Onward Homes Limited (201909166)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909166

Onward Homes Limited

31 May 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water in his property and the compensation offered.
2. The resident’s concern regarding the landlord’s comments about his behaviour and issues accessing the property to carry out repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the property, which is a ground floor flat owned by the landlord.
The evidence suggests that the resident experienced issues with his water pressure and heating soon after his tenancy began. The landlord’s records show that a job was booked on 27 August 2019 to repair the timer on the heater and reinstate the hot water pressure. The appointment was for 29 August 2019. On the same day the resident also called to enquire about having a gas boiler in his property rather than the electric immersion heater currently in place.
On 9 September 2019, the resident reported that no repairs were completed on the last visit. A further repair appointment was made for 12 September 2019, where a gas engineer attended despite the property not having gas. An emergency appointment was raised for someone to attend within four hours as the resident had no hot water or heating for a week by this stage.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 September 2019 and advised that it would not be carrying out a fuel switch that year. On the same day, the resident called about his repair. An electrician had been sent but had confirmed that a plumber was needed. The landlord offered to raise an emergency repair and the internal records suggest that a plumber attended the property that day.
The resident called on 16 September 2019 and asked for an update regarding the repair as he had no hot water. He felt that a new boiler or immersion heater was needed. The landlord said that the contractors could visit the property the following day to see whether a new system was needed. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and said he would call the plumber who attended on 13 September 2019. He was told that as it was summer, the issue would not be classed as an emergency. The record shows that the resident became frustrated and began using abusive language. He wanted an emergency appointment for that day as he had been without hot water for two weeks.
The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 16 September 2019 in a phone call to the landlord. He felt that the members of staff he had spoken to had been unhelpful and rude. He wanted an apology, someone to listen to the calls and compensation. He said that he would be seeking legal advice if this was not resolved. He called the landlord on 17 September 2019 to confirm that a new cylinder would be fitted to his boiler on 18 September 2019. It confirmed that this was what the contractor had been instructed to do in the job description.
The resident called on 18 September 2019 and was dissatisfied that the contractor had not completed the work they were instructed to do, but instead found that there was an airlock caused by a twisted pipe under his bath and had not done anything to resolve the issue. He added to his existing complaint that his neighbour had taken time off work to be present for the repair and he had not been able to have his children visit the property for approximately two weeks due to the lack of hot water. The landlord’s records indicate that the contractor had reported that the resident’s friend had threatened them, resulting in them leaving the property. The resident requested to be compensated for the issue and added that the contractor’s claims that he had threatened them were slanderous. He was informed that the matter would be handled by the landlord’s complaints department. The repair to the pipe was carried out on 20 September 2019.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 November 2019. It noted that the complaint was about a lack of running water at his property. It apologised that the resident was without running water so soon after his tenancy had begun. It acknowledged that it had raised his expectations of what work would be carried out on 18 September 2019 which led him to feel misinformed. It offered £50 compensation by way of apology.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 November 2019 as the resident had said he had not received a response to his complaint. The landlord was asked to contact the resident within 15 working days. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response dated 13 November 2019 to the resident on 31 January 2020.
The resident called the landlord on 31 January 2020 to report that his electric water heater had stopped working. The landlord advised that it would raise an urgent repair and confirmed that the next available appointment would be 4 February 2020. The resident asked for an emergency appointment but was told that this would not be possible as an emergency appointment was to make safe any immediate danger. The resident then asked for a call back from a manager and was advised that this would not change the outcome. The appointment was not booked as the resident was unwilling to accept the urgent repair timescale.
The resident called to discuss his existing complaint on 13 February 2020. A repair was booked as he reported that there was a broken pipe leading to his bath. The appointment was arranged for 20 February 2020. The landlord’s records suggest that the resident raised another formal complaint around this time about the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to his hot water system and that he had not had hot water for three weeks, although the details of this complaint have not been provided to this Service for review. An acknowledgement of the complaint was sent on 17 February 2021.
An emergency repair appointment was raised on 14 February 2020 in relation to the resident’s continued reports of a loss of hot water and was reported as completed. It was established that the hot water cylinder was not heating and there was a fault with the feed to his bath. A further emergency repair was raised on 17 February 2020 following his further reports of no hot water. The appointment went ahead, and further follow-on work was required.
On 24 February 2020 the resident called to chase the follow-on work. This was arranged for 26 February 2021, to flush a blockage that was reducing the flow of water in the property. The contractors reported no access to the property, this appointment was rebooked and reported as completed.
An emergency appointment had been raised on 5 March 2020 following the resident’s ongoing reports of issues with his hot water system. The contractor contacted the landlord on the same day and reported that the resident had become threatening and abusive, telling them to get away from the property and pulling on their van door. The contractors confirmed that they would not reattend the property until a member of the landlord’s staff was also present.
The landlord provided a complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2020 as follows:
1. It summarised the previous appointments and acknowledged that the resident had said that the works were not completed. At this stage another emergency appointment was raised for 5 March 2020. Its repairs team informed it on the day that the resident did not want an operative to attend.
