Onward Homes Limited (202128639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128639

Onward Homes Limited

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries regarding damage to a property within the building.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The property is a two bedroom flat located on the first floor of the block. The block consists of six properties.
The resident has sold the property since the complaint was made. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a shared owner of the property and was the leaseholder. The landlord was a housing association. The property was sublet to a tenant. The original lease was first created on 2 February 2005.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it operates a two stage process. It will acknowledge a complaint within two working days. The stage one response will be issued within ten working days. If a resident wishes to escalate the complaint, the stage two response will be issued within ten working days and will be investigated by one of the landlord’s directors.
The landlord’s complaint policy states a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers.

Scope of the investigation.

During the period considered in this investigation, the resident had made complaints to the landlord regarding other issues. Those issues had been determined through another investigation by the Ombudsman under case reference 202117573 and through settlements with the landlord. This investigation will focus on the remaining subject of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of events

On 30 November 2021 the resident visited the property and noticed that a flat on the ground floor of the block had damage to all it’s roadside windows. The resident noted all the windows appeared to be damaged in the same place. A maintenance worker on site suggested to the resident that the damage looked like gunshot damage. The resident reported the damage to the landlord, enquired if it was caused by vandalism and if it had been reported to the police.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord’s records show the resident had made posts on social media stating she had reported the windows being damaged and had received a response from the landlord saying “it was aware of the windows being damaged and the issue was being organised with”.
On 6 December 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. As part of the complaint points raised she said:
1. The landlord failed to confirm the vandalised windows in the other flat had been reported to police, especially when there was an appearance of gunshot damage.
2. The landlord failed to recognise that if the vandalism had not been reported to the police, no insurance claim could be made. This would mean the scheme would have to pay for the repairs, which was not acceptable. The residents had the right to be assured they would not be forced to pay for damage that was not caused by them but through vandalism and the landlord had failed to report incidents to police so that an insurance claim could be made
3. Photographs of the damage to the windows, which had penetrated both panes of glass in the double glazed units, had been sent to the landlord. The landlord’s response was it was aware of the damage and was “being organised with”. The resident questioned what “organised with” meant. The resident stated that looking at the amount of vandalism, some of which looked like gunshot damage, the residents of the block had the right to feel safe.
The landlord responded the same day and stated that the window repair had been raised by its leasehold team on 17 November 2021 and had chased the team to query when the required works were going to take place. The landlord informed the resident all of the issues that were not relating to a previous stage two complaint had been raised and the resident would be contacted to discuss this further.
On 7 December 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident informed the landlord:
1. She was concerned about what caused the damage at the property and who was going to pay for it.
2. The damage looked to had been caused by gunshots. The resident informed the landlord of an incident involving a shooting in a nearby area. The resident told the landlord it should have had more respect for the safety of residents who may have heard gunfire but had not been aware of the incident nearby.
3. The landlord not providing the residents with any details was ridiculous as it owned the building, the damage was done from outside and it had a duty of care to ensure all residents were made aware of any incidents as a matter of health and safety.
On 14 December 2023 the landlord’s records show it considered that it had received a lot of correspondence from the resident and was unsure if the points raised in the complaints made on 6 December 2021 were new complaints or related to an existing complaint. The landlord issued a questionnaire to the resident to complete regarding the complaints she had made.
The resident completed the questionnaire and returned it to the landlord on 16 December 2021.
The landlord responded the next day and thanked the resident for providing the completed questionnaire. The landlord said it now had a clear understanding that there was a new complaint to be logged. The landlord stated it had logged the complaint and a response would be issued to the resident within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 7 January 2022. The stage one provided responses to the resident complaint about the damaged windows and also other complaints that were not part of this investigation. For the purpose of this investigation the landlord provided the following response to the complaint regarding the damage to the windows in another property:
1. It was aware of the issue with the window which was being addressed privately with the individual tenant. The landlord stated any costs associated with that would not be met by the scheme.
2. The resident had made contact across several channels and some contact related to existing complaints or complaints that the landlord believed had been previously answered. The landlord stated to avoid any further confusion a single point of contact would be used. The resident was asked to contact that point of contact and not its customer services, customer relations team or social media.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 January 2022. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident stated:
1. The stage one response informed her to contact one specific officer of the landlord only and not to contact it by any other means including by the customers services or customer resolutions team. She was then provided the customer resolution telephone number if she wished to escalate the complaint after being told not to contact them.
2. Window damage to another flat was seen on 30 November 2021 and it was commented by contractors on that day that the damage looked like gunshot damage. There was no explanation from the landlord as to whether that was vandalism and if it was reported to the police. It was a security or safety issue for every other resident. It was all windows in the property and not just one window as stated in the stage one response by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 10 January 2022 and stated a response would be issued by 24 January 2022.
On 10 January 2022 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord after being contacted by the resident. The MP informed the landlord the resident had stated she had sent photographs of the property damage to the landlord. When she asked if the police had been informed, she was told by the landlord that it was up to the owner to make a report to the police and the landlord would not give the resident any further details of any police reports.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord stated:
1. It was aware of the damage caused to a window at another property. It had explained that any repairs to that window would not be charged to the scheme and it was working to ensure the window was repaired. As that matter related to an individual resident responsible for that flat, it was unable to discuss that matter with the resident. It reassured the resident that it was not aware of any link between the broken window and another incident that was reported in a nearby area.
2. The stage two escalation request was acknowledged and recorded by its customer resolutions team in line with its complaints procedure. Stage two complaints were responded to by a director but all other questions or queries should be directed to the sole point of contact nominated by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding damage to a nearby property.

