Onward Homes Limited (202305336)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305336

Onward Homes Limited

27 August 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 the resident’s reports concerning a leak, damp, and mould at her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house, where she lives with her partner and their 2 children. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household, but she reports that her oldest child has recently been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and that her household’s health was affected by conditions at her property.
  2. Following previous reports from the resident and repairs by the landlord for water leaking from her bathroom into her kitchen and electrics and resulting damp and mould in 2021, she contacted it again in August 2022 about water leaking from her shower into the kitchen. As she reported the leak was going into a light fitting and her property’s electrics, it raised and attended an urgent repair for this after 2 working days in August 2022. The landlord found the leak needed a replacement bath panel and tiles to be regrouted that it could not complete at that time, so it rescheduled these works for 6 working days later in August 2022, when it missed its appointment and carried out the repairs on the next working day instead.
  3. The resident then told the landlord in November 2022 that water was still leaking from her bathroom to her kitchen, which it raised and attended as an urgent repair after 3 working days in November 2022. It completed works to replace the trim at the back of her bath that was letting in water at that time, but she reported her shower was leaking again in December 2022, which it raised a further urgent repair appointment for after 5 working days in January 2023. However, the landlord rescheduled on the day of the appointment for 2 working days later, and the resident subsequently rearranged this after another 4 working days, when it could not find a leak and so closed the repair. It also raised a mould wash in January 2023 but did not complete this until April 2023.
  4. The resident nevertheless contacted the landlord again in January 2023 and twice more in February 2023 to report the leak from her mouldy bathroom into her kitchen and electrics through the bowing and peeling kitchen ceiling was ongoing and causing damp that was not drying. She therefore asked it to re-inspect and repair this, which it identified as complex works in January 2023, raised repairs for in February 2023, and temporarily repaired her emergency leak report on the same day in March 2023, noting the ceiling was at risk of collapse and replastering was needed. The landlord then resealed the resident’s bath after 2 working days in March 2023, but she told it on the next working day the leak was still not resolved, so it twice attended and unsuccessfully attempted to gain access for this on the same day.
  5. The landlord subsequently attended another emergency leak repair on the same day in March 2023, finding complex works for bathroom tiles and the kitchen ceiling and wall, as water leaked through these. The resident then chased it and complained about this twice more each in March and April 2023, when it scoped works she asked it to bring forward from July 2023, which it requested but was unable to due to their complexity. The landlord’s subsequent May 2023 stage 1 complaint response apologised for missed and rescheduled appointments, repair delays, communication, the standard of its service and the resident’s inconvenience. It therefore identified learning to explain delays and cancellations, improve access and give updates, offering £400 compensation.
  6. The resident chased the landlord twice in May 2023 to bring forward the complex works, including for black mould and mushrooms in her kitchen, escalating her complaint when it could not. It subsequently fitted an envirovent fan in her bathroom in June 2023, when she reported kitchen worktop, cooker and bathroom furnishing damage and household illnesses, and its final stage complaint response explained its temporary shower repair should prevent leaks until the complex works. This also apologised for the delays and the resident’s distress and inconvenience, identified learning to review improving complex repairs, and increased the compensation offer to £600, but she twice disputed the shower repair and reiterated her repair and safety concerns in June 2023.
  7. The landlord then missed 4 working days of complex works due in July 2023 without notice, which the resident took off work and stayed in for, which she chased it to bring forward 6 times in August 2023, as it rebooked these for September 2023. It subsequently twice inspected her property with her and completed and post-inspected the works with her in August 2023. These included kitchen ceiling, unit, sealing, raking, grouting, plastering and redecorating works, and bathroom pipework, light, plastering, raking, grouting, tile, sealing, bath, shower and anti-mould painting works. The landlord paid the resident £1,000 compensation in September 2023 that she accepted for its further delays, her time off for wasted appointments, and decorating 2 ceilings.
  8. The resident complained to the Ombudsman the landlord had scheduled her property’s complex works outside its timescales, not brought these forward despite the above conditions at her property, missed its subsequent appointments for them, and not responded to her. She added this had caused her frustration, lost earnings, and concerns for her diabetic child’s and the rest of her household’s health, but it had only increased its compensation offers.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is concerning the resident explained her household’s health was affected by the conditions at her property, she lost earnings from taking time off work for missed appointments by the landlord, and there were leaks, damp and mould at the property from before 2022. His reports about this prior to 2022 and the effect on her household’s health and her earnings cannot, however, be considered by this investigation under paragraphs 42c and 42f of the Scheme. These state, respectively, that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising, or where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.
