Onward Homes Limited (202217152)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217152

Onward Homes Limited

12 February 2024

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 reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to his possessions.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support with his rehousing application.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dogs fouling in the communal garden.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping in the bin store area.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy at the time the complaint was made. He contacted the landlord about a number of issues between 2020 and 2022. This included reports of dog fouling, rubbish being dumped in the bin store area and reports of damp and mould. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat. The housing records confirm the resident has a disability. He moved out in June 2023.
The resident’s mother made a complaint on his behalf on 21 March 2022 (letter incorrectly dated 21 March 2020). She said:
1. The landlord failed to help her son with his rehousing application. This was despite knowing he was unable to use a computer because of his disabilities. It did not provide a printed copy of the application form and failed to contact him. The delays caused distress and exacerbated his medical condition.
2. The landlord failed to act on the resident’s reports of dog fouling in the communal garden and fly tipping. He frequently cleaned up the bin store area as other residents dumped household rubbish there. The rubbish was attracting rats and had an impact on the resident’s mental and physical health.
3. The property was subject to numerous leaks from the roof and from the toilet in the flat above. The water had affected every room in the flat and caused damp and mould.
4. The resident wanted compensating for the damaged caused to his possessions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 April 2022. The complaint was partially upheld and the resident offered £150 compensation for the length of time it took to complete the repairs to the roof. It said:
1. It had helped the resident with his rehousing application and he had complimented a member of staff for being helpful.
2. A community clean-up event took place the year before and no further issues had been reported by its contractor.
3. The resident should report issues with the bin store to the landlord and it would resolve the matter.
4. The roof was due to be repaired on 11 April 2022 and it would make arrangements to inspect the mould.
The resident’s complaint was escalated on 27 June 2022 and the landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 July 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It had provided the resident with support with his rehousing application and it was also liaising with its partner agencies regarding the former tenant arrears (FTAs) on the resident’s account as this was affecting the processing of his application.
2. The repairs to the roof were issued on 15 February 2022 and completed on 6 June 2022.
3. The resident had been incorrectly advised to contact the landlord’s insurer regarding his claim for compensation.
4. It had commissioned a new gardening contractor and maintenance works were planned for 14 July 2022.
5. Its previous offer of £150 compensation was appropriate. An additional £50 would be offered for the delay in handing the resident’s complaint.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 4 February 2023. He said he had experienced problems for several years and these had a detrimental impact on his mental and physical health. He wanted the landlord to apologise and said he did not want others to suffer like he did.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or where the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given.’’ In this case, the matter was subject to a disrepair claim, which was settled and stamped at court on 26 May 2023.

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that he has made reference to disability discrimination and the impact on his mental and physical health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health or potential discrimination. This would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to his possessions.

It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. In this case, the resident’s claim for compensation was settled by the landlord through the courts. This Service has, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The housing records confirm the resident’s mother said her son wanted compensating for the damage caused to his possessions by the damp and mould in her letter of 21 March 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this request, set out its position and told the resident what he needed to do.
The landlord received the resident’s disrepair claim on 18 May 2022 via his solicitor. It discussed the claim with him on 20 May 2022 and told him to contact its insurer. The landlord’s insurer subsequently referred the resident back to the landlord as this was not something it could deal with. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its mistake in its final complaint response and to confirm the request for compensation for the damage to his possessions would be dealt with as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident compensation for the incorrect advice it gave him. The landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance says discretionary compensation may be awarded if it fails to effectively respond to a customer enquiry.
The housing records confirm the landlord liaised with the resident’s solicitor once his claim was submitted and the pre-action protocol was followed.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial request for compensation and gave incorrect advice. This caused the resident inconvenience. In this instance, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support with his rehousing application.