It is acknowledged that when damage occurs at another property, and this damage is visible to other residents, it can concern to those residents that vandalism may be the cause. The landlord would be responsible to investigate the cause of any damage and take any steps it would be obliged to do. Once the cause of the damage is established, it is acknowledged that it can be difficult for the landlord to communicate this to other residents, while maintaining the privacy of the residents of the property that is damaged, especially if the damage that could be interpreted as vandalism.
In this case, the resident was aware of reports of gun related activity in the nearby area. It is understandable the resident would have concerns the damage to the other property may have been related to the reported gun activity. This would have been particularly concerning as the damage observed by the resident and commented on by workmen on the site was that the appearance of the damage was gunshot damage.
The landlord did establish the cause of the damage at the property, was satisfied that the damage was not related to any vandalism and that there was no risk to other properties in the block. However, the landlord’s initial response to the resident that it was being “organised with” would not have provided the resident with any understanding or reassurances of her concerns. There is no evidence the landlord provided further updates to the resident outside of its complaint responses to the resident. The resident’s main concern was who would be paying to repair the damaged windows. The complaint response at stage one assured the resident there would be no costs for the scheme to pay and that it was addressing the damage privately with the individual tenant. The stage two response did provide confirmation to the resident that the landlord could reassure the resident there was no link to the damage and the reported shooting nearby. The landlord did provide as much information about the damage that it could whist maintaining the privacy of the occupier of that property.
The resident was concerned that any repairs would have to be met by the leaseholders in the block, especially if no reports were made to the police to obtain a crime number and no insurance claim could be made. The landlord confirmed to the resident, in the stage one response that the damage would be dealt with by the individual resident of the relevant property and that no costs for repairs would be passed to the other residents of the block. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and although it could not provide specific details of the cause of the damage to the resident, it did address her concerns about any further costs she may have incurred.
The landlord has evidenced it was aware of the cause of the damage to the other property and it was satisfied that the damage caused was not from vandalism. The landlord informed the resident there were no costs to be met by her, or other residents of the block, and that the costs would be paid by the occupier of the property that was damaged. There was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s reports of damage to another property.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Although the stage two response was issued by the landlord in line with its complaints policy, there was errors in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage one.
The resident made her complaint on 6 December 2021. The resident made it clear to the landlord she was making a formal complaint. The landlord responded the same day and said some of the issues raised had been responded to in a previous stage two response. The landlord said issues that were not relating that stage two response had been raised and the resident would be contacted by the leasehold team. There is no evidence an acknowledgement response was issued to the resident within two working days as stated in the landlord’s complaint policy or that the landlord was acknowledging the resident was making a formal complaint.
The evidence shows the landlord was uncertain over the complaint made by the resident and whether the points made in her complaint were related to other complaints it had in progress. The landlord decided to write to the resident and sent her a questionnaire about her complaints so it could establish what was related to existing complaints and what would be a new complaint. This was a reasonable step to take by the landlord but it took this action between 14 December 2021 and 16 December 2021. This began seven working days after the complaint was made. There is no evidence provided for this delay. The landlord is reminded that as per the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, a complaint is to be logged within five working days of receipt of the complaint.
Once the resident had returned the questionnaire, the landlord, in correspondence with the resident on 17 December 2022, noted it had a better understanding of the resident’s complaint and that it would record the complaint.
It is acknowledged the landlord had been dealing with multiple complaints from the resident at that time and it felt it needed to clarify some points with her. Once the landlord had made contact with the resident and established what was to be considered in the complaint, it has not evidenced it discussed with her the timescales for it to issue the complaint response and if an extension to the stage one response could be agreed.
