Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Onward Homes Limited (202217589)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217589

Onward Homes Limited

24 April 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

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to reports of a leak.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He succeeded the tenancy at the property, a 3-bedroom property, in 2017.
  2. The landlord has stated no vulnerabilities are recorded for the resident, although it is noted his complaint outlined his age and various health issues.

Summary of events

  1. On either 24 or 26 October 2022 (the date on a handwritten letter was amended, presumably by the author, and it is unclear which date is correct) the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In his complaint, he raised the following concerns:
    1. He had reported a leak on 21 October 2022 but been advised this would not be repaired until 11 November 2022. He had called the landlord again on 24 October 2022 to advise the leak was worsening but was advised the landlord would not attend until 28 October 2022. He had “warned” the landlord that he believed this was too long to wait and that he considered the matter to be an emergency repair.
    2. Following this, he was woken at 3am on 26 October 2022 and found “a large hole in (his) ceiling”, which he stated had collapsed due to the leak.
    3. He additionally stated that an appointment to inspect his boiler should have taken place on 5 October 2022, but no operatives had attended. He had not been contacted by the landlord regarding this missed appointment.
    4. Having reported a “problem with rats” in his loft, the landlord had also advised him that this was his responsibility to resolve. He believed this was an “insult” as he was a pensioner with health problems. Having received independent advice, he believed it was a health hazard and therefore the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the matter. He also advised the landlord that, in respect of all 3 issues, he suffered from ill health including stress and anxiety.
  2. The resident sent a further, undated letter, regarding the “leaking from (his) bedroom area, which caused (his) lounge ceiling to collapse”. The letter referred to the leak occurring 10 days earlier and a ‘received’ stamp indicates the landlord received the letter on 8 November 2022, suggesting it was sent on 4 or 5 November 2022. The resident advised the leak had caused “severe damage” to his carpet and fittings and negatively affected his health, as he suffered with asthma and COPD. He stated he had not had a shower since 26 October 2022 “due to the faulty pipes”, had been without heating or hot water from the same date, was currently unable to use his lounge and the landlord had not carried out any repairs so far. He also reported “a new leak from upstairs” which was coming into his kitchen. He provided photos which he stated were of his collapsed lounge ceiling and requested compensation.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 November 2022 to acknowledge receipt of his complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 28 November 2022. It set out that it understood the complaint to regard “the length of time to rectify a leak”, “an outstanding request for floorboards to be replaced” and “an issue with pests in the loft”. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. A routine repair was raised on 20 October 2022 following the resident’s report of a leak coming into his lounge, from “the radiator in the bathroom”. The landlord noted an appointment was booked for 3 November 2022, but this was cancelled on 27 October 2022 as it had not “interface(d) over to the contractor’s system”. The landlord offered an apology and acknowledged the technical issue had “resulted in (the) impact of the leak getting worse”.
    2. A new emergency repair regarding the leak was then raised on 27 October 2022. An operative attended but advised another trade was needed to take up the resident’s bathroom floor. 3 leaks were identified, and it was noted that “all pipes were rubbing on floorboards”. Further works were requested, and an order was duly raised the following day (28 October). The landlord advised its contractor had arranged an appointment for 1 November 2022, after 2 failed attempts to contact the resident. On attendance, the contractor advised the resident had stated he did not want his floor lifting as it had only recently been installed. He instead agreed for the lounge ceiling to be removed so the repair(s) could be attempted from below.
    3. Follow on works were raised on 2 November 2022. The landlord then provided a timeline regarding how the works were carried out, including some delay caused by reported lack of access. It stated works were completed on 16 November 2022 and a further routine repair was raised for “ceiling works” which it stated were completed on an unspecified date.
    4. After speaking with the resident that day, the landlord advised an inspection order had been raised to “look into the floorboards, ceiling and damp issues” at the property. It would contact him with an update once the survey was completed and any recommendations were made by the surveyor.
    5. An order had been raised for a pest controller to “rectify” the reported pest issue in the resident’s loft. It advised the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
    6. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for not prioritising the resident’s report of a leak and advised that “feedback (had) been provided” to its Contact Centre staff so “this does not occur going forward”. It also apologised for “the length of time the leak was ongoing”. It considered that, following the initial delay, “works were prioritised and completed” as soon as possible, considering the sourcing of materials and the availability of both the resident and contractors.
    7. It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £150 “by way of an apology and inconvenience” and provided details on how to escalate the complaint.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 5 December 2022 to advise he had received a response from the landlord, but he remained unhappy. This Service duly wrote to the landlord the following day to ask for an update on the case. The landlord responded the same day to advise it had issued a stage 1 response and would escalate the complaint if the resident requested this.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2022 to advise he was unhappy with its complaint response and wanted the complaint escalated. There is no record of the landlord responding at that time, however its records show the request was later assessed on an unspecified date. The landlord noted the resident was seeking a higher compensation award as the leak was “still ongoing” and his carpet and an alarm system had been “damaged”.
  6. On 8 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised him that a stage 2 investigation had been opened.
  7. This Service wrote to the landlord on 23 March 2023 as the resident had reported not receiving a response to his complaint escalation request. The landlord was asked to provide a response at stage 2 of its complaint procedure by 20 April 2023. It responded and advised that, as above, the complaint had already been escalated on 8 March 2023.
  8. On 5 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It understood the complaint to be about “further delays to the repair of (his) ceiling”, “missed appointments” by its contractor and that he felt the compensation offered in the stage 1 complaint response was too low. It reiterated its apology for the “delays which occurred in relation to the repair of your ceiling” and went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It identified “multiple and unnecessary delays in resolving the repairs” in the resident’s home. It also recognised that, on one occasion, the contractors left the property without giving the resident “enough opportunity to answer the door”. It noted this was “completely unacceptable” and apologised.
    2. It had reviewed its goodwill gesture and increased this to £250. It added that, on top of the compensation, it had identified learning opportunities which included ensuring that access requirements would be marked on a customer’s file and records. It had discussed the resident’s case with its contractor and asked them to ensure they allowed sufficient time for him to answer the door during any future appointments.
  9. On 19 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident following a call it stated had taken place that day. It advised that it had made a further increase of its goodwill gesture and was now offering £550, consisting of its original £250 offer and an additional £50 to “cover the cost of items”, £100 to reflect the delay in escalating the complaint and £150 regarding “the length of time taken to resolve the issues”. It offered a further apology and confirmed it would “paint the ceiling following the plastering works” and clean his carpet.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak 

