The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Onward Homes Limited (202224595)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224595

Onward Homes Limited

30 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 about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the boiler.
    2. A collapsed ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a three-bedroom house. She lives there with her young children.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 25 November 2021 that there was a radiator leak in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor suspected a leak on the central heating system both in the bathroom and a bedroom and advised the resident her belongings would need to be moved for them to investigate. The system was not isolated so the leak continued until 16 December 2021. At this time the leaks were repaired. From 27 January 2022 there were no reported issues with the boiler until September 2022.
  3. Between 1 September 2022 and 3 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor visited the property 8 times to carry out repairs and fit replacement parts to the boiler. After reporting her bowing lounge ceiling to the landlord’s out of hours service on 30 October 2022, the ceiling collapsed the next day.
  4. On 4 November 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. She was unhappy with the frequent issues with the boiler and that the landlord had not assessed or replaced the boiler. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the collapsed ceiling. The resident’s son had reportedly been injured when the ceiling fell and some of her belongings were damaged.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022 and offered £100 in compensation for the boiler issues. It agreed that the boiler had been attended too many times and organised an independent review. It did not accept any fault in its actions and attributed the resident’s refusal to allow the system to be isolated as potentially causing the leaks that resulted in the collapsed ceiling situation. The response also said that the delays in the ceiling repairs were because the resident did not move her belongings.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and took the case to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £250. It accepted that the contractor should have insisted the boiler was isolated. It also accepted that the decision to replace the boiler should have been made earlier. Advice was repeated from the landlord’s stage 1 response on how the resident could make a personal injury claim and a claim for her damaged belongings.
  7. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord’s version of events was not right and that the compensation was not enough.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported that her son was injured when the ceiling collapsed. The Ombudsman recognises the distress caused to the resident and her son by this incident. However, the Ombudsman does not have the power to establish legal liability or award damages. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice or a personal injury claim through an insurer. This is also the same for matters relating to damage to possessions. The overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident has been considered in this investigation.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she has experienced repair issues with her boiler since 2016. However, this investigation will focus on events from November 2021 as this is within 12 months of the resident’s formal complaint which is reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy reiterates this, as does the resident’s occupancy agreement. An emergency repair under the landlord’s policy should be attended to within 1 day. For other repairs that can be completed in 1 visit, the timeframe is 20 days. For bigger jobs, the landlord says it will agree a date with the resident and will complete the repair within 90 days.
  2. The landlord completed its statutory gas safety checks on 9 July 2021 and 28 June 2022. Both records stated that the boiler condition was “average”, and it passed the checks. The checks were carried out by a qualified gas engineer, and it was reasonable that the landlord accepted these ratings.
  3. The resident and the landlord are not in dispute about the landlord adhering to its repair timeframes. On each occasion the landlord attended the property within the timeframes detailed above. The landlord acted appropriately.
  4. As a result of the resident’s complaint to the landlord about the condition of the boiler, an independent survey of the boiler was completed on 28 November 2022. This found the boiler to be in very poor condition with 6 known defects. The landlord acted reasonably and ordered a replacement boiler. It was fitted on 5 December 2022. This was within the landlord’s timeframes and was appropriate.
  5. The landlords “home standard” document states that the landlord uses historical repair history to help them make sure components are replaced when they reach the end of their life cycle. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to show that the landlord used its systems in this case. Some of the call logs noted “repeat contact” which appears to demonstrate that the landlord’s system does have some capabilities to monitor and alert. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances to expect the landlord to review the cost-effectiveness of repeatedly fixing the boiler alongside the average ratings of the gas safety checks. It would have also been reasonable for it to assess the impact the disrepair was having on the customer. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not assess the boiler earlier, given there were 16 boiler related visits from 25 November 2021 to 5 December 2022. It was not customer focused or efficiency focused.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged that it should have made the decision to replace the boiler sooner than it did. It upheld this part of the complaint and increased its compensation offer of £100 at stage 1, to £250 at stage 2. This was not a proportionate remedy, considering the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience the resident had gone through. She had to initially report the issues 10 times between November 2021 and December 2022 and made further calls to complain or query the timings of the visit. The resident was concerned about the intermittent heating and hot water as she had a young family and she reported it was increasing costs for her.
  7. £600 would have been proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance. This states where service failure causes a medium impact to the customer, an amount of between £150 and £700 will be considered. Medium term is defined as between 3 to 6 months.