  2. As evidence has only been provided that the resident began attempting to formally complain about the above issues to the landlord from March 2023, this investigation is limited to considering its handling of her reports within 12 months of that date under paragraph 42c of the Scheme. It is also quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to seek a remedy for the effect on her household’s health and her earnings through the courts or other tribunal or procedure under paragraph 42f of the Scheme. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for effects on health or earnings in the way that the courts or insurers might.

Leak, damp, and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep her property’s structure in repair, including walls, floors and ceilings, and to keep in repair and working order installations at the property for sanitation and the supply of water and electricity, including baths, pipework and electrical wiring. Its customer charter at the time of her case required it to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s repairs handbook obliges it to aim to complete complex repairs needing extra skills, materials and inspections within 90 days without specifying whether these are working or calendar days, informing the resident of and agreeing a completion date for these.
  2. The landlord’s visual damp and mould guide requires it to respond to damp and mould reports by identifying, explaining, and completing the most appropriate solution as soon as possible, including mould washes, repairs and complex works. Its damp, mould, and condensation policy obliges it to clearly and regular communicate with the resident regarding its actions, with it considering if decants are required in more complex cases, based on individual circumstances.
  3. The landlord initially responded to the resident’s leak reports in line with her tenancy agreement and its customer charter. This is because it attended the leak from her shower into her kitchen, light fitting, and electrics she reported on 17 August 2022 within the charter’s 5-working-day urgent repair timescale after 2 working days on 19 August 2022. As the landlord found it could not then replace the resident’s bath panel and regrout the tiles needed for this, it was understandable it rescheduled these works. However, the fact it did so after another 6 working days on 27 August 2022 and missed this appointment was both contrary to the above timescale and unsuitable.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s next report of the leak from her bathroom to her kitchen on 14 November 2022 appropriately within its customer charter’s urgent repair timescale after 3 working days on 17 November 2022, when it replaced the trim at the back of her bath letting in water. It is nevertheless of concern she reported the leak from her shower to it again on 28 December 2022, which suggested this was an unresolved recurring issue, that it first suitably arranged to attend within the urgent repair timescale after 5 working days on 5 January 2023. However, the landlord subsequently inappropriately rescheduled its appointment on that date for 2 working days later on 9 January 2023, before the resident rebooked this for 13 January 2023.
  5. It is concerning the landlord could not find the leak during its latest appointment at the resident’s property, given her previous reports about this and the fact she then reported this was still occurring on 16 January 2023. It was therefore suitable it raised a complex repair on that date for a specialist leak investigation to identify the works needed to resolve this and the resulting damage to the property, but it was inappropriate the investigation only raised works after 21 working days on 14 February 2023. This is because the landlord exceeded both its customer charter’s urgent and 20-working-day routine repair timescales to only raise and not complete the works, which excessively delayed these even though its repairs handbook had a 90-day complex repair timescale.
  6. It was also unsuitable that, while the landlord followed its visual damp and mould guide to raise a mould wash for the leak’s effect on the resident’s property on 10 January 2023, it did not do so as soon as possible as required by the guide but after 73 working or 105 calendar days on 25 April 2023. This was not a complex repair but still exceeded its repairs handbook’s timescale for this in calendar days, and this delay was additionally not justified by it waiting to complete complex works to resolve the leak, as these were still outstanding when it did the mould wash. It is therefore of concern the landlord did not take steps to mitigate the effect of the leak and the resulting damp and mould at the property as soon as possible in the meantime, contrary to its guide.
  7. Moreover, given the landlord identified in January 2023 that complex works were needed to repair the leak at the resident’s property, and that this had resulted in damp and mould it recognised the property needed treatment for, it was unreasonable it did not at least consider if a decant was required. This is because its damp, mould, and condensation policy stated it would consider her individual circumstances for more complex cases in relation to whether a decant might be needed. The policy also obliged the landlord to clearly and regular communicate with the resident regarding its actions for damp and mould, so it was inappropriate that she had to chase it for works and inspections for this and the leak on 19 January and 6 February 2023.