  1. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including internal ceilings. It is also responsible for keeping in “good repair and proper working order” installations provided for heating, water heating and sanitation.
  2. The repair policy the landlord provided to this investigation states it will “ensure all repairs are completed in accordance with the law”, and work will be “undertaken within prescribed timescales” but does not specify any timeframes for distinct categories of repair. However, its website states that “emergency repairs will be attended to on the same day”. For non-emergency repairs which can be completed in one visit, the landlord will provide an appointment and aim to complete works within 20 days. “Bigger and more complicated jobs” will be completed within 90 days.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord initially failed to appropriately treat the leak as an emergency repair and that there were later delays in resolving the leak and completing follow-on works. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged these failings and offered both apologies and an amount of compensation, which it later increased after the resident had referred his complaint to this Service. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress it offered during the complaint process was enough to ‘put things right’ and resolve the complaint in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. When the resident first reported a leak into his living room on 21 October 2022, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair. Instead, it raised a routine repair and provided the resident with an appointment date for 11 November 2022. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not respond in a reasonable manner.
  5. When the resident called again 3 days later to advise the leak was “worsening”, the landlord again failed to raise an emergency repair, instead raising a routine repair, and making an appointment for 28 October 2022. The landlord missed a second opportunity to respond reasonably and instead allowed the situation to decline further. This was inappropriate and would likely have left the resident feeling he was not being listened to and his reports were not taken seriously.
  6. Records show that on 26 October 2022 the resident’s living room ceiling collapsed. The Ombudsman considers that, had the landlord raised an emergency repair on either 21 or 24 October 2022 when the resident reported the issue, this would likely have been prevented. That the situation deteriorated to this extent, with the subsequent distress and inconvenience this would have caused to an elderly tenant, was likely due to the landlord’s not giving the resident’s initial reports the appropriate priority.
  7. Once the resident reported that the ceiling had collapsed, records show the landlord then responded appropriately, raising an emergency repair, and attending the same day. However, the landlord’s records indicate the attending operative reported being unable to resolve the issue and the leak was not fixed until 14 November 2022, over 3 weeks after the resident first reported it.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the cause(s) of a leak can sometimes be difficult to identify, and this is not evidence of service failure in itself. Records indicate that repairs were first attempted from below, via the living room ceiling, due to a reluctance to lift the resident’s newly installed bathroom flooring (as recommended by the operative who attended on 27 October 2022). The landlord also noted that repair appointments on 9 and 10 November were either rearranged or cancelled due to operatives not gaining access. While the delays do not appear to have been solely caused by the landlord, it still took too long to resolve the leak, and this will have exacerbated the problem.
  9. Once the leak was identified and repairs were completed, records indicate the landlord raised an appointment for an inspection to assess what follow-on works were required to make good the ceiling. While this did not appear to be raised until a week after the repair was completed, its initial appointment date of 24 November 2022 was not evidence of an excessive delay. Its records indicate this was then rearranged for the following day by the resident, but the operative was unable to gain access on the rearranged date.
  10. It is unclear from the repair records precisely when the inspection took place, but an order was raised on 19 December 2022 to replaster the living room ceiling. However, this repair was not completed until the end of September 2023, 9 months later. Landlord records again state that some of the delay was caused by several appointments in February, March and June 2023 being rearranged at the resident’s request before being cancelled for no access and it is acknowledged that difficulties obtaining access can be problematic for landlords and cause delays that are outside of their control. However, it was still unreasonable for the repair to remain outstanding for such a length of time and this would have caused the resident considerable inconvenience. The landlord should have been more proactive, and resolution focussed, such as considering whether any additional support needed to be put in place for the resident to enable the repairs to go ahead and be completed successfully.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the “multiple and unnecessary” delays and that one of the “no access” appointments had reportedly been cancelled as the contractor did not allow the resident time to answer the door. It was reasonable the landlord acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered compensation (although it would have been preferable had it not referred to its offers as “goodwill gestures”, as this generally implies an organisation has not accepted fault and is making a discretionary award).
  12. It was reasonable that the landlord reconsidered its original award of £150 at stage 2 of its complaint procedure and increased this to £250. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was still insufficient. A higher award would have been more appropriate and gone further to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
  13. It was therefore positive the landlord, after corresponding further with the resident, made a further compensation offer in September 2023, increasing the final amount offered to £550. It offered an additional £50 towards unspecified possessions and £100 to reflect poor complaint handling and a further £150 to reflect the time taken to resolve the repair issues (bringing this to £400 in total). In correspondence, the landlord asked that this, along with a commitment to repainting the resident’s lounge ceiling and cleaning his carpet, be treated as ‘reasonable redress’ under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  14. However, as the increased offer was made outside of the landlord’s complaint procedure, and after the resident had referred his complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of reasonable redress in the circumstances. While it is good practice to review cases and positive that landlords show willingness to reconsider offers of redress, where possible this should be done during the original complaint process so as to avoid the potential for an effective 2-tier complaints procedure, whereby residents who do not refer complaints to this Service may not receive similar offers. In addition, the resident has advised that the landlord has yet to complete works to paint his living room ceiling and clean his carpet, as it committed to do in the final, revised offer it made 6 months ago.
  15. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the reports of a leak in the resident’s property. It appropriately identified and acknowledged failures in how it responded to the initial leak reports and accepted there had been delays in completing follow on works. Its final offer of £400 to reflect those failings (and £50 to go towards damaged possessions, following correspondence not seen by this investigation) was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in the circumstances. The Ombudsman understands this has already been paid to the resident and no order is therefore made regarding further compensation. However, an order is made for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange for the painting of his lounge ceiling and carpet cleaning to be completed as agreed. It should also consider whether additional compensation is due, having taken into account the length of time these actions have remained outstanding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. After receiving the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord responded reasonably and provided a response in line with its policy and procedure. It identified where it had got things wrong with its repair handling, offered an explanation as to how this had happened and provided an appropriate apology and offer of compensation. While its offer of compensation did not accurately reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident, its complaint response at stage 1 was generally positive.
  2. However, there was a lengthy delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. While the landlord’s post-complaint review acknowledged this failing and offered an apology and redress via compensation, it is unclear whether the landlord has established why this happened. This should have ideally been identified and addressed within its stage 2 investigation and response and the landlord missed an opportunity to ‘put things right’ for the resident at an earlier stage and within its complaint procedure. However, its post-complaint offers of an apology and £100 compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s responses also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding reportedly failed appointments by gas safety contractors and its handling of his reports of a pest infestation in his roof. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly by responding to all the aspects of his complaint. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to reflect these additional failings. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and establish if he still considers these concerns unresolved and whether he still wants it to investigate these aspects of his complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord regarding:
    1. Its response to reports of a leak.
    2. Its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord initially failed to treat the resident’s leak report as a priority, which probably led to the collapse of his lounge ceiling, and it was unable to resolve the issue for an unreasonable length of time. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings, and further delays with making good the ceiling once the leak was resolved, and offered an appropriate mount of compensation, although this was not made until several months after the conclusion of its complaint procedure. It also failed to progress agreed works to repaint the resident’s ceiling and clean his carpet.
  2. The landlord’s initial complaint response was good, but it then failed to appropriately escalate his complaint in good time when requested. It again offered an appropriate amount of compensation, but it missed an opportunity to identify and address this failure within its stage 2 investigation. It also failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, without explaining why.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident and agree appointments for repainting his living room ceiling and cleaning his carpet. It should provide this Service with details of the appointment dates when works have been raised and booked.
    2. It should consider whether further compensation is due to the resident regarding the delay in painting the ceiling and carpet cleaning and write to him to confirm its position on this.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £50 to reflect the additional failures with its handling of his complaint.
    4. Contact the resident to establish whether he still wishes for his complaints regarding missed gas safety appointments and a reported pest infestation to be investigated. If he does, it should raise a new complaint and process this via its existing procedures.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with then above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.