2. An electrician attended the resident’s property on 5 March 2020 to investigate the issues with the boiler. He reported that the resident had become threatening and abusive towards them, following them to their van and attempting to gain entry through the passenger door.
3. The landlord concluded that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had attempted to resolve this matter as soon as possible for the resident, however, his behaviour had hindered these attempts.
The landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident on 12 March 2020. He advised that he would not allow the landlord’s contractors into his property as he felt they were not capable of carrying out the work required. The resident was asked whether he wanted to escalate his complaint and he declined.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 18 March 2020. It confirmed that it had arranged for a plumber to attend the property on 17 March 2020, but the resident had declined the appointment. It confirmed that it would be unable to resolve the issues relating to his hot water system if he did not allow its operatives to work in his property without hinderance or confrontation. It asked the resident to arrange a further appointment. It confirmed that it could now offer to upgrade the resident’s boiler system and said that the relevant department would be in touch. It noted that the resident had refused the offer to escalate his complaint to stage two and confirmed that the offer remained open and that the resident had not exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
On 12 May 2020, the resident advised that he had received a message confirming an appointment for 14 May 2020, but he did not know what this was for. The landlord confirmed that it was for repairs to the pipework. The resident was dissatisfied that he had not been given prior information. He said he would not let the contractors in if they did not know what they were doing. The landlord confirmed that the plumber would call 30 minutes before they arrived. The resident confirmed on the same day that he was due to have a new boiler soon and felt that he could put up with the ongoing immersion heater issues. On 15 May 2020, he was advised that due to Covid-19 restrictions, the landlord was only attending properties for emergency repairs. A repair was raised for 18 May 2020 to test the immersion heater and reset the thermostat, the contractor reported that the resident would not allow access to the property.
No evidence has been provided to this Service on communications between May 2020 and August 2020. Following contact from the resident, who advised that he had not received a response to his complaint, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 August 2020, asking it to contact the resident by 10 September 2020 to confirm whether the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure. The resident called the landlord on 2 September 2020 and explained that he was unhappy with the previous complaint response suggesting that his behaviour towards the contractors was not acceptable.
On 17 September 2020 a survey of the resident’s property was completed for the installation of a gas central heating system. Following this, the landlord discussed the possibility of installing a shower in the bathroom due to the resident having ongoing issues with his hot water and to reduce the number of contractors entering and working in the property.
The landlord’s records suggest that it visited the property on 13 October 2020 to survey the bathroom for the shower to be installed. During this time, it received reports that the resident had been abusive to staff when calling for updates.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 14 October 2020 asking it to respond to the resident by 21 October 2020 to clarify whether the complaints process had been exhausted.
On 15 October 2020, the resident called to ask when his gas heating would be installed, and the shower fitted. An appointment had been raised to look at the taps and seals of the bath, but the resident advised that he did not want the previous contractors to enter the property. The resident called again on 30 October 2020 to follow-up and the landlord said it would chase this work with the contractor.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2020 and asked it to provide a final response to the resident within five working days. Following this, the evidence shows that the resident continued to contact the landlord about the installation of a shower in his bathroom. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had become irate, shouting on several phone calls and calling members of the landlord’s staff incompetent.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 November 2020 and confirmed that his shower would be installed the following week. It also provided details of the reports made by its contractor regarding the resident’s behaviour towards its contractors on three separate occasions in early 2020. It said that it took the wellbeing of its staff and contractors seriously and encouraged the resident to treat its staff with dignity and respect. The landlord’s records show that the shower was fitted on 17 November 2020.
The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 17 December 2020 and asked for the reasons why the resident remains dissatisfied. On 20 January 2021, following contact with the resident, the Ombudsman confirmed that he remained dissatisfied as he had been without hot water for several months and did not feel £50 compensation was acceptable. The resident had said that he had previously confirmed his reasons for dissatisfaction with the landlord over the phone.
The landlord’s record suggest that the resident had continued to enquire about the installation of the gas central heating throughout January 2021. A new boiler and radiators were reportedly installed on 25 January 2021.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 25 March 2021, stating as follows:
1. It would not uphold the resident’s complaint about the loss of hot water between July 2019 and December 2020 as it had made reasonable efforts to respond to his repair requests.
2. It had responded and attempted to undertake repairs to his property over an extended period. It noted that contractors had been unable to gain reasonable access to the property and in some cases had been subject to unacceptable and threatening behaviour.
3. Whilst the resident had difficulties in receiving a fully operational heating system during this period, he had access to hot water. It stated that the delay to the installation of the new boiler system was caused by the impact of Covid-19. It noted that this had now been installed and that the resident was no longer experiencing issues with his hot water supply.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he wanted compensation and a refund of rent for the months he was without hot water. He noted that he did not have access to hot water from July 2019 -December 2020 when the shower was fitted. He also wanted the landlord to apologise for the ‘slanderous’ comments it had made regarding his behaviour and compensation for this. He also wanted the landlord to retract said comments. He added that he wanted additional compensation for the stress caused and delays.

