Onward Homes Limited (202107634)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107634

Onward Homes Limited

7 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a broken shower.
2. The resident’s report of a broken bathroom door handle and latch.
3. The associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
On the 27 February 2021, the resident informed the landlord that his shower needed to be repaired. He stated the shower had been in the property for over 20 years, and therefore he asked for it to be replaced. His bathroom door handle also needed replacing. He attached photos and requested both items be repaired in one appointment.
The landlord booked an appointment for 24 March 2021 to repair the bathroom door handle and for 25 March 2021 to repair the shower. The resident was informed of the appointments on 3 March 2021.
The landlord sent a text on 24 March 2021, confirming a morning appointment for 25 March 2021. The resident then called to confirm that the appointment would be at 2pm, which had been previously agreed due to the resident’s work commitments.
Both the appointments were attended on the respective dates and follow up works were ordered, however the appointment for the shower was marked as no access at 1.44pm as the resident was not initially at the property; the work order was cancelled on 29 March 2021.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord sent a text confirmation for a follow up appointment to repair the bathroom door handle on 14 April 2021, the resident then called the landlord as this was not suitable for him, so the landlord rearranged for 7 May 2021.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 27 April 2021. He said:
1. Both repairs that he had raised on 27 February were still outstanding.
2. The appointment for the bathroom door handle was arranged for 24 March 2021, this was attended but the contractor did not have the correct part, so a second appointment was booked for 7 May 2021.
3. The appointment to repair the shower was attended on 25 March 2021. He was informed his shower required a different type of wiring to be repaired so a follow-on appointment was required. He received no further communication regarding this.
4. He felt the texts he received regarding appointments to be rude, as they were not based on previous discussions with the landlord. He also stated that the texts did not say what the appointment is for, or how long it is expected to take.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 7 May 2021 and apologised for the delay.
An internal note on 20 May 2021 explained that the landlord would offer £80 goodwill gesture as the shower repair had been outstanding for three months and had required two appointments. It was noted the resident had an alternative washing facility in the property.
The landlord sent the stage one complaint response on 20 May 2021.
1. It stated that as the resident was not at the property when the contractor arrived for the appointment on 25 March 2021 to repair the shower, it was marked as “no access”. However, the resident arrived as the contractor was about to leave, so the appointment was completed. The contractor had ordered follow up works but the work order had been cancelled due to being marked as no access. The landlord acknowledged it should have checked the appointment notes before doing so and apologised for the error.
2. It had raised a routine follow-on repair to replace the shower cable and would contact him with an appointment date.
3. An appointment was attended for the bathroom handle on 24 March 2021 and there was a follow-on appointment 14 April 2021, that was rescheduled to 7 May 2021 at the resident’s request, and then marked as complete.
4. It would take on board his feedback regarding the appointment text messages.
5. It offered £80 compensation for the delay in carrying out repairs to the shower.
6. It explained how he could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 May 2021 to decline the compensation offer. He said contractor arrived before the agreed time of 2pm, hence the job was initially labelled as no access. He insisted the shower needed to be replaced and a new cable would not resolve the issue, as he estimated it to be 30 years old. He also disputed that the bathroom lock had been fixed on 7 May 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 24 May 2021 to advise it would only be carrying out the works advised by the contractor; therefore, the shower would not be fully replaced.
The landlord sent a text to the resident on 31 May 2021, informing him that a contractor would be attending the following day. The contractor could not gain access to the property, so the appointment was cancelled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2021. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had sent a text regarding the appointment time on a bank holiday, thus giving him no opportunity to respond.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 June 2021 to apologise for rescheduling the appointment without giving the resident sufficient notice to confirm his availability. It had raised a new appointment on 23 June 2021 for the shower and routine repair had been raised for the bathroom handle to be replaced; he would be contacted with an appointment date. It also advised it would only replace the shower cable, and not fit a new electric shower as he was previously informed.
According to the timeline of events the resident provided to this Service, he attempted to escalate his complaint on 4 June 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of this escalation.
The resident called the landlord on 7 June 2021 to cancel both repair jobs as he did not want to wait for a contractor as he felt contractors either fail to attend or do not complete the correct job. He felt the landlord had not listened to his report properly, so the job had been raised incorrectly. He also requested an update on his complaint.
The resident’s timeline of events said he sent further requests to escalate his complaint on 17 June 2021, and 29 June 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of this and there is no evidence to confirm that it was received by the landlord. It does not appear these requests were sent to the landlord’s complaint inbox.
The resident contacted the landlord on social media on 24 June 2021. He said the landlord had continually ignored his request to escalate his complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process. He requested to be contacted by email regarding his complaint.
The same day, the landlord then attempted to call the resident, to which he emailed a reminder that he only wanted to be contacted by email, so that the complaint would be properly documented.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 1 July 2021.
The landlord sent the stage two complaint response on 16 July 2021.
1. It stated the resident had since said he did not want the works to proceed, so the appointments for the bathroom door handle and shower repairs had been cancelled. It would contact him to try to rearrange the repairs.
2. It was working to improve the digital strategy of the repair service.
3. It apologised for any inconvenience and frustration caused and in light of this, offered £80 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement says:
1. The landlord must keep the internal door frames and hinges in good repair.
2. It must keep any installations it has provided for sanitation in good repair.
3. The tenant agrees to allow contractors access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s repair guide states:
1. The target for routine repairs is 20 working days.
2. It is responsible for internal doors.
3. If the resident is not at home when the contractor arrives, they will try to contact them by phone.
4. If a pre-arranged appointment is not attended by the contractor, the resident should inform the landlord immediately.
The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. Both stage one and stage two complaints will receive a response in 10 working days.
2. It will acknowledge complaints within two working days.
The landlord’s internal compensation guide states:
1. It will pay £20 compensation for one month without a functioning shower (where there is an alternative bathing facility in the property), £40 for two months, £60 for three months and £80 for five months.
2. It will pay £20 if it takes two appointments to fix a shower and £40 for three appointments, where there is an alternative bathing facility.
3. Goodwill payments will not be awarded for repair delays in the case that the customer is not at the property to provide access or refuses access to the property, for an appointment.

