The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Ongo Homes Limited (202212483)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212483

Ongo Homes Limited

24 November 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of a faulty central heating system within the property.
    2. The resident’s request for repairs to the shed and query regarding its ownership.
    3. The resident’s reports about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a bungalow owned by the landlord. Throughout this report both the resident and his spouse will be referred to as ‘the resident.’ Both the resident and his spouse have disabilities.
  2. The resident first reported that his shed was leaning on 5 July 2021. The landlord inspected the shed on 5 August 2021 and stated that it needed replacing. No action was taken by the landlord, and the resident reported the issue again on 10 May 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 July 2022 about the conduct of its staff and delays in responding to previous boiler repairs. This was acknowledged on 8 July 2022 at which time it told him that the shed belonged to him as per previous emails sent in June 2022. The landlord did not uphold any of the complaint points in its stage 1 decision on 18 July 2022.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2022. In its stage 2 decision on 9 August 2022, the landlord did not uphold any of the complaint points. It stated that the ownership of the shed had been clearly set out in an email sent on 1 June 2022.
  5. On 13 December 2022, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord about the process and time taken to complete works to his faulty boiler, the conduct of a staff member of the landlord and repair issues with the shed. There had been multiple repairs to the boiler since 8 December 2021 before the final breakdown on 16 November 2022. The boiler was replaced on 2 December 2022 and the resident was unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to do this.
  6. In its new stage 1 decision of 22 December 2022, the landlord did not uphold any of the complaint points but agreed that the base of the shed would form part of the tenancy agreement. It agreed to undertake repairs of the paving slabs underneath the shed. The landlord stated that it decided to replace the boiler to lessen the impact on the resident when it became apparent that it could not source the required part to repair it.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 17 January 2023. The landlord responded on 16 February 2023 and did not uphold the complaint. It stated that it could not source the part required for the boiler and the decision to replace the boiler was made in the best interests of the resident, with the works completed within 13 days of its initial request. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the base of the shed to be inspected.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint and requested an investigation by this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler

  1. The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy confirm that it is responsible for repairs to any installation provided for space heating and hot water. Its Maintenance Services Policy also confirms that a total loss of heating and hot water will be given same day repairs priority, with partial loss of either or both given next day repairs priority.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy refers to the Right to Repair scheme, which states that repairs with a value of less than £250 should be carried out within one working day if heating or hot water is not working between 31 October and 1 May.
  3. When the resident first reported an issue with the boiler on 8 December 2021, the landlord attended the same day and made repairs, leaving the boiler working. The resident reported a containable boiler leak on 7 January 2022. The landlord attended on the same day and made repairs, again leaving the boiler working. On both occasions, the landlord acted in line with its own policy by attending on the same day and repairing the faults.
  4. The resident reported a further issue on 10 May 2022 with the boiler losing pressure and turning off approximately once a fortnight. On this occasion the landlord did not inspect the boiler until 15 June 2022, when no issues were found. This action was in line with the landlord’s policy as it was arranged by appointment between 1 April and 30 September.
  5. The resident reported the boiler was not working at all on 16 November 2022, with a total loss of heating and hot water. The landlord attended the same day as per its policy but could not perform a repair due to it needing a new part. The part was ordered on the 17 November 2022, it advised the resident about this at the time, and told him that the part would be fitted as soon as possible. No evidence has been provided to this Service that alternative arrangements for heating or hot water were offered or provided to the resident by the landlord.
  6. The resident called the landlord on both 21 November 2022 and 22 November 2022 to chase the repairs as he had not received any updates. The landlord advised it was still waiting for the part.
  7. A note from 24 November 2022 on the landlord’s internal system stated that the boiler repair was “uneconomical” due to a faulty pump and PCB board. It noted the boiler is solar-powered and would need disconnecting and removing. There is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident at the time.
  8. Throughout the repairs and replacement process from 17 November 2022, the resident was left to call the landlord for updates as it had not effectively communicated the timeline to the resident. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have communicated the repair timescale and any associated delays to the resident effectively by calling him itself with updates and news of delays, instead of leaving it to the resident to call.
  9. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it became apparent on 22 November 2022, 6 days after the part was ordered, that it was unable to be sourced and the repair was not possible. It decided to replace the boiler to avoid further delays and lessen the impact on the resident. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that due to the age and health of the resident the decision to replace the boiler was made in his best interests. While trying to source a replacement part can take time, from the evidence provided by the landlord, the decision to replace the boiler was either made on 22 November 2022 or 24 November 2022. This decision was made 6 to 8 days after the part had been ordered, meaning the resident had already been without heating or hot water for 1 week.
  10. The resident made a further call to the landlord for an update on 28 November 2022. During this call it told him a new boiler was going to be installed. The resident told the landlord during this call that he did not want to lose the solar panel attached to the boiler due to costs. The issue of the solar panel incompatibility forms part of a new complaint by the resident to the landlord, which has been referred to this Service, and as such, will not be discussed as part of this report.
  11. The boiler was replaced by the landlord on 2 December 2022. The resident was, therefore, left waiting for another 8 to 10 days for a new boiler since the landlord decided to replace it, 16 days in total since the original part for repairs had been ordered.
  12. In conclusion, while delays in sourcing parts for repairs can occur, this Service would expect the landlord to provide alternative heating and hot water arrangements for the resident, especially during the colder months from 31 October to 1 May. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to show that this was done or that the resident’s vulnerabilities were taken into consideration until the decision to replace the boiler was made. The landlord did not offer any apologies or compensation to the resident for the loss of amenities in line with its own compensation policy.
  13. This Service considers the landlord neglecting to offer any apologies or compensation to the resident a failure and has made orders proportionate to this finding in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. In making these orders, this Service has taken into consideration the inconvenience and distress to the resident which should have been taken into account by the landlord in its response to the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding shed ownership