  8. In relation to this investigation the landlord provided call out logs from 2021 and 2022. There were no reports of boiler issues between 27 January 2022 and 1 September 2022. Therefore, the landlord’s remedy of a medium impact for a term of 3-6 months is appropriate as there were numerous call outs between September and December 2022, until the boiler was replaced on 5 December 2022. The Ombudsman however finds this should have been at the higher end of the medium impact scale.
  9. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler. While the landlord acknowledged its failing in not replacing the boiler sooner, it failed to fairly address the detriment to the resident that the situation had caused. The orders detailed below reflect this and the need for the landlord to robustly assess the lifecycle of its properties’ boilers.

The landlord’s handling of a collapsed ceiling

  1. Paragraph 2.3.1 of the resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the home, and this includes ceilings and plasterwork, but not the decoration of these.
  2. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the 2 times the boiler was not isolated in 2021 contributed to the ceiling collapsing. On 25 November and 13 December 2021, the system needed to be isolated to stop a leak. This did not happen. The leaks were fixed on 16 December 2021. The ceiling collapsed 10 months later, on 31 October 2022. It is not known how long the leaks had been running in the bedroom and bathroom before the resident reported them. This is neither the resident’s nor the landlord’s fault, as leaks can go undetected for some time.
  3. On 28 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended to the boiler making banging noises and producing intermittent hot water. The contractor’s visit log stated that a further appointment was needed to isolate the boiler to see if “leak is remote to boiler or on the radiators/pipework”. This means a leak was suspected. It was not reasonable that the contractor did not isolate the boiler then and offer alternative heating provisions. The ceiling collapsed 4 days later.
  4. The failure to isolate the boiler and locate the leak on 28 October 2022 allowed the suspected leak to continue, and the ceiling collapsed on 31 October 2022. However, at the time it was not within the landlord’s agreement with the contractor to insist on isolating a boiler as soon as a leak is suspected. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the appropriately qualified contractor in this instance, who requested a follow-on job to isolate the boiler and find the leak.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 November 2022, said that because the resident had refused to allow the contractor to isolate the boiler in 2021, this had potentially contributed to the ceiling collapsing. It based this finding on the contractor’s visit logs from 25 November and 13 December 2021 that said they had offered to isolate the boiler, but the resident had refused. It failed to acknowledge that, regardless of who said what, the contractor is the expert. It was their responsibility to explain why the system needed isolating and to provide alternative heating provisions. It was unreasonable of the landlord to place the blame on the resident and left her feeling like she could not trust it.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2023 acknowledged that the contractor should have insisted the boiler was isolated on the 2 occasions in 2021. It did not mention the 28 October 2022 visit. It explained that it had reviewed its procedure and all contractors had been advised that if a leak is suspected and not found, the system must be isolated until the leak is detected and repaired. This was a reasonable response from the landlord in that it showed it took action to learn from complaints and improve processes for all residents. However, it was unreasonable that it did not acknowledge that the boiler should have been isolated on 28 October 2022.
  7. On 30 October 2022 the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service and reported a leak from her living room ceiling. The service ascertained that the leak was containable and not near electrics. It advised the resident it would get the landlord to call her the next day. The landlord acted reasonably in its assessment of the repair and was not to know that the ceiling was going to collapse.
  8. The next day the landlord called the resident and booked a non-emergency repair for 3 November 2022. The resident stated that she explained the ceiling was “bowing”. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not raise an emergency repair based on the resident’s description. That evening the resident reported to the landlord that the ceiling had collapsed. The landlord then acted appropriately and treated it as an emergency repair. A joiner and a plumber attended and made the property safe.
  9. The evidence received as part of this investigation does not show if the landlord considered a decant for the resident. The evidence showed that the ceiling was removed, and that the property was left safe. However, in the circumstances it would have been reasonable to consider whether a decant was necessary and record the outcome. That the landlord did not, was unreasonable. On 30 November 2023, the landlord’s neighbourhood team and repairs specialist did meet with the resident to discuss any support it could offer. This was customer focused and demonstrated that the landlord had an awareness that the situation had adversely impacted the resident.
  10. On 16 November 2022 the contractor attended to fix the ceiling but could not complete the work. The contractor stated this was because the resident had not moved her furniture and was refusing to. The resident said this was not the case and the contractor should have had 2 operatives as they knew it was a big job. The contractor called the landlord on 17 November 2022 to apologise for only sending one operative. The contactor’s visit logs from the time detail a willingness to help the resident move the furniture. The landlord’s records also show a willingness from the resident to move her furniture. There appears to have been crossed wires in the conversations between the resident and the contractor. The landlord acted reasonably in passing on the apology from the contractor and rebooking the work for 2 December 2022. It also agreed to paint the repaired section of the ceiling, which it was not obliged to do. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response advised it would monitor the repairs and for her to call if she experienced any issues. This was a positive solution driven action from the landlord, trying to put things right.
