlord’s inability to completely resolve an issue within advised timeframes is not, in and of itself, automatically a service failure. Many repairs or proofing works require specialist services or supplies that are not always readily available. These factors are often outside a landlord’s control, and therefore would have an impact on the time needed to resolve the issues.
  5. In such cases a landlord would reasonably be expected to show evidence of actively working towards a resolution, managing a tenant’s expectations, and providing meaningful updates. However, while the landlord did write to the resident with an update in June 2022 and noted in its later complaint responses that it had written to the resident “informing (him) of delays”, there is no other evidence of it updating the resident in the previous seven months since it acknowledged his initial enquiry in November 2021. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with regular updates, which caused him time and trouble when chasing the progress of the works and ultimately led him to making a complaint regarding the landlord’s lack of communication around the issue.
  6. Although the landlord’s letter in June 2022 appropriately sought to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining the reason for the delays to its pigeon-proofing works, and appropriately apologized for these, it is not clear why it could not have provided the resident with this information much earlier. While the specific date of the planned works was not referred to (the landlord simply stated they had been due to take place “earlier in 2022”), there is no evidence the landlord provided an update within a reasonable timeframe, despite the fact it would have been clear much earlier that the works needed to cease following a health and safety incident. This was not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly. While the landlord’s explanation regarding why the works had been delayed was reasonable, and it is noted that the landlord appears to have acted appropriately and in line with its responsibilities towards staff and contractors under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by ceasing works pending further investigation, its communication regarding this matter could have been better. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounted to service failure.
  7. The landlord’s policies and procedures do not set specific timeframes on completion of works. Generally, routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days and larger complex works can take up to 90 days to complete. It was appropriate to inform the resident that he was on list to fit netting to his solar panels and that the works were dependent on its contractors progress, but it would it would have been helpful if the landlord had given the resident at least an estimate of when the works would be carried out, rather than advise that its contractor would be in contact with him at a later date.
  8. It is noted that, to date, it remains unclear if the cleaning has been carried out and the netting installed. A Health and Safety report compiled by the landlord in October 2022 outlined further reasons for the works being delayed and noted that “due to the increase in costs (the landlord had) requested further quotes from specialist cleaning and netting contractors to ensure value for money”. It is not clear whether the resident had seen this report and update. While it is reasonable that the landlord, as a housing association with growing pressures on its budget and resources, should seek to obtain best value and allocate its resources appropriately, it is of concern that the landlord had effectively restarted the process almost a year since the resident’s original request and that it did not provide any estimate for how long the process may take or when works might commence. This was not appropriate and the landlord should have attempted to provide greater clarity to the resident, particularly in light of the complaint that had already been submitted, and this was a further service failure. The landlord is therefore ordered to provide a further update to the resident regarding the cleaning and installation of netting, along with a target date for their completion, if this work has not already been completed.
  9. Regarding the resident’s request for the landlord to remove the solar panels from his property, the landlord advised that had a strict guidance set by its carbon emissions plan which prevented it from authorising the removal of the solar panels. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its aims regarding the solar panels, which included: reducing energy costs, making the property more energy efficient and carbon reduction. The landlord’s guidance on environmental sustainability sets out its aim to reach net zero targets (negating the amount of gasses produced by human activity by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the air). As such, it was reasonable that the landlord advised it considered the removal of the solar panels would be considered a negative step for the work completed, and to be undertaken to reach net zero targets set in its policies, plans and government expectations.
  10. Addressing his concerns that the panels had not saved him any money on his bills, it was appropriate that the landlord advised of its ability to monitor usage of the panels, and for it to offer to “look into” implementing a way to monitor the operation of the resident’s panels. This was a reasonable response and the landlord was entitled to take the position it did. It was also reasonable that the landlord, addressing the resident’s concerns about potentially buying the property, noted that he was yet to submit an application to purchase the property and signposted him to the Local Authority to discuss the implications of removing them before or after buying his flat.
  11. It was also appropriate that the landlord, when addressing the resident’s concerns about a previous fire, advised that the panels were regularly maintained and serviced and it had no concerns over a fire risk. While this Service has not seen details regarding the incident both parties referred to and it is not clear when it happened, the landlord’s response appears reasonable and sought to offer the resident reassurance.
  12. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it remains unclear who would retain the final decision regarding the removal of the solar panels from the resident’s property. While the landlord’s correspondence and complaint responses make clear it will not consider removing the panels and its decision it final, it has other advised that the panels are actually owned by the Local Authority and it signposted the resident to them in response to his queries regarding the cost of potentially removing them in the future if he purchased the property. While the landlord has otherwise been consistent in its position and its complaint responses showed a genuine attempt to appropriately address all the concerns the resident raised, this aspect could have been clearer. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to write to the resident to clarify whether it or the Local Authority would have the final say over whether the panels could potentially be removed.
  13. Regarding the resident’s feeling that he had been discriminated against by the landlord as it had agreed to remove solar panels from a neighbour’s property while it refused his request to do so, it is noted that the landlord disputed that it had authorised the removal of solar panels from any of its properties, and clarifying that it would only consider removal in exceptional circumstances. While the resident’s submission that a neighbour received permission to remove their panels is acknowledged, this investigation has not seen any supporting information to show that this was the case. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord has acted inconsistently when considering the resident’s request to remove his panels, or that it has not applied its policies even-handedly, and there is no evidence of failing by the landlord in this regard.

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 the resident’s request to remove the solar panels from the roof of his property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord should have communicated more effectively with the resident regarding the cleaning of the solar panels and installation of netting, waiting over seven months from his initial enquiry before providing him with an update. It should also have clarified who retained ultimate responsibility for making a decision on his request to remove the panels and, following its later correspondence in October 2022, should have given more information regarding when works may commence, so as to manage the resident’s expectations.  

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £150 to reflect the failings in its handling of the resident’s request to remove the solar panels from the roof of his property.
    2. Write to the resident to clarify whether it or the Local Authority would take the ultimate decision on whether to remove the panels, or grant permission for them to be removed.
    3. Write to the resident to clarify when the cleaning of the panels and the installation of netting will take place, if this has not been completed already.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.