  1. The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy lists repairs that are the responsibility of a tenant. Contained within this is the responsibility of the tenant to repair or replace as necessary any sheds which serve a home as notified by the landlord.
  2. The resident first reported that the shed was leaning to the landlord on 5 July 2021. Internal notes from the landlord on the same day stated the shed was provided with the property when the property was new.
  3. The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s shed on 5 August 2021. The notes of this inspection were listed as requiring more time, confirming the shed was leaning with all joints appearing to have “worked loose”, that repairs were not working and the resident “probably needs a new shed”. From the evidence provided, after this inspection there were no further reports relating to the shed from the resident or updates from the landlord until May 2022, 9 months later.
  4. On 10 May 2022, as part of a wider report, the resident again reported the problem with the shed ‘falling down’. Internal notes from the landlord on the same day stated, “enquiries have been made and sheds are gifted”. This was communicated to the resident on the same day, 10 May 2022, and he advised that he would complain if he was unhappy with this.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 8 July 2022, the landlord confirmed that the shed belongs to the resident and mentioned emails sent on 1 June 2022 and 7 June 2022. These emails were not provided to this Service. In its stage 1 response letter on 18 July 2022, the landlord confirmed that it attended to inspect the shed in August 2021 when it confirmed that the shed was leaning but that it was unable to deal with this further. Further in the response, the landlord states “To reiterate and confirm, the shed is yours to maintain. [Landlord] will not repair or replace it.”
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord to stage 2 on 25 July 2022. In this escalated complaint he asked it why the shed was leaning and if it could be because the paving underneath is sinking. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its response letter on 9 August 2022 but did reiterate that the ownership of the shed has been set out in its communication dated 1 June 2022.
  7. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 13 December 2022 following the boiler issues set out in the proceeding paragraphs of this report. As part of this complaint, he again raised that the slabs underneath his shed were subsiding. In its stage 1 response on 22 December 2022, the landlord again stated the shed had been gifted to the resident when the tenancy was taken on but it agreed that the base would form part of the tenancy agreement and raised a repair so an appointment could be made to inspect the paving slabs.
  8. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 16 January 2023. In its response on 16 February 2023 the landlord stated it had arranged for the base of the shed to be inspected. The landlord has not provided any records showing an inspection had been arranged between initially stating it would do so on 22 December 2022 and the stage 2 complaint response on 16 February 2023.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response was late by 3 days. While this is not severe enough to warrant a finding of service failure, it would have been good practice for it to acknowledge this delay in its complaint decision and apologise to the resident.
  10. An inspection of the shed base by the landlord took place on 23 May 2023. It confirmed that the concrete slab shed base was level and in good condition, the timber base was level with no rot, and the felt roof was in good condition, but the sides had warped over time. It confirmed that it was unable to be repaired fully even if it was emptied.
  11. Repairing or replacing the shed is the responsibility of the resident, as stated in the terms and conditions of the tenancy. However, in the absence of evidence that the resident was told the shed had been gifted to him at the start of the tenancy, we cannot conclude that this information was given to him. The landlord provided contradictory information to the resident during visits and in written and verbal communication.
  12. In conclusion, the repeated reports from the resident relating to the shed “falling down” and “leaning” indicate that he deems it is unsafe. The landlord should have considered that there were failings in its delays in providing the resident with information on responsibility for the shed. It should also have considered that the contradictory information was a source of inconvenience for which redress would have been appropriate. It failed to use the opportunity of the complaints process to acknowledge its shortcomings and put things right.
  13. For the issues mentioned above, this Service has ordered compensation for this aspect of the complaint. As there is insufficient basis upon which this Service could determine that the shed is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, an order has been made below for it to provide the resident with options which would mean that the shed is removed from the property if he does not wish to maintain it.

The conduct of the landlord’s staff

  1. The resident first reported being unhappy with the landlord’s staff conduct as part of his complaint on 4 July 2022. This related to events during a visit to his property in June 2022 and when it made a call to him. The landlord investigated its own records as part of its stage 1 complaint handling procedure and stated that it found no evidence of the visit in question or that any of its staff had acted unprofessionally towards the resident. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord told the resident that his recent correspondence to it may have been unacceptable and inappropriate and referred him to its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2022. He stated the landlord had failed to give 24 hours’ notice ahead of a visit to his property and alleged that it was trying to leave no evidence of its actions by not having records of the visit. He stated that the landlord had failed to address any of his other complaint points in its stage 1 response and used multiple phrases to describe the alleged behaviour by the landlord. The landlord stated in its stage 2 decision that it could find no evidence of poor staff conduct and there had been no intention to cause confusion for the resident.
  3. In his second complaint to the landlord on 13 December 2022, the resident stated that its behaviour was “disgusting”. The landlord told him that some of the content in his correspondence was not reasonable.
  4. This Service is unable to ascertain that the landlord’s staff member acted in the manner narrated by the resident. That is not to say that the events did not take place, but there is no impartial evidence to corroborate either party’s version of events. This report is, thus, limited to considering the adequacy of the landlord’s response to the issue. As mentioned in preceding paragraphs, it investigated the matter and informed the resident that it had found no evidence of his assertions. This Service concludes that the landlord’s response to the matter was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler and associated communication.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s communication relating to the ownership of the shed.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £300. This is broken down as:
    1. £200 for general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the time taken for the landlord to repair the boiler and its failure to communicate delays to the repair effectively.
    2. £100 for general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord for the confusion and time taken by it to communicate matters relating to the ownership of the shed.
  2. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to offer him the option of either retaining the shed, and thus undertaking any works at his own expense or having the landlord remove it.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its methods of communication to ensure it is robust in updating residents with ongoing repairs and delays.