Onward Homes Limited (202230826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230826

Onward Homes Limited

31 January 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a leak affecting the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and has been a resident since 16 April 2001. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord’s records show that the resident has a long-term illness.
On 27 May 2022, the resident reported that there was a leak on a pipe in the service cupboard in the communal hallway of the building. The resident said the leak was causing damp to his property.
On 4 August 2022, the resident complained that:
1. It had taken 26 working days for the landlord to address the leak, but it had failed to repair it. The resident said the landlord sent a joiner on 9 and 22 June 2022 instead of a plumber, which delayed the repair. The resident said the landlord had reported that it had completed repair works when it had not. The resident said the joiner who attended on 9 June 2022 reported fixing a leak, but this was in a different service cupboard.
2. The leak was ongoing and was damaging the flooring and paintwork in the communal area and causing damp in his property. The resident said the communal hallway smelt “musty and damp”.
3. The information and communication from the landlord were poor and departments could not find information regarding the repair. The resident said the landlord’s staff were unaware of the progress of repairs. The resident also said that the landlord had cancelled appointments at the last minute.
4. The landlord was unable to find the external stop tap. The resident said the landlord had told him it was his responsibility to contact the water supplier to stop the leak and turn off the water. The resident said there was a delay in contacting the water supplier.
5. The landlord raised a second repair instead of continuing with the existing repair. The resident said the landlord rectified this when he brought this to its attention.
6. The whole process was frustrating and caused him distress and inconvenience.
On 24 August 2022, the landlord repaired the leak to the pipe in the communal service cupboard.
On 3 January 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident in which it stated:
1. It received a complaint from the resident on 12 December 2022.
2. A contractor scheduled an appointment for 20 June 2022, but the resident had asked to rearrange the appointment. The landlord said the contractor still tried to attend but apologised for any inconvenience this caused.
3. It offered a new appointment on 29 June 2022. The resident said this was cancelled and rescheduled as an urgent repair for 27 June 2022. The landlord apologised for its poor communication.
4. The contractor did not attend on 29 June 2022 and a new appointment was arranged for 4 July 2022 which was attended. The landlord said that it found no leak.
5. It was working with its contractors to ensure the repairs were completed promptly and that updates were given. The landlord apologised for the delays.
6. It would offer the resident £100 compensation (£50 for poor communication and £50 for delays).
On 11 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. In his correspondence, the resident said:
1. The landlord acknowledged his original complaint on 8 August 2022. The resident said the landlord had incorrectly suggested that he complained on 12 December 2022, when in fact he said he was chasing a response to his complaint made in August 2022. The resident said he had tried to contact the landlord on 3 occasions and had no response.
2. There was damage to multiple properties as a result of the leak and the resident’s hallway cupboard was unusable. The resident said the hallway flooring and paintwork had been damaged.
3. It had taken 10 visits and 3 months for the landlord to repair the leak.
4. The landlord had investigated the wrong repair record in its stage 1 response.
5. There had been similar issues with other repairs, including delays, lack of communication and incorrect repairs resolved.
6. He wanted the landlord to provide him with a clear acknowledgement of what went wrong and why, an explanation of why his complaint was lost or not handled correctly and an outline of the steps the landlord would take to improve its service. In addition, the resident asked the landlord to ensure that contractors and managers understood what went wrong and why.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident. This can be summarised as follows:
1. The landlord stated that an administration error meant 2 repair orders were open on the resident’s account, both relating to a communal service cupboard leak affecting the resident’s property. The landlord said the 2 repair orders were confused.
2. The landlord apologised for its “oversight of missing the resident’s initial complaint”. It said the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint was due to a failure of internal procedures but it had implemented learning and training.
3. The landlord accepted there had been a failure in communicating with the resident throughout the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused.
4. The landlord informed the resident that a communal door entry system repair had been rectified but noted this was not part of the resident’s original complaint. However, the landlord said there was also a delay with this repair.
5. The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £100 to £250 for “delays, inconvenience and poor service”. The landlord said it would be taking learning forward to ensure work is completed as part of its stage 1 complaints.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In his escalation request, the resident referred to other repair issues which he said had been delayed. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had repaired an issue with a communal door entry system and there was a delay with the repair. From the evidence provided, there is no record of this repair issue in the landlord’s repair logs or evidence of any correspondence between the resident and the landlord on the matter. In addition, the resident did not raise this issue as part of his initial complaint.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak affecting the resident’s property