The landlord operates an online rehousing and choice based letting (CBL) system, which is managed by a partner organisation. Applicants need to register for rehousing and bid for properties through this system. The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2020 and asked for help with moving because of his medical needs. He said he did not have internet access. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with appropriate advice and considered if reasonable adjustments were required given the resident’s disabilities. His rehousing application was subsequently closed given he did not provide documentation.
The housing records later confirm the landlord discussed the resident’s request to move with him on 4 March 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its tenancy support team given he said he was struggling to find someone to help him with his rehousing application. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 11 March 2021 that he needed to contact the partner agency responsible for the rehousing system given it offered dedicated support to residents and was contracted to provide this service. It was also reasonable for the landlord to confirm he could ask a friend to help him with his application if needed. The resident was advised on the 13 March 2021 that he did not qualify for rehousing given he had previously been evicted and owed FTAs. This was in accordance with the landlord’s lettings and allocations policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident support with his application in June 2021 and to confirm the amendments he had made had been processed despite the system crashing. The landlord also told the resident he did not need to cancel his rehousing application but did so on his request.
It was reasonable for the landlord to help the resident with a new application in May 2022. It was also reasonable for it to suggest he seek help from a family member or friend with the bidding process to avoid being offered unsuitable properties. This demonstrated it wanted to support the resident and took account of his disabilities. It was also appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 26 May 2022 to explain the criteria for emergency rehousing and to confirm he would need to submit a CBL bid if he wished to be considered for the flat above his own. It was also appropriate for the landlord to confirm what medical information would be needed to assess his case and to also send him a copy of the allocations policy. The housing records confirm, the landlord awarded medical banding on receipt of the relevant information from the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm with the resident that his rehousing application was active, but he could not bid for properties with a specific housing provider given he had FTAs.
In summary, whilst there was an initial service failure, the landlord did take steps to support the resident with his rehousing application. It told him he could access support from its partner agency who was contracted to provide this. It also offered the resident support on a number of occasions and told him what information was required to progress his application. There were delays in processing his application but these were due to the fact that the resident had FTAs and did not qualify for rehousing. Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for support with his rehousing application.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dog fouling in the communal garden.

It is acknowledged that the powers available to landlords are limited if they are unable to identify residents who allow their dogs to foul communal gardens. We do, however, expect landlords to be proactive in their approach. This includes ensuring they manage residents’ expectations from the outset and act on evidence they receive, where it is clear who the perpetrators are. This should include taking enforcement action, where appropriate. We also expect landlords to maintain communal areas they are responsible for in line with the Regulator of Social Housing’s neighbourhood and community standard. The landlord’s pet and animal policy confirms it will take legal action if a resident does not address an issue with a pet or the nuisance is persistent.
Whilst the landlord has confirmed it was responsible for the maintenance of the communal garden, it is unclear from the housing records what monitoring arrangements were in place at the time the resident raised concerns. The landlord acknowledged in December 2021 that the communal garden was neglected and its contractor was refusing to undertake any gardening maintenance work because of the dog excrement. This Service has not seen any evidence the landlord gave consideration at this point to remove the dog excrement. This was contrary to the landlord’s tenancy and neighbourhood management policy. This says the landlord will keep the neighbourhoods and communal areas it is responsible for clean and safe.
It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident in December 2021 and to confirm it would speak to his neighbours about the dog excrement. It was also appropriate for the landlord to arrange a site visit in June 2021, following further reports of dog fouling. There is no evidence the landlord asked the resident to keep a record of incidents or opened an ASB case following the reports. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s pets and animals’ procedure. This says all reports about pets will be dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a community garden clean up event, this did not happen until the summer of 2021; some 7 months after the resident raised concerns.
There is no evidence the landlord acted on the concerns raised by the resident’s mother on 21 March 2022 and 20 May 2022, when she noted the problem with dog fouling continued. Neither is there any evidence the landlord asked for a copy of the written statements the resident said he had from other residents. This was a missed opportunity. The resident’s mother said the landlord’s failure to act had an adverse impact on her son’s medical conditions and disabilities.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further garden clean up on 23 July 2022. This provided the landlord with an opportunity to raise concerns with the residents in the block and remind them of their tenancy obligations. Further reports of dog fouling were made in August and December 2022, but it is unclear from the housing records what the landlord did to address the resident’s concerns.
In summary, this Service acknowledges the difficulties the landlord had in trying to identify the residents responsible for allowing their dogs to foul in the communal garden. In this case, the landlord did liaise with the resident on several occasions and sought to identify the perpetrators. It did not, however, respond on every occasion. There is also no evidence it took a proactive approach to monitoring the condition of the communal garden or ensured the dog excrement was removed on a regular basis.
This Service would have expected the landlord to have managed the issue under its ASB policy. It is evident the situation had a detrimental impact on the resident, who described himself as being ‘’trapped’’ because of his disabilities. The landlord was aware of this and told the resident’s mental and physical health were affected by the inability to access the outdoor space. In this instance, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of dog fouling in the communal garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping in the bin store area.