The landlord instead issued an acknowledgment of the complaint to the resident on 17 December 2021. The letter stated that although the complaint was not logged as the resident expected on 6 December 2021 it had a better understanding that a new complaint was to be logged and that had been done on that day. The landlord stated a response would be issued within 10 working days. The landlord did not state to the resident why it had chosen the date of 17 December 2021 to log the complaint, rather than the date the landlord received the complaint from her.
When the landlord provided an update to the resident on 5 January 2022, it informed her that the stage one response would have been due by 10 January 2022, stating this was 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded and due to a Christmas closure period. This information was incorrect. The landlord had calculated the complaint timescales from 17 December 2022, when it formally logged the complaint, and failed to recognise the resident had made the complaint on 6 December 2022 when calculating the period of 10 working days.
The complaint response was issued on 7 January 2022. It is acknowledged that the landlord was closed over the Christmas period and this would have affected its response times by an additional three working days. However, taking these additional delays into account, the landlord issued the complaint response 19 working days after the complaint was originally made by the resident which was outside of its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days.
The stage one response requested the resident only make contact with one officer from the landlord and those contact details were provided to her. The landlord also stated for the resident not to make any contact with its customer services, customer resolutions team or via social media. Later in the stage one response, the resident was informed if she wished to escalate her complaint or had any questions or queries, she should contact the customer resolutions team.
While it is accepted this may have been due to the landlord using a letter template with certain paragraphs pre-written, it is its responsibility to ensure any letters issued do not provide conflicting information to a resident.
The acknowledgement of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two was sent by the customers resolutions team as per its complaints policy. However, as with the stage one response, the landlord provided the customer resolution contact details to the resident for her to contact if she had any further questions. This would have led to more confusion to the resident about who she should have been contacting.
The landlord, in its stage two response, acknowledged to the resident that it had not made the contact arrangement as clear as it could have and apologised to her. The landlord should have made it clear to the resident that although it was requesting a single point of contact for all correspondence received by her, some responses would still be sent by the customer resolutions teams and how she could respond. This was an error by the landlord.
In its stage one response, the landlord stated it was responding to the complaint made on 17 December 2021. There was no acknowledgement from the landlord that the complaint had in fact been made on 6 December 2021. The landlord failed to recognise it had issued the stage one complaint late and therefore failed to offer an apology or redress to the resident for the delay. This, along with the poor communication from the landlord regarding how the resident should contact it, amounts to service failure by the landlord. This service considers an amount of £100 compensation to be appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries regarding damage to a property within the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did investigate the resident’s reports of damage to another property and provided her with an outcome of its investigation, which confirmed there was no vandalism and costs for repairs would not be passed to the resident or other residents of the block.
The landlord failed to correctly log the stage one complaint when it was first made which led to the response being issued 9 working days late. The landlord did not provide the resident with clear instructions on how to escalate the complaint the complaint to stage two. In the stage one response it had asked the resident to only make contact with one member of staff but provided details of a team the resident had been asked not to contact to escalate the complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of the complaint.
2. Apologise in writing to the resident for the service failure in its handling of the complaint.
The landlord should reply to this Service to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review its complaint procedure to ensure complaints are logged at the correct time and the correct calculation of the complaint response due dates are made.
The landlord is to review its processes for ensuring that if a resident is asked to contact a specific member of its staff only, it communicates this correctly to the resident to avoid conflicting information being issued.