Assessment and findings

The lack of hot water and the compensation offered.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would be responsible for repairs to the internal water supply at the property, including the provision of hot water. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident would be responsible for allowing access for repairs or inspections to be carried out. The landlord has several categories for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs should be attended within four hours to make safe the issue. This includes repairs needed following reports of no hot water or heating during the winter months or a flood or leak which cannot be contained. Follow-on work may be required to resolve the problem.
2. Urgent repairs should be completed within five working days and include heating repairs between March and November or water leaks that can be easily contained.
3. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord has highlighted that from 2020 onwards its repairs services had been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. From March 2020 onwards, it only attended emergency repairs in most cases. From 20 July 2020 it 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, it started attending routine repairs but prioritised emergency and urgent repairs. On 14 November 2020, it informed 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.
Following the resident’s initial complaint on 16 September 2019, the landlord acknowledged that there had been some communication regarding the work that would be completed to his immersion heater which raised his expectations of what would be done. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation. This amount is considered proportionate to the impact on the resident caused by a gas engineer attending the property when his property had no gas, the period he was without hot water and the expectations the landlord had set. This amount was appropriate and resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
There were no further reports of issues with the water heater until 31 January 2020 when the resident reported that his electric water heating system was not working. At this stage the landlord stated that it would be dealt with as an urgent repair. It repairs policy provides that reports of loss of hot water and heating during the winter months should be classed as an emergency. Thus, the landlord had not acted in line with its policy at this stage.
Given the resident’s report that he had been without hot water for two weeks on 14 February 2020 prior to any repair appointments being raised, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this service failure in its stage one complaint response on 5 March 2020 and offer compensation for the inconvenience caused.
Despite the initial failure to address the repair issues under its emergency timescales, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging appointments to identify and resolve the issue. It is noted that the follow-on work arranged for 28 February 2020 to flush the blockage that was determined to be the cause of the issue was not successful and the resident continued to report further issues with his hot water system. In some instances, repairs can fail, and further appointments are needed to fully identify and resolve the issue. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified contractors who deemed that the follow-on work would resolve the issue. Whilst this is likely to be frustrating, the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange a further emergency appointment on 5 March 2020 to establish the cause of the ongoing problem.
Given the previous failed repair, the resident’s lack of confidence in the contractors is understandable. However, the landlord needed to further inspect the issue before deciding on what work should be done. As the resident had reportedly not allowed further access to the property, the landlord was limited in the steps it could take to resolve the issue. It took reasonable steps to explain its limitations to the resident on 18 March 2020 via letter. It attempted to raise further appointments to rectify the hot water issue in May 2020, but these were refused. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had engaged with the landlord regarding the issues following further attempted appointments in May 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to call and arrange an appointment as it would not be expected to continue to raise appointments only for there to be no access to the property.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to fit a shower in the resident’s bathroom in an attempt to partially resolve the lack of hot water supply to his bath, following a survey in September 2020 related to the installation of a gas central heating system. It is noted that there was some delay in completing both the work to install the shower and the installation of a gas supply to the property due to the impact of Covid-19, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
The resident has requested a rent refund for lack of hot water in the property between June 2019 and December 2020. Compensation is warranted for the initial failure to address the resident’s reports of no hot water as an emergency in January 2020 and time he was initially without hot water. However, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to refund the resident’s rent for the time in question. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with compensation for the initial issues with his hot water supply in September 2019. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was without hot water between September 2019 and January 2020. Whilst it is clear that he continued to have issues with his hot water supply throughout 2020, he was otherwise able to use the property as normal and had refused access for further works to resolve the problem. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation for the time in which it had not been permitted to carry out works.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs including what work was carried out at each appointment, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the resident was completely without access to hot water or whether this issue specifically affected the water supply to his bathroom during this period. Furthermore, whilst the landlord has provided records of each repair, it is unclear what actions were taken at each appointment. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In the absence of adequate evidence, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure that actions that are completed on each repair visit are clearly documented for review purposes.
In summary, in line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have classed the resident’s reports of issues with his hot water system as an emergency repair in January 2020 and offered compensation for the time he was without hot water until 5 March 2020 when he began to refuse access. In view of this, additional compensation is warranted for the inconvenience caused during this period.

