Onward Homes Limited (202342330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342330

Onward Homes Limited

31 July 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 response to damp and mould reports and the consequent handling of repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement. She lives at the property with her husband, who is also an assured tenant of the landlord, and their daughter.
In June 2023 the resident informed the landlord of a leak from the roof. The landlord’s inspection on 13 June 2023 noted that there were problems with damp in 2 bedrooms and the dining room which required repair work. The landlord recorded there was possible water penetration from the adjoining property, which is privately owned.
On 15 August 2023 the resident complained about the amount of time the repairs were taking and the impact of the damp and mould on her and her family. She also complained that she had been told that the owner of the property next door had been sent a party wall notice (PWN) in June 2023, but this had not been responded to yet.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. In this it:
1. acknowledged that the resident had been reporting damp and mould for some time and it had not resolved this
2. explained there had been delays in completing the repair due to the need to obtain permission from the owner of the adjoining property. It said that it had not received a response to this and was in the process of seeking advice about how to proceed
3. partly upheld the complaint, accepting it had contributed to some delays in resolving the damp and mould, but saying that the lack of response from the owner of the adjoining property was not a failure in its service
4. offered the resident £250 for delays and inconvenience.
The resident responded to the landlord on 4 September 2023 stating that she remained unhappy with the lack of communication about the planned works. She also said the need to keep cleaning and sleeping in rooms with mould was distressing to her and her family. She indicated she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 but remained in contact with the resident while the repairs were carried out. On 1 December 2023, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £2,012.13, which included £1,012.13 as a 30% rent refund from 5 June 2023 to 19 January 2024 and £500 to support redecorating the property.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord recorded that the resident had reported further leaks into the bedrooms following the repair carried out in November 2023. It raised an urgent repair and issued another PWN to the owner of the adjoining property to sign.
The resident contacted this service to complain about the ongoing delays in the landlord completing the repairs and the impact this was having on her and her family. This service contacted the landlord on 17 April 2024 and the landlord informed the resident it was escalating her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024. The landlord offered £2,112.13 compensation (inclusive of the previous offer) to reflect an additional delay in completing damp proofing work to the chimney in January 2024. The landlord’s response did not comment explicitly on the repairs to address the further leaks reported on 15 January 2024 and reiterated delays by the owner of the neighbouring property responding to the PWN were not a failure with its service. The landlord did not offer any remedy for the period after January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In her complaint to this service, the resident reported her concern that the landlord’s delay in treating the damp and mould may have affected the health of her daughter due to her asthma. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her family’s health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or if a health condition has been made worse, a personal injury claim can be made. The courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This may be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation, as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her family’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof and external walls, as well as the internal plasterwork of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says where it is responsible for the repair it will undertake this in line with regional repair policies and repairs will be allocated a response time depending on the classification of the repair. The landlord’s website states its typical response times are 5 working days for urgent repairs, which include ‘minor roof leaks’, and 20 working days for routine repairs.
The landlord told us that on 5 June 2023, it raised a routine repair following a call from the resident about a new leak to the front area of the roof. There is no evidence of the original repair request. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known exactly what the resident reported or what information the landlord gave her. It is also not clear if the landlord’s decision to categorise this as a routine repair was reasonable considering its website gives a minor roof leak as an example of an urgent repair. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord inspected the property on 13 June 2023. It identified multiple damp issues and requested the following work to address this:
1. that the roof be stripped and overhauled in the front-right corner to investigate water penetration to the front bedroom
2. that the gutter joint at the rear of the property and the adjoining property be checked and made good
3. resolution of reoccurring damp issues in the rear right-corner of the dining room
4. replacement of perished plasterwork and render to the areas affected by damp.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord recorded that problems with the roof were causing water ingress to the rear bedroom, where it adjoins the neighbouring property, and there was a similar defect affecting the front corner. The adjoining property was privately owned and the resident had informed it the property was unoccupied. The landlord recorded it would pass this information to its legal team to get details about the current owner to issue a PWN. The landlord said it would investigate and assess if it could complete the repair without accessing the adjoining property’s land.
The resident said that the landlord had told her it sent the PWN in June 2023. The evidence indicates the landlord first contacted the owner of the adjoining property on 1 August 2023, which requested the owner respond within 14 days. There is also no evidence of any investigation or repairs taking place before the PWN was sent. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what action the landlord took between 26 June 2023 and 1 August 2023 to address the repair request or what information the resident was given about this. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident says she was told by the landlord a plasterer would attend on 10 August 2023 to replace the plaster affected by the damp and mould. She says the plasterer attended on 10 August 2023 but told her that other work needed to be done first and left without carrying out any replastering.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 15 August 2023. This recorded:
1. there were damp patches in the front bedroom and dining room which the landlord had already actioned with a job to replaster
2. there was damp in the rear bedroom, which was considered to be low risk. The landlord suggested that there may be damp on the external wall which could be inspected with scaffolding
3. there was an additional area of damp on the wall of the lounge where a fireplace used to be. The landlord recommended installing a damp proof course where the chimney stack was
4. the rendering work required the owner of the adjoining private property to sign a PWN, which had not happened. The landlord noted a plasterer had attended in that previous week but advised the resident it would be pointless to replaster until the external work was completed, which she was unhappy with. The landlord agreed that external works should take place first and recommended it the PWN was signed as soon as possible as this would hold up remaining works.
On 25 August 2023 the landlord noted the additional works to the lounge and recorded that no response had been received to the PWN from the owner of the adjoining property. The landlord stated it would require further advice from its legal team. On 13 September 2023 the landlord’s internal emails requested an update on the party wall letter as it was required to progress the work.
Though the landlord repeatedly acknowledged the importance of receiving a response to the PWN, due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what further action the landlord took regarding this between 15 August 2023 and 13 September 2023. It is also unclear whether any information was given to the resident. The owner of the adjoining property’s delay in responding to the PWN was outside of the landlord’s control. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the lack of records of what the landlord did to follow this up was a failure.
The owner of the adjoining property returned their consent to the PWN on 16 September 2023. From the available records the landlord began the repair work on 6 November 2023, 35 working days after the PWN was returned. Due to a lack of adequate records, there is no information that shows that this delay was reasonable or unavoidable. Therefore, this was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no indication that the landlord considered prioritising the planned works to take account of the previous delays, even if parts of these delays had not been within the landlord’s control.
On 5 October 2023 the resident requested that the landlord send her a schedule of works as she would be unavailable on certain days, the landlord agreed to do this. On 19 October 2023 the resident told the landlord she had heard nothing further about the schedule of works and the scaffolding company had attended that day without notification. The landlord stated it believed its repairs team had contacted her directly about this and apologised if this had not happened. There is no evidence that a schedule of works was sent to the resident after this. This was inappropriate. In line with the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy it was required to keep customers informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of works.
From the landlord’s account of events, it completed the external repairs and rendering of the resident’s property on 9 November 2023 and the internal plastering on 10 November 2023. We have not seen any repair records regarding this work.
Notwithstanding this, the resident does not dispute that the landlord attended on these dates. She confirmed that the landlord completed the repairs to the dining room and front bedroom. However, she told the landlord the plastering of the back bedroom and lounge was still outstanding. With the external work, the resident stated that the landlord had told her that scaffolding would be taken to roof height to inspect for any issues. However, when the landlord’s operatives attended on 9 November 2023 she was told that the problem had been found below roof height and extending the scaffolding to inspect the roof was unnecessary. The resident says the landlord rendered over the external wall, rather than replacing the render, and she believes the further damp and mould reported in January 2024 could have been prevented if the landlord had inspected the roof.
From the available records the landlord did not specify whether it had agreed to replaster the back bedroom as the resident understood. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known exactly what work was carried out on 9 and 10 November 2023 and what information the resident was given about this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is not possible to say whether the further damp and mould reported in January 2024 would have been preventable. This lack of adequate records is a failure by the landlord.
In response to the resident’s concern that the damp in the lounge had not been treated the landlord noted on 14 November 2023 that this work had been identified in the inspection on 15 August 2023. However, it had not varied the repair to include this. It raised a new repair order for this which it completed on 23 January 2024, 112 working days after the landlord originally identified the work. This was not appropriate as it was outside of the landlord’s repair timescales. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord assessed whether it should have prioritised the repair order created on 14 November 2023 to mitigate the impact of its earlier mistake.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord raised an urgent repair in relation to the further leaks and damp reported by the resident. From the available records, it is unclear what action the landlord took to assess or investigate the further reports of damp until it sent a second PWN to the owner of the adjoining property on 25 January 2024.This was not appropriate as the landlord did not act in line with its timescales for urgent repairs to inspect and determine the cause of the issues. Though the landlord suggested providing dehumidifiers to the property on 18 January 2024 there is no evidence it acted on this or provided other support to the resident whilst the repairs were outstanding.
The landlord told us that it sent a follow-up letter to the owner of the adjoining property in February 2024 and staff had visited the property in person but the owner was not present. The landlord told us that the second PWN was signed and returned by the owner of the adjoining property on 22 March 2024.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion these were reasonable measures for the landlord to take to get the PWN signed and we do not consider that the delay in getting a response was due to a service failure by the landlord. That said, we have not seen any evidence the landlord kept the resident informed about what action it was taking to progress the repair works. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy.
Following the second PWN being returned the landlord told us it arranged an inspection for 24 April 2024. This resulted in a repair being scheduled for the roof on 20 May 2024. We have not seen any records of this inspection or repair work. This lack of adequate records is a failure by the landlord.
Notwithstanding this, the resident confirmed to us that the repair to the roof took place on 20 May 2024. This was 39 working days after the PWN was signed and 88 working days after the urgent repair was first raised. Due to a lack of adequate records, there is no information that shows that the delay following the return of the PWN was reasonable or unavoidable. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not act in line with its timescales for urgent repairs. From the available records there is no evidence the landlord assessed whether it could prioritise the inspection and repairs to take account of the delay in receiving the PWN.
The resident told us that following the repair work on 20 May 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended to complete a mould wash. The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not arrange this sooner as there had been issues with mould in the property for nearly a year. There is no evidence the landlord assessed whether a mould wash was required following the initial repair request on 5 June 2023, despite the resident informing the landlord of her concerns about her family sleeping in rooms with damp and mould. We have also not seen the landlord assessed if any other measures could be taken to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould in the 12 months the repairs were outstanding. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a serious failing by the landlord. It was not consistent with the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy which stated it should take account of the health of the residents and ensure a mould wash down is carried out in the first instance.
The resident confirmed that following the repairs on 20 May 2024 the damp and mould has not reoccurred. The landlord states that it replastered the affected internal walls on 4 July 2024. The resident agreed this took place but said the landlord has not offered any other remedy since its stage 2 response including the costs of redecorating after the further leaks in January 2024. This is not appropriate as it is not consistent with the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy which says where there is a need to redecorate following remedial work, the landlord will cover the costs of materials needed for redecoration.
The resident told us that 2 of the 3 bedrooms in the property were affected by damp and mould for 12 months, with the dining room and lounge also affected for 5 and 7 months respectively. The resident told us the delay in repairing the damp and mould caused damage to decorations, furniture and wood flooring in these rooms. The resident stated that she and her family were caused distress and disruption by the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its communication about these, in particular as their daughter was sleeping in a room affected by mould.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the reports of damp and mould and its handling of these repairs, in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the actions taken to resolve the repair request
2. did not act on the initial repair request from 5 June 2023, including issuing the original PWN, in line with the timescales in its policy
3. did not record what action was taken to follow-up the lack of response to the PWN after 15 August 2023
4. did not schedule planned repairs in line with its timescales, after the PWN was returned on 16 September 2023, or assess if it needed to reprioritise the work to take account of previous delays
5. did not communicate the timetable of works with the resident after she requested this on 5 October 2023
6. did not initially raise repairs to resolve the further damp identified in the lounge on 15 August 2023. It also did not schedule the further repair request created on 14 November 2023 in line with its timescales
7. did not act on the urgent repair from 15 January 2024 in line with its timescales, both in the time taken to issue the second PWN and in scheduling repairs after this was returned
8. did not arrange mould washes whilst the repairs were outstanding, or other action to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould, until nearly 12 months after the damp and mould was first reported.