Paragraph 4(ii) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair “electric wiring, including sockets and switches, gas pipes and water pipes”. Further, paragraph 5 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair of common parts, including the common entrance and hallway.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out a time for completion of repairs. However, the landlord’s website includes a “repairs service” which states that it will attend emergency repairs on the same day, and any other repairs that cannot be completed in one visit, will be carried out within 20 days. The landlord’s repairs service states it will agree on a date with the resident for any “bigger and more complicated jobs”.
The resident first reported the leak on 27 May 2022. The landlord said it repaired the leak on 24 August 2022. The landlord therefore took 61 working days to repair the leak.
The landlord’s repair records initially categorised the leak on 27 May 2022 as a “routine repair”. It later updated this on 28 June 2022 to an “urgent repair” with a 5-day response time. The landlord created a new repair record on 14 July 2022 which said that the leak persisted. This was categorised as an “urgent repair” with a 5-day response time.
Regardless of the categorisation of the repair, the total time taken to resolve the issue was significantly in excess of the landlord’s repairs policy. It is important that landlords clearly explain its priorities and timescales to residents and, if they cannot be met, explain why more time is needed.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the delay was caused by an administration error, which meant that 2 repair records were open for the same repair. The landlord said this caused confusion. While the Ombudsman appreciates that administration errors may occur, the landlord is expected to monitor repairs through to completion to ensure that they are completed in accordance with its repair obligations and policies. In addition, the resident raised this issue as part of his initial complaint. However, the landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had found no leak when it attended the property on 4 July 2022. However, from the evidence provided, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 to ask for an update on repairs to the pipe. Further, in his complaint, the resident said he was concerned that contractors had implied that they had completed repairs when they had not. It is not clear why the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it found no leak, as this also contradicts the repair records provided which confirmed that the leak was still ongoing on 14 July 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident in writing upon completion of any repair works to confirm what work it had carried out and confirm that the resident was satisfied with the repairs.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates regarding the repair works. From the evidence provided, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair works on at least 8 separate occasions throughout July and August 2022. While the Ombudsman understands that some repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with residents and updates them on the progress of the repairs. It was not appropriate for the resident to have to repeatedly contact the landlord for an update on the repairs.
The resident said the delays were largely due to the landlord sending a joiner to attend the repair on 2 occasions rather than a plumber, as well as communication issues between the landlord and the water supplier. Based on the documentary evidence available in this case, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord sent an appropriate contractor to the property, or whether they were suitably qualified to assess and repair the leak. However, the landlord’s repair records clearly categorised the main trade required as “plumbing and heating”.
Regardless of this, the landlord failed to address this issue in its complaint responses to the resident. Landlords should ensure they correctly categorise repairs in order to effectively manage and respond to them. If the landlord was not entirely clear about what tradesperson was required for the repair, it may have been more appropriate to send an inspector/surveyor to assess what works were required to avoid unnecessary delays.
The resident explained that when a plumber attended the property on 4 July 2022, it was unable to turn the water off to the pipe and could not locate the stop tap. The resident said there were delays in the landlord contacting the water supplier to locate the stop tap, which resulted in him contacting the water supplier directly on 29 July 2022. The resident said he was also informed that another contractor would need to be in attendance to ensure that the boiler was not damaged when turning off the water. This caused further delays as the resident said that there were appointments that both contractors failed to attend at the same time. The resident said when the stop tap was finally located, there were further delays as the landlord was unable to turn the water off.
The resident said that the landlord told him it was his responsibility to contact the water supplier to locate the stop tap. The Ombudsman has not seen correspondence to confirm that the landlord advised the resident it was his responsibility to co-ordinate the repairs with the water supplier. However, it is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which would have likely left him feeling unsupported and distressed. As such, this was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The landlord has not provided comprehensive and detailed repair records showing the dates of all attendances at the property. The resident said that the landlord attended the property on 9 June, 22 June, 4 July, 8 July, 29 July, 4 August, 9 August and 24 August 2022. Despite this, the landlord has not referred to all of these attendances in its complaint responses and has not provided repair records to show what works took place on each of these dates. The landlord has provided some repair records, but the dates do not correlate with those stated by the resident. The landlord should ensure it keeps up-to-date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff to prevent any unnecessary delays.
The landlord has provided details of correspondence received from the resident, but the records do not always include information the landlord may have provided to the resident during telephone calls. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports regarding damp in his property and a “musty” smell and damage to the communal hallway. The resident first reported damp affecting his property on 27 May 2022. The issues regarding the communal hallway were later raised in the resident’s complaint dated 4 August 2022. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. The landlord should have therefore actioned the resident’s report of damp in his property in accordance with its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of 5 separate repair records provided by the landlord. However, none of the repair records refer to any investigations or surveys taking place to assess the issues the resident had reported. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said when a contractor attended there was no evidence of any smells. However, the repair records do not refer to this.
It is unclear what works, if any, were carried out to repair the reported damage to the communal hallway. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of damage to the hallway and damp to his property and carry out any necessary remedial works. Landlords should also ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord has offered some compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord has also acknowledged its failure to maintain contact with the resident throughout the complaint. While the landlord has offered some compensation to the resident, the Ombudsman has found the offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

