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

Onward Homes Limited (202122957)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122957

Onward Homes Limited

23 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for replacement external doors.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 June 2021 about the condition of the front and back door to her property. She said that since she had moved into her property in 2011, she had had numerous problems with her doors. She explained that her front door was warped at the top, and had to be covered with a blanket to keep her family warm and prevent the draft entering. She described the house as “freezing, noting that at the time of her reports the weather was severe, and explained that her children’s health was impacted largely when the weather was bad. The resident said that she had reported the issues several months ago in which an operative attended and tried to repair the door. She said that operative said she would receive new doors very shortly, but the landlord advised that the doors would be replaced in 2025. After reporting that her front door remained warped a second operative attended and advised he would arrange for an inspection as the entire door needed replacing. She said the inspector found that both the top and bottom of the door was warped and had gathered evidence to report to the landlord, but noted that she not received any updates on the status of the door replacement.. She urged the landlord to review the evidence provided reiterating that there was an issue with the doors and required replacing promptly.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 7 July 2021. It explained that the resident’s front door had a “life cycle” and that it had completed an inspection to determine how long the door would last. It said that based on the data her windows and doors were to be replaced within its 2025 to 2027 investment programme. The landlord noted that the resident had several repairs completed on her doors since the start of her tenancy, and more recently in January 2021, however the repair did resolve the issue. It recalled that a further routine repair was raised in February 2021 to attempt to resolve the draught issues, but it was unable to rectify it and so an inspection was recommended instead. The landlord explained that its repair officer conducted an inspection on the resident’s home on 11 March 2021 and found that the doors and windows had failed prematurely, and required replacing. It confirmed that the replacement of the doors would be brought forward to its 2021 to 2022 investment programme and that the resident would be contacted accordingly with further details. The landlord apologised to the resident for its poor service and communication, it offered her £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  4. The landlord informed the resident in September 2021 that her property had been included in its investment programme and that works “should” be completed ahead of the Christmas break. According to its records on 20 October 2021 a repair order was confirmed for the resident’s front and back door, its records also showed in November 2021 the landlord chased the contractor for a proposed start date. Internal emails showed that in early December 2021, the contractor advised the landlord that the door manufacturer was experiencing supply issues which caused delays. The contractor also explained that the business would be closed for Christmas from 17 December 2021 but that it would attempt to fit the doors prior to the Christmas break. The landlord emailed the resident in December 2021 and apologised that the doors had not been delivered as yet, it explained the delay issues with the contractor and the closure of its business for the Christmas break.
  5. On 16 December 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She raised concerns over the landlord’s handling of her complaint stating that she was being passed around and was dissatisfied with waiting for the replacement of her front and back door. She raised concern about keeping her children warm and said that the issue was impacting her mental health.
  6.  The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 January 2022 and apologised for the delay in its response. The landlord explained that the contractor which was due to install the resident’s doors had closed for the Christmas break earlier than it anticipated. It apologised for the frustration caused and for the miscommunication in advising that the doors would be installed before Christmas. It confirmed that the door installation was scheduled for 24 January 2022. It increased its compensation offer to £150 due to its failure to install the doors within the timeframe it had agreed. The landlord offered the resident a further £50 for its delayed final complaint response, totalling £200.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling and the length of time taken to renew her doors.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of problems with the external doors since she moved into her property in 2011. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised to the landlord about this until 24 June 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. In view of this, whilst the historic issues add context to the current complaint, the Ombudsman’s investigation will not take into consideration any specific events prior to December 2020 which is six months prior to the formal complaint being raised with the landlord.
  2. The resident has said she considered the issues affecting her property to have impacted her mental health as well as her family’s physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s replacement doors

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and the exterior of the property in good repair, including external doors. In accordance with the landlord’s repair guidance, routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  2. In its initial response to the complaint, the landlord explained that the resident’s doors had a “life cycle” and that it completed stock condition surveys to determine how long the component would last and when it would require replacing. The landlord has not provided any policies or procedures which set out the frequency of its doors renewal or refurbishment programs to the Ombudsman. The government’s ‘Decent Home Standard’ guidance document sets out the expected lifetimes of various component of a home such as windows, doors, fitted kitchens etc. According to the ‘Decent Home Standard’ the expected lifespan for external doors for houses is 40 years, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord’s renewal timeframe to be set for 2025 based on its stock condition survey.
  3. Following further reports from the resident, the landlord had its repair operative attend and inspect the door in 2021, it found that the doors and windows had failed prematurely and required replacing ahead of the scheduled date of 2025. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults with her door and to take action to resolve any issues it identified. Therefore, its decision to bring forward its investment programme from 2025 to 2021-2022 for the renewal of the resident’s door was reasonable in this case.
  4. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to complete the renewal of the doors within its advised timeframe. The landlord advised the resident in September 2021 that works “should” be completed ahead of the Christmas break. However, in this particular case, due factors outside the landlord’s control it was unable to complete repairs within its advised timeframe. The primary reasons for the delay in works appear to be supply issues with the door manufacturer, and the closure of the contractor’s business for the Christmas break. As these factors were beyond the landlord’s control, it was not at fault for this delay. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining the reason for the delay and informing the resident of the new timeframe (24 January 2022) for completion of works. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience the issues caused the resident, it apologised and offered £50 compensation for failure to meet its agreed timeframe. This was in line with its internal guidance for goodwill payments, which states that awards of £40 may be considered for external doors where a month duration lapsed to fix the fault (period from when the landlord advised the door would be renewed to when it was actually renewed). The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable, in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and believed it had not met its values. The landlord’s complaint process says it aims to respond within ten working days upon receipt of the resident’s complaint, and within ten working days of the escalation request. The resident raised her complaint on 24 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response on 7 July 2021, this was outside its set response time. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 December 2021 and it issued its final complaint response on 14 January 2022, this was also outside of the landlord’s set response time frame. The landlord recognised its service failure and apologised to the resident for its poor communication and service. It offered her a £100 compensation for the delay in its stage one response, which was accepted by the resident, and an additional £50 for its delayed final complaint response. The landlord’s offer totalling £150 was fair and in line with its goodwill payments guidance, which suggests awards of £50 where there has been “poor customer service” from the landlord.

Determination

  1. 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, resolves the complaints the resident’s  request for replacement external doors and the associated complaint handling satisfactorily

Recommendations

  1. The landlord has confirmed in the information provided to the Ombudsman that the front door was replaced in January 2022. It is not clear from the information provided whether the back door has also been replaced. The landlord should arrange for the back door to be replaced if this has not already been done.