It is likely these failures caused the resident distress, worry and inconvenience. In the landlord’s stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £2,112.13 for its handling of the repair request between June 2023 and January 2024 consisting of:
1. £1,012.13 as a 30% rent refund from 5 June 2023 to 19 January 2024
2. £500 for redecoration costs
3. £200 for distress caused by the delays in resolving the damp and mould
4. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience
5. £150 for administrative failures
We have not seen that the landlord has offered any remedy for the period after January 2024. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s stage 2 offer is not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of it being escalated.
Following the resident’s initial complaint on 15 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023, 11 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a service failing, though the impact of this would be limited.
In the resident’s response of 4 September 2023 she outlined why she remained unhappy with the response and the impact the events complained about were having on her and her family. At the end of the letter she asked that the issues were considered again and asked for the landlord to acknowledge the email.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident’s email of 4 September 2023 was a request to escalate her complaint but there is no indication the landlord acted on this request. In line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 if a resident is dissatisfied with a stage 1 response a landlord must progress it to stage 2 of its procedure unless it has a valid reason not to.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint or provide any explanation to the resident about why it did not do this. As a mitigating factor the landlord did remain in contact with the resident about the repairs and provide a revised offer of compensation in December 2023. Overall, the landlord’s actions were not appropriate as it did not act consistently with the Code, delaying the progression of the complaint.
The resident contacted this service with her complaint, including the ongoing delays in the recalled repair order. She told us that she had attempted to contact the landlord on several occasions about the complaint since 18 January 2024 but has not had a response. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 23 April 2024 following an intervention by this service. The landlord agreed to provide its stage 2 response by 8 May 2024, 10 working days later. This was appropriate at that time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response does not explicitly refer to any of the events in its the handling the damp and mould after 15 January 2024, which she had referred to when she brought her complaint to this service. The resident told us that the landlord did not contact her at the time it escalated her complaint to stage 2 to discuss the nature of her complaint or what she was looking for as an outcome.
From the available records there is no indication the landlord defined the complaint with the resident to set out its understanding of the complaint and what she was looking for as an outcome. As a result the landlord’s response did not address all of the points the resident raised with this service which we requested it to respond to. This was not appropriate as it is not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
1. delayed providing its stage 1 response
2. did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when she requested this or provide any reason why it was declining to escalate the complaint
3. did not define the resident’s stage 2 response with her to understand what she wanted it to respond to and the outcome she was seeking.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the consequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must issue the resident with a written apology within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £3,151.18, comprised as follows:
1. £789.05 for the loss of enjoyment of her home based on a 30% rent refund for the period of 20 January 2024 to 4 July 2024 (based on the Regulator of Social Housing’s average social rents in the resident’s area for 2022/3)
2. £250 for the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the complaint procedure
3. the £2,112.13 it previously offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so.
Within 28 days of the date of the determination, the landlord must contact the resident to assess the damage caused by the further leaks since January 2024 and the necessary works to redecorate the property. The landlord should pay the resident the cost of the materials needed to redecorate in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy. Alternatively, it can offer to decorate in the same style and specification to match. If it makes a cash offer, it is entitled to reduce this by the £500 it paid for decoration, if it has paid that already.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices: this should include consideration of:
1. how the delays in responding to the repair request (within its control) occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again
3. a self-assessment against the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.