Onward Homes Limited (202001260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001260

Onward Group Limited

28 June 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 complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of this issue.
3. The conduct of the landlord’s contractors when carrying out the repairs.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord’s repairs handbook describes the three categories it uses to prioritise repairs and its target response times. These are:
1. Emergency repairs (complete within four hours). Repairs which put the health and safety of the tenant or anyone else at immediate risk or can affect the structure of a tenant’s home or nearby properties.
2. Urgent repairs (complete within five working days). Repairs that require attention quickly but do not put the tenant’s home or anyone else in immediate danger.
3. Routine repairs (complete within 20 working days). All other repairs are classed as routine repairs by the landlord.
From March 2020 onwards, as a result of restrictions placed on it due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord only attended emergency repairs.
From 20 July 2020 the landlord also started attending urgent repairs, although due to the backlog of repair requests, its target response time for urgent repairs was extended to 20 working days.
From 5 August 2020, the landlord started attending routine repairs. It prioritised emergency and urgent repairs as well as repairs for vulnerable residents’ properties. It also advised its residents that due to the availability of contactors and supplies; significant delays may be possible.
On 14 November 2020, the landlord informed its residents that the restrictions on its services had been lifted although delays to repairs could still occur due to the availability of contactors and/or supplies.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. When it first receives a complaint, the landlord will attempt to resolve the matter at the first point of contact. If that is not possible, a formal complaint will be logged. An acknowledgement letter will be sent to the complainant within two working days and a stage one response will then be sent within ten working days.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. The escalation request will be acknowledged within two working days. The landlord will then consider the grounds that the complainant has requested the escalation on, and a stage two response will then be sent within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 10 August 2020 the resident called the landlord to report that tiles had fallen off the bathroom wall. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it passed the matter on to its contractors as it was not able to book a repair appointment during the call.
The resident called again on 8 September 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident was confused by two text messages he had received from the contractor with two different dates. The landlord confirmed that the date of the appointment was 10 September 2020.
On the 10 September 2020 the resident called the landlord. The landlord notes state that the resident said that the contractors had not turned up the previous day and had yet to turn up that day. He also informed the Landlord that he would not be available for all of that afternoon and that if the contractor did not show, he would raise a complaint.
The resident called the landlord on 11 September 2020. The notes record the resident informing the landlord that the 10 September 2020 appointment was cancelled and rescheduled for 29 September, and that he requested compensation for loss of earnings as he had to take time off work to attend the appointment.
On 29 September 2020 the resident called the landlord and reported that the bathroom sink was coming off the wall and that he would send the landlord a video of the issue. The call logs state that an emergency repair was raised on 30 September 2020.
On 29 October the resident called the landlord and expressed his frustration with how long the matter was taking to be resolved. The call notes state that the resident told the landlord that he had four appointments booked to repair the tiles, but for three appointments no work was undertaken and the fourth appointment did not go ahead.
The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 13 November 2020. He described the elements of his complaint as:
1. The number of appointments required to undertake the work to his bathroom.
2. The number of people that had entered the property during the Covid-19 lockdown.
3. That he was unable to speak to a manager when he called the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 November 2020 and informed the resident that it would provide a response within ten working days. A stage one complaint response was then sent to the resident on 23 November 2020. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. Following his report of loose tiles in the bathroom on 10 August 2020, a work order was raised, and an appointment arranged for 26 August 2020.
2. Follow-on work was arranged for 9 September 2020, but the operative was called to an emergency repair and the appointment was rearranged for 10 September 2020.
3. The contractor failed to attend the 10 September 2020 appointment. The appointment was rearranged for 26 September 2020, where the contractor reported that they were unable to gain access to the property.
4. The resident called to rebook the appointment on 26 September 2020. This was arranged for 7 October 2020. During the telephone call, the resident also informed the landlord that there was a leak from the bathroom sink. A plumber attended on 6 October 2020 and repaired the leak.
5. The loose tiles were removed on 7 October 2020 and follow-on work was arranged for 21 October 2020 to fit new tiles once the area had dried out. However, this work could not go ahead due to the condition of the sink and was rearranged for 3 November 2020.
6. The contractor did not attend on 3 November 2020 and the appointment was rebooked for 18 November 2020. This appointment was abandoned by the operative as they reported that the resident refused to observe social distancing guidelines of keeping two metres apart at all times. The appointment was then rebooked for 24 November 2020.
The landlord then informed the resident that it had upheld his complaint due to the missed appointments, the length of time it had taken to complete repairs and the inconvenience that this had caused. It also offered the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture and explained that it had provided feedback it its contractor regarding the poor customer service it had provided.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2020 and disputed the findings of the stage one response. He noted that:
1. He was not contacted about the 9 September 2020 appointment being cancelled.
2. He was at home on 24 September 2020 and did not understand why this appointment was marked as no access.
3. The tiles were not removed during the 7 October 2020 appointment as they had already fallen off.
4. He disputed the description of the 18 November 2020 appointment and stated that the operative who attend was ‘very rude’ and closed the door of the bathroom while he was working.
5. The appointment for 24 November 2020 could not go ahead as the plumber was unable to attend to fix the sink prior to the tiles being fitted. This had been rearranged for 1 December 2020.
The resident then described the effect that the condition of the bathroom had on himself and his family, and requested the rent be refunded for the duration that the repairs remained outstanding as a resolution to the complaint.
The landlord replied to the resident on 25 November and informed him that:
1. The notes left by the operative on its system stated that they notified the resident on 9 September 2020 that they would be unable to attend, and it was agreed to rearrange the appointment to 10 September 2020.
2. It had a record of the resident calling it on 24 September 2020 and stating that he had missed the appointment as he did not hear the operative knock, which is why it was marked as no access.
3. The operative closed the bathroom door to allow for social distancing. It could not comment further on the allegations made by the resident relating to the operative’s behaviour and apologised to the resident if he felt that the operative was rude and unhelpful.
4. The 24 November 2020 appointment determined that it would not be possible to fix the sink back against the wall and that a new pedestal would be required. A new appointment was arranged for 1 December 2020 to undertake this work.
5. It believed that £100 is a fair and reasonable offer. As the resident had full use of the property and sink during the period of the repair, a full refund of rent would be an unreasonable request.
The resident replied on 27 November 2020 and explained that he had asked for a full rent refund as his family were unable to utilise the main part of the property for four months and that he would accept a 50% rebate of rent for this period as a resolution.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 December 2020 and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its internal process and that it aimed to provide a response by 15 December 2020. The stage two complaint response was then sent to the resident on 14 December 2020.
The landlord explained that it had considered the resident’s request for £846 (50% of the rent for the period the repair remained outstanding) and that it did not feel that the request was proportionate to the inconvenience the matter had caused as the sink was functional throughout the period and no other areas of the property had been affected.
The landlord then noted that as the tiling replacement work still remained outstanding it would be appropriate for it to review to goodwill gesture offered at stage one. The landlord increased its offer to £200 and apologised for the inconvenience the matter had caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its failures, an apology, improving its communication with its contractor and a compensation payment of £200) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. The landlord recognised that two appointments (10 September 2020 and 3 November 2020) had not gone ahead, and no reason for this was given by the contractor. The landlord also explained how the 9 September 2020 appointment was rescheduled, why the 24 September 2020 appointment was marked as no access, the reason why the tiles were not fitted during the 7 October 2020 appointment, and the why the sink could not be reattached to the wall during the 24 November 2020 appointment.
The landlord looked to put things right by improving its communications with its contractors and internal departments. The landlord explained in the evidence it provided that it had implemented a ‘learning loop’, where thematic issues are identified and fed back to its teams and contractors on a monthly basis in order to improve its services.
It should also be noted that these appointments took place during a period of time where the landlord’s services were restricted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord kept its residents up to date with the level of service it was offering during this time. It also advised that due to a backlog, it was prioritising emergency and urgent repairs, which was a reasonable response to the situation. This meant that delays to routine repairs were likely and whilst such delays clearly caused inconvenience to residents, they were beyond the landlord’s control.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord

The landlord’s internal guidance for goodwill payments suggests that for routine repairs a payment of £10 should be made for a missed appointment, £20 for two missed appointments, and £30 three or more missed appointments. The guidance also suggests a payment of £50 for poor customer service.
The landlord offered the resident £100 at stage one, which is broadly in line with its guidance. Following the escalation of the complaint to stage two, the landlord recognised that as the repair remained outstanding, it should review its compensation award and increased its offer to £200.
The resident had requested a compensation payment of £846, which equated to 50% of the rent due during the period of the repair. He explained that this was because he and his family could not use the main part of the property for four months.
The landlord did not consider that this was a reasonable request and disputed that any part of the property was unusable due to the tiles or the sink.
This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The call and repair logs do not record the resident or the contactor informing the landlord that the areas of the property were unusable at any time during the period of the complaint and the bathroom was in a usable state throughout this period. A lack of tiles would not usually mean that a room was unusable and the landlord has confirmed that the sink was also usable, although it was in need of repair. Moreover, the resident has not provided any evidence to the landlord or this Service that any other areas of the property were affected other than the bathroom.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above; the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves these aspects of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
The compensation awarded was in line with both the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which can be found on our website. The remedies guidance suggests that awards of £50-£250 should be considered when there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case the missed appointment caused some avoidable delays to the repairs and this would have been inconvenient for the resident and his family but the sink was ultimately repaired and the landlord was making arrangements to repair the tiles. The landlord also apologised and took steps to improve its service going forward as set out above.
The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The conduct of the landlord’s contractors

The landlord informed the resident that the 18 November 2020 appointment was stopped as the resident had not observed social distancing. This was disputed by the resident, who then described his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the operative during the appointment.
The events relating to this aspect of the complaint are in dispute. The resident has provided the Ombudsman and landlord with his recollection of events, and the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with internal communication from its contractor setting out their version of what happened. Both accounts have been considered; however, the Ombudsman cannot reconcile the difference and say with any certainty what happened during the appointment. It is not possible for either party to produce evidence which definitively supports their position and, as a result, the Ombudsman is not able to determine the validity of either point of view. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to this aspect of the complaint.
The notes left on the landlord’s system state that the operative was cleaning adhesive from the walls and cutting tiles, while the resident was at his shoulder commenting on the work. The operative asked the resident to maintain social distance and left when the resident refused.
The resident’s email stated that he remained in the living room and informed the operative that the tiles could not be fitted until the sink was reattached to the wall. The operative then closed the bathroom door and eventually left the property without giving a reason why. The resident also noted that the operative brought a lot of dirt into the property as he did not wear protective foot coverings.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the contractor for their account of what happened. However, as there was no supporting evidence, the landlord was not in a position to take further action against the contractor. It was also appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident of his responsivities to keep socially distant during appointments in light of the notes left by the operative. The resident’s comments on the conduct of the operative are part of the complaint case log and the landlord said this would be fed back to the contractor as part of the landlord’s new learning loop process.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in its response to the conduct of the operative during the 18 November 2020 appointment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its handling of repairs to the bathroom, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The level of compensation offered in respect of this issue.
2. The conduct of its contractors when carrying out the repairs to the bathroom.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by in the length of time it took to resolve the repairs and for the two missed appointments.
The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified.
Due to the lack of corroborating evidence, the landlord was not able to take action against the contractor relating to the allegation made by the resident. It was however reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of social distancing requires due to the comments left by the operative who attended.