The landlord’s handling of report of a broken shower and bathroom door handle

Both the tenancy agreement and the repairs guide confirm that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the bathroom door handle and the shower. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord responded in line with its policies by arranging appointment dates that were within 20 working days of it being reported, as the repairs would be classed as routine. Follow on appointments had to be booked for both repairs as additional parts were required to complete them.
The first appointment for the shower took place on 25 March 2021. The resident had already confirmed with the landlord twice that the appointment would take place after 2pm, as he was at work earlier that day, however the contractor arrived early, and the resident stated that the contractor did not attempt to contact him to say they would be early. According to the landlord’s repair guide, the resident should have been called by the contractor before they left the property. The resident arrived at the property before the contractor left and therefore, he was able to allow access and the appointment was completed, but the appointment was labelled as no access on the work order. Subsequently, despite the fact that a follow-on appointment had been raised, the landlord had not checked the notes, so the work order was cancelled. While the landlord explained in the complaint response that this was down to human error and apologised, it was an avoidable delay that caused the resident further inconvenience.
The landlord awarded the resident £80 compensation, with an internal email explaining this was due to the repair being outstanding for three months and requiring two appointments. This is in line with its compensation policy which states it will pay the resident £60 for three months without a functioning shower and £20 for a shower requiring two appointments to repair. This compensation guidance is under the condition that the resident has alternative washing facilities, which the landlord has stated he does. It also aligns with this Service’s remedy guidance, which suggests awards of £50 to £25 for instances of service failure that have caused some impact on the complainant over a short duration of time, with the impact including inconvenience and a delay in getting the issue resolved. The landlord rectified the issue in the stage one complaint response by scheduling another appointment.
The resident was not satisfied with the decision that the shower would not be fully replaced. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. The landlord would only be expected to replace the shower if it could not be economically repaired. In this case, the landlord’s contractor concluded that the shower did not need to be fully replaced as a new electrical cable could be fitted to repair the shower.
The appointment for the bathroom door handle was arranged within an appropriate timeframe. However, the appointment was rescheduled to 7 May 2021 at the resident’s request due to his availability. This appointment was not attended, however there is no evidence to suggest that the resident informed the landlord of this. The repairs record outlines his responsibility to report this. As a result, the landlord was not aware, hence it reported that the repair was complete in the stage one complaint response as no follow-on works had been ordered. The landlord’s overall handling of the repair to the door handle was appropriate and in line with its policies.
As the resident rescheduled and ultimately cancelled the appointments on 7 June 2021 for both of the repairs, the landlord cannot be held accountable for the repairs not being completed. The tenancy agreement explains that the resident is required to allow contractors access in order to carry out any repairs. Whilst there may be legitimate reasons why a tenant cannot allow access to the landlord’s staff or contractors, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays this might cause. The landlord also said in the stage two complaint response that it would offer as much flexibility that it could to reschedule the appointment, indicating it was still attempting to resolve the issue. The landlord’s complaints guide outlines that the landlord will not pay compensation for delays in the event that the resident does not give access to the contractor. As a result, it is reasonable for the landlord to only offer compensation for the delays that were caused prior to the resident not being present for the appointment on 1 June 2021 and subsequently cancelling both repairs works on 7 June 2021.

Complaint handling

The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 27 April 2021, and this was not acknowledged until 7 May 2021 (eight working days), therefore exceeding the two working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Once the complaint had been acknowledged, the response was issued within ten working days, thus adhering to the complaint policy. It took the landlord a total of 17 working days to issue the response following the resident sending the complaint. While this exceeded the landlord’s complaint policy, the response time was in line with this Service’s complaint handling code (a framework to support landlords’ effective handling, available to view on the Housing Ombudsman website). The response was issued within the maximum of 20 working days, as set out in the code. Following the delay to the acknowledgement letter, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations, explaining it would aim to respond in 10 working days. The delay also did not significantly impact the outcome of the complaint.
From the evidence provided to this Service, this first indication that the landlord received the resident’s complaint escalation was on 24 June 2021. While the resident stated that he sent three other escalation requests dating back to 4 June 2021, these were sent to several different of the landlord’s contacts and did not follow the landlord’s typical complaints procedure, so it is unclear if these were received. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 1 July 2021, within five working days of the receiving the complaint and sent the response on 16 July 2021. Again, while this exceeds the landlord’s complaint policy timeframe, it does adhere to the Ombudsman complaint handling code, which outlined that an escalation request should be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 20 working days at stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord should consider reviewing its complaint handling procedure to ensure it appropriately manages residents’ expectations regarding response times.
The landlord did not always honour the resident’s request for his preferred method of communication to be email. However, as this was only evidenced once on 24 June 2021 and was rectified after the resident’s second request, it has not had a significant impact on the overall complaint outcome.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a broken shower.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the broken bathroom door handle and latch.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord scheduled appointments in line with the timeframe set out for routine repairs in its repair guide. There have been delays due to the resident cancelling appointments but the landlord has acted reasonably by attempting to reschedule the work.
While the complaint response times were slightly exceeded, this did not cause significant detrimental impact upon the complaint outcome.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its complaint procedure to extend its complaint handling timeframes, in line with this Service’s guidance, to manage residents’ expectations more appropriately.