  8. The landlord did comply with its customer charter’s 4-hour emergency repair timescale to attend the resident’s subsequent leak reports and temporarily resolve these and reseal her bath on the same day on 1 and 3 March 2023. However, it is concerning it recorded on the former date her kitchen ceiling was at risk of collapse and replastering was needed but it did not take action for this. While the landlord then described twice attending in the charter’s emergency repair timescale for the next leak report on 6 March 2023 on the same day but not gaining access, the resident disputed it did so. It did subsequently do so on 10 March 2023, but this again identified complex works for the leak through her bathroom tiles into her kitchen ceiling and wall it raised on 16 March 2023.
  9. It is therefore of concern the resident continued to chase the landlord for the complex works and updates on these on 17 and 27 March and 5 April 2024, contrary to its repairs handbook’s requirement for it to inform her of and agree completion dates for complex works. It did then attend to scope out the works on 6 April 2024 for these to be done at a later date, but it was unsuitable that she told it on 12 April 2024 that she still did not know when the works would be completed and was concerned for her family’s health and wellbeing from the outstanding leak, repairs, and mould. It is also concerning the resident subsequently chased the landlord on 18 April 2023 to try and bring forward the complex works scheduled for 19 to 24 July 2023.
  10. While the landlord explained to the resident on 10 May 2023 that it had tried to bring forward her property’s complex works but had not succeeded in doing so due to their complexity, this meant the works due in July 2023 would have exceeded its repairs handbook’s complex works timescale. This is because the works first raised in January 2023 were booked to be completed after 130 working and 189 calendar days and therefore excessively breached the timescale in both working and calendar days, which was unreasonable. The resident therefore asked the landlord to bring the complex works forward again on 12, 15 and 22 May 2023, but it once more confirmed it could not do so.
  11. While it may have been understandable if the resident’s property’s outstanding works were too complex to bring forward, the fact the landlord continued to not consider a decant or fully mitigate the lack of works apart from its April 2023 mould wash was inappropriate. It was therefore suitable it began to mitigate these by replacing her bathroom extractor fan with an envirovent fan on 5 June 2023, and told her on 23 June 2023 its temporary repair to her shower should prevent this from leaking when used until the complex works were completed. However, it is of concern the resident reported kitchen worktop, cooker and bathroom furnishing damage and household illnesses, disputed the shower repair, and reiterated her repair and safety concerns on 17 and 24 June 2023.
  12. It was also very unreasonable that the landlord then missed all 4 working days of complex works due in July 2023 without notice, as the resident took days off and stayed in for these, chasing it to bring them forward again on 31 July and 1, 7, 8, 9 and 11 August 2023, as it rebooked these for September 2023. It therefore appropriately inspected her property with her for the works on 4 and 8 August 2023, completed these on 11 August 2023, and post-inspected the works with her on 15 August 2023. These included suitable kitchen ceiling, unit, sealing, raking, grouting, plastering and redecorating works, and bathroom pipework, light, plastering, raking, grouting, tile, sealing, bath, shower and anti-mould painting works.
  13. Nevertheless, the resident’s property’s complex works took 144 working and 207 calendar days to complete in August 2023 after the landlord identified them in January 2023. This was 54 working and 117 calendar days in excess of its repairs handbook’s complex works timescale so was extremely unreasonable. The landlord’s complaint responses therefore appropriately apologised to the resident for its missed and rescheduled appointments, repair delays, communication, the standard of its service, and her distress and inconvenience. It also suitably followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes by identifying learning to explain delays and cancellations, improve access, give updates, and review improving complex repairs.
  14. The landlord additionally sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right, which was reasonable. It did so by arranging on 21 September 2023 to pay the resident £1,000 compensation for its repair delays, poor service and communication, and her inconvenience, time off for wasted appointments and decorating 2 ceilings. This was in line with the landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range for high impact from long-term delays in completing repairs, resolving the cause of complaints, and a significant breakdown in communication with the resident. Moreover, our remedies guidance recommended this range of compensation for significant failures in service by it with a seriously detrimental severe long-term impact on her, so it satisfactorily resolved this proportionately.
  15. It is noted that, after the events in the resident’s case, the landlord completed a self-assessment of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. We also previously ordered it to carry out a review of its learning and the improvements it needed to put in place under paragraph 54f of the Scheme in relation to issues including its repairs management. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any recommendations as part of this case duplicating those already made. The landlord has instead been recommended below to consider if any additional issues arising from this later case require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider if any additional issues arising from this later case require further action following its review of its learning and the improvements it needed to put in place for its repairs management from case reference 202204795.