  11. The resident was not happy with the standard of the ceiling repair and paint work and asked for the work to be inspected. The landlord agreed and inspected the work between the 9 and 13 December 2022 and on 13 December 2022 advised the contractor to carry out further works and paint the whole ceiling. The new job was booked for 5 January 2023. The actions of the landlord were reasonable. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and dealt with it quickly.
  12. The ceiling work was completed on 10 March 2023. The appointment had changed 4 times due to the contractor not arriving at the scheduled time and the landlord changing the dates for planning reasons. One change was to benefit the resident in moving it forward. From the point the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the works on 9 December 2022, it took 63 working days for the work to be completed. It would be reasonable for this kind of work to be within the landlord’s published timeframe of 20 days for a repair that can be completed in a day. It was not an appropriate timeframe and the landlord’s actions were not reasonable or customer focused.
  13. In summary, while there was some positive practice, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the collapsed ceiling. Its failure to isolate the boiler on 28 October 2022 contributed to the ceiling collapsing and it waited too long to inspect the ceiling. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings or offer any remedies for them. When the resident complained about the standard of work, it took a further 63 working days to complete the work. It was a difficult time for the resident, as her son was injured when the ceiling collapsed, and the landlord’s actions contributed to her increased distress and inconvenience. Orders have been made below in recognition of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint responses lacked impartiality and fairness. The landlord made errors in its processes and responses which further deteriorated the landlord and resident relationship.
  2. The resident asked her landlord to raise a complaint on 3,4 and 6 November 2022. The complaint was not logged until 8 November 2022. Whilst this was not a long delay, it was not customer focused. Paragraph 1.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) at the time of the complaint, stated that complaints should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service requests. The landlord acted inappropriately in not raising the complaint on 3 November 2022.
  3. An acknowledgement letter was sent on 8 November 2022 and the landlord’s stage one response was received within 10 days. These are both in line with the CHC timescales and the landlord’s complaints resolution policy, therefore the landlord acted appropriately.
  4. The landlord’s stage one response included contractor’s full names. Paragraph 4.9 of the CHC stated that communication with the resident should not generally identify members of staff or contractors as their actions are undertaken on behalf of the landlord. The landlord acted inappropriately in doing so. A senior manager looked at the response after it was sent and alerted the complaints team to their mistake, to prevent it from happening again.
  5. It is important to put the resident first when dealing with a complaint. It shows the resident that the landlord wants to fix the problem and repair the relationship. The landlord’s poor choice of words in the complaint response caused offence and left the resident feeling upset. She told the landlord she could not trust it. The accounts of the contractor and the resident differ, and the landlord was not there to know exactly what was said. The landlord should have explained this, not attributed blame when it only had one side’s accounts, and moved forward with a solution, to put things right.
  6. The landlord requested an extension to its stage 2 response, and it was completed one day over the new deadline of 12 January 2023. Whilst this was a failing, as it was a minor delay, it would not have had an adverse impact on the resident.
  7. Despite internally acknowledging the failings of the stage 1 response, the landlord did not acknowledge them or apologise for publishing the contractor’s names in its final response. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have been open and honest and apologised, to admit its failings, learn from its mistakes, and rebuild landlord and resident relationships.
  8. In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation and apologise to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a collapsed ceiling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident and her household. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £1000 broken down as follows:
    1. £600 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, in relation to the boiler repairs.
    2. £300 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, in relation to the collapsed ceiling.
    3. £100 for service failures in its complaints handling, causing distress and inconvenience.
  3. The above amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. If already paid, the £250 should be deducted from the above total.
  4. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review how it determines the lifecycle of a boiler to ensure it considers:
    1. The rating of the most recent landlord’s gas safety record.
    2. Historic repairs log.
    3. Age of the boiler.
    4. Energy efficiency of the boiler.
    5. Adverse impact the boiler is having on the household.
    6. Any other criteria the landlord deems appropriate.
  5. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide the Ombudsman with a written copy of the review.
  6. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review the training and documentation that relevant staff receive around the criteria for categorising repairs and what questions to ask residents when they report a repair. It must reflect the kind of repairs that are reported. The landlord must provide written evidence of the review to the Ombudsman.