It is acknowledged that landlords are not always able to identify the perpetrators of fly tipping or take action against them due to the lack of evidence. We do, however, expect landlords to take reasonable steps to identify those involved and take preventative steps to minimise instances of fly tipping. This includes undertaking site visits, promoting recycling opportunities and liaising with the council’s waste management team. Where perpetrators are identified, landlords are expected to issue warnings and take legal action, where appropriate.
The housing records confirm the resident made numerous reports of fly tipping between December 2020 and December 2022. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s initial reports or his request to send a letter to the other residents in the block. Neither is there evidence it acted in response to his mother’s letter of 21 March 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this given she said her son was tidying up the bin shed area on a weekly basis. She also said this caused him discomfort and distress because of his disabilities. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord acted on the reports made at the time about rats in the bin store area. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to the council’s pest control team.
Further incidents of fly tipping were reported between July and August 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to act on the report of fly tipping made on the 23 August 2022 and to contact the resident’s neighbour, after it was identified it was responsible. This was in accordance with the landlord’s fly tipping handbook, which says individuals responsible for fly tipping will be held to account. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask them to clear up the rubbish, but it is unclear from the housing records whether any further action was taken. It is also unclear whether the resident was provided with an update.
It was appropriate for the landlord to remove the rubbish that was reported on 30 November 2022 and 9 December 2022, although it is not clear from the housing records how quickly it did this. It was also appropriate for the landlord to deliver flyers to all of the flats in the block reminding residents to dispose of their rubbish correctly and to tell the resident to contact the council’s pest control team given he had spotted rats. There is no evidence the landlord liaised with the council or considered any preventative measures to minimise the fly tipping. This is contrary to its fly tipping handbook. This says the landlord will collaborate with councils and put long term measures in place where there are repeated incidents of fly tipping.
In summary, it is accepted that it was difficult for the landlord to control fly tipping and identify the perpetrators responsible for it. In this case, the landlord removed the fly tipping on occasions. The landlord could have, however, done more given there was a known and ongoing problem with fly tipping. This Service would have expected the landlord to have been more proactive in its approach. As a result of these failings, the resident suffered detriment, with household waste left directly outside his flat. It is also evident he spent time reporting his concerns to the landlord and clearing up the rubbish. Given the above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rubbish in the bin store area.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of dog fouling in the communal garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping in the bin store area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to his possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for support with his rehousing application.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £750 compensation directly to the resident, made up as follows:
1. £400 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of dog fouling.
2. £300 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of fly tipping.
3. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his request for compensation.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. Findings from the review must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include:
1. A review of its approach to fly tipping to ensure it takes a pro-active and preventative approach in areas where there are known and ongoing issues.
2. Review its approach to reports of dog fouling, ensuring reports are dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
3. Review its approach to request for compensation in cases involving legal disrepair claims to ensure residents are correctly advised.
4. Review its record keeping practices with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.