There were inappropriate and unacceptable delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 4 August 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 January 2023 which was 104 working days later. This is 94 working days over the requirements set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states that landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days.
The resident said he received an acknowledgement from the landlord regarding his complaint on 8 August 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. Regardless of this, the landlord incorrectly stated in its stage 1 response that it received the resident’s complaint on 12 December 2022.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord failed to inform the resident that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure if he remained dissatisfied with the response. This is a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as per paragraph 5.8 of the Code which states that a landlord must include in its response details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident was not satisfied with the answer it provided.
There were further delays in the landlord providing the resident with its stage 2 response. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request until 80 working days later. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day response time outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also likely made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously. Further, it would have prevented the resident from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
The landlord failed to appropriately address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint. Specifically, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s comments that the leak had damaged the flooring and paintwork in the communal hallway, that the landlord had sent the wrong contractor to attend the repair, or that the leak had caused damp in the resident’s property. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns that contractor reports had incorrectly implied that repairs had been completed when the resident said they had not. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response lacked clarity and substance in addressing the resident’s request for an explanation of the delays in repairing the leak and responding to his complaint. While the landlord’s stage 2 response gave a reason for the delays in repairing the leak, it said the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint was due to a “failure of internal procedures”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to expand on this point to acknowledge what should have happened, what went wrong and why it went wrong.
Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
Overall, there were significant and multiple failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity, hindering its ability to consider the full history of the case. There were significant delays in responding to the resident and a lack of response to all the points raised in the resident’s complaint, which likely contributed to his distress and inconvenience over a considerable amount of time. While the landlord has offered some compensation to the resident, the Ombudsman has found the offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak affecting the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 28 days of the date of this determination to:
1. Contact the resident in writing to apologise for the failings identified in this report. A member of senior management must make the apology.
2. Pay the resident a total of £700 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the leak affecting the resident’s property.
  2. £250 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation is in addition to the amount offered in the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any amount already paid to the resident. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with this order.

Within 56 days of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The landlord must share the review with this service and the review must include:
1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
2. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
3. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord must, within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraph 42.