The landlord’s comments about his behaviour and issues accessing the property

The resident has explained that he felt the contractor’s comments about his behavior were slanderous. This Service cannot investigate the resident’s accusations of slander, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns regarding the allegations made.
Whilst complaints may be a cause of frustration, the landlord and contractors are within their right to stop engagement with anyone who exhibits behaviour which is abusive or threatening. It was reasonable for the landlord to record the contractors reports of threatening behaviour from the resident. Whilst it has responsibilities towards the resident, it also has a responsibility to protect its staff and contractors against forms of abuse. Given the contractors claims, it was reasonable for the landlord to warn the resident against any form of abusive behaviour moving forward. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had pursued any formal action against the resident regarding the allegations of abusive behaviour and therefore the resident was not significantly impacted by these allegations.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The resident disputes that he had been aggressive or threatening to the staff members or contractors, however, there is a lack of evidence to determine the course of events on each appointment. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident had offered an alternative description of the events that took place for the landlord to investigate further. As such, there has been no maladministration by the landlord.

The handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The resident would be asked to explain the reasons for their dissatisfaction and what outcomes they were seeking to resolve the matter. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident and provide an explanation and a new timescale.
In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 16 September 2019. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 13 November 2019 which was outside of its timescales at this stage. The Ombudsman advised that the response asked the landlord to respond to the complaint by 12 December 2019, but the stage one complaint response was not provided until 31 January 2020. The landlord has not acknowledged the delay in providing a response at this stage or its failure to initially provide the response once it was aware that the resident had not received this.
The resident asked for a further complaint to be raised around 14 February 2020, the details of which have not been provided to this Service for review. It is clear from the evidence that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial response and level of compensation offered as well as the ongoing hot water issues at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a separate complaint regarding the new issues at this stage, however, it would have been appropriate for it to fully explain its actions and comment on why it would not include the new issues under stage two for the initial complaint in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
Following its second stage one complaint response on 5 March 2020, related to the new repair issues, the landlord identified that it had asked the resident whether he wished to escalate his complaint, and this had been refused. It acted appropriately by sending a follow-up letter on 18 March 2020 confirming that the complaint’s process had not yet been exhausted.
It is unclear whether the resident specifically asked for his complaint to be escalated following this. However, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 26 August 2020, asking it to contact the resident by 10 September 2020 to confirm whether the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure. The landlord sent two emails in December 2020 and January 2021 as well as contacting Ombudsman staff on 17 December to ascertain why the resident wanted to escalate the complaint. The stage two complaint response to the resident sent on 25 March 2021 does address the resident’s conduct however this could have been elaborated and made clearer.
Despite the Ombudsman’s involvement, there was a prolonged delay in responding to the resident at stage two although reasonable attempts were made by the landlord. The landlord failed to provide its stage one response dated 13 November 2020 to the resident for a significant time period once it was aware that he had not received this. It could also have elaborated and provided more detail to address the resident’s concerns about the comments made about his conduct within the stage 2 response. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident for the time and trouble he had spent pursuing a response and the inconvenience caused by its failure to address specific complaint elements.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water in his property and the compensation offered.
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its comments about his behaviour and issues accessing the property to carry out repairs.
3. There was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by offering compensation for its initial handling of the repairs needed to the hot water system in September 2019. However, it failed to address the resident’s reports of further issues in January 2020 under its emergency timescales in line with its policy. Whilst the landlord was limited in the actions it could take following the resident’s reports that he would not allow access to the property, compensation was warranted for the inconvenience caused by a lack of hot water between January 2020 and March 2020 and the landlord’s failure to address the issue initially.
The landlord was entitled to act on reports of abusive behaviour directed towards its staff and contractors. The resident disputes the allegations, however, there is no evidence that the landlord pursued any formal action against the resident regarding the allegations and a lack of evidence to confirm what happened at the time. The landlord’s failure to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint has been addressed as part of its complaint handling.
There was a delay in providing the stage one complaint response to the resident, despite the landlord being aware he had not received this. It also failed to fully explain why it had not escalated this complaint following the resident’s further concerns about its response. There was a significant and unreasonable delay in issuing a stage two response to the complaint, although this was partially attributed to the resident being non-responsive. The landlord has not addressed its complaint handling failures or offered redress to the resident for the inconvenience caused.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250, as follows:
  1. £50 as previously agreed for the inconvenience caused by its initial handling of the repair issues in September 2019 if this has not already been paid.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s handling of repairs and loss of hot water from January 2020 to March 2020.
  3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended as follows:
1. The landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure that actions that are completed on each repair visit are clearly documented for review purposes.
2. It carries out training for call handlers to ensure that repairs are correctly classified when reported to prevent future reoccurrences.
3. It reviews its staff training needs in relation to the application of its responsive complaints policies and compensation procedure, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures.