Onward Homes Limited (202342303)

Decision
Case ID	202342303
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Onward Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

The resident was the tenant of the property between February 2018 and February 2024. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat situated in a converted building. The resident complained that the landlord failed to respond to and address various issues relating to his tenancy. The issues he raised related to repairs, fire safety, estate management, rent, communication and complaint handling. The resident asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to and handling of tenancy issues raised by the resident.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the failings in respect of its response to and handling of tenancy issues which he raised.
The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the failings in its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

In summary the Ombudsman found:

The landlord’s response to and handling of tenancy issues raised by the resident

The evidence shows that the landlord’s response to and handling of the tenancy issues raised by the resident was not always satisfactory. This included not responding to all repairs in line with its repairs policy, poor communication, not responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s front door and delay in replacing the carbon monoxide detector. However the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its failings and offered proportionate compensation in recognition of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord awarded proportionate compensation in recognition that it had delayed in providing a complaint response to the resident which addressed the issues he had been raising with it for an extended period of time.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 February 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint about various issues relating to his tenancy. He provided a comprehensive list, totalling more than 70 items, which detailed the issues subject of the complaint. The issues related to repairs, fire safety, estate management, rent, communication and complaint handling. He explained that the issues had had a detrimental impact on his health, had resulted in loss of earnings as he had to leave his job and damage to his personal items.
3 February 2024	The resident also contacted us. He said that despite raising many complaints with the landlord regarding matters relating to his tenancy it had failed to respond. We therefore requested that the landlord contact the resident and respond to his concerns under its complaint procedure.
27 February 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that it would respond to all issues which the resident had raised in the complaint and via us at stage 2 of its complaint process. Within its response it listed all the issues which it understood the resident was unhappy with and invited him to provide any further information.
13 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. In summary the landlord said: On 28 November 2023 it inspected the property. The inspection did not identify any repair issues however it agreed to install thermal plasterboard to the external walls to improve the thermal efficiency of the property and minimise the potential for condensation. The resident had declined to include the bathroom as part of the inspection as he said all issues had been resolved which had arisen following the bathroom replacement works. During the inspection it assessed the kitchen layout as the resident had refused to proceed with its replacement in summer 2023. It agreed a revised design with the resident. The fire risk assessment completed in May 2022 confirmed that all entrance doors in the building were appropriately fire rated and in good working order. However following a further inspection in January 2024 it had decided to replace the doors as “minor” repairs had been identified. It was sorry that the fire test was not completed in December 2023 as scheduled. The test was completed in January 2024 and no issues were highlighted. It was sorry that it had delayed in providing a replacement carbon monoxide detector after the resident had raised concerns with the original device which was fitted in May 2023. It was sorry that all hedge clippings had not been removed during grounds maintenance works. The clippings however had fallen onto a ledge which the contractors were unable to safely access at that time. The local authority was responsible for items which had been left outside of the building as it was on land which it owned. It had not received any reports of rodents in the building and therefore it was unable to investigate further “at that stage”. Its records showed that the communal grounds were attended to regularly. The visits had been inspected and successfully passed its internal quality process checking. Therefore no adjustment would be made to the associated service charge. It provided a breakdown of the level of rent and service charge for the property. The rent for the property was set and aligned in line with the government’s rent standard. It was sorry that its contractors had requested access to the property despite the resident cancelling appointments. It was sorry that the resident had experienced difficulties in communicating with it. This was in part due to needing several staff members’ input to resolve the resident’s enquires. It had also found communicating with the resident difficult due to the volume of contact it had received from him and because the tone of some of his contacts was “unacceptable”. On 9 January 2024 the resident informed it that he intended to terminate his tenancy and requested that any repair work was completed after he had left the property. It would like to offer the resident £4,000 compensation in response to the complaint. The resident was able to pursue a personal injury claim with its insurers in relation to his concerns regarding the impact of the complaint on his health and employment.
14 March 2024	The resident replied to the stage 2 response. He stated that while there remained “numerous aspects missing” from the response he would “accept £5,000”. Within his correspondence he stated that the repair issues had been ongoing since 2018 and he had not be able to enjoy the property since that time.
19 March 2024	The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response. Within the response it responded to several additional complaint points in relation to its repairs service. In summary it said it had no record of any reports made of issues with the communal entry door, apologised that the central heating was not working at the start of the resident’s tenancy and apologised that its contractors had left no access cards when he had been home and they had not always worn their identification badges. It confirmed that it would increase its offer of compensation to £5,000 comprising: £1,000 for the time spent by the resident in attempting to resolve the issues experienced. £500 for the damage caused to the carpet and the resident’s belongings during the bathroom replacement. £1,000 for the poor service provided by its repairs contractors and in recognition of the inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of the property while repairs remained outstanding. £500 in recognition that the resident’s details were added to communal repairs. £750 as an apology for the delays in resolving the resident’s complaint. £526.63 refund of rent to cover the final month of the resident’s tenancy as during this period he experienced poor service and disruption. £200 in recognition that the central heating was not fully functional at the start of the resident’s tenancy. £500 in recognition of the administrative failures which had occurred during the resolution of the complaint. £23.37 to round the final value of redress to £5,000.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident requested that we investigate the complaint. He said that despite no longer living in the property he was not happy with how the landlord had managed his tenancy.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to and handling of tenancy issues raised by the resident.
Finding	Reasonable redress

In determining this part of the complaint the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s overall response to the tenancy issues which the resident raised rather than considering its response to each of the individual issues raised by the resident. As part of this approach we will however explore some issues in more detail. We consider that this is a proportionate approach, noting the number of matters raised and taking into account the resident’s tenancy has ended.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to and handling of the issues which the resident raised as part of the complaint.
The records relating to repairs show that during the resident’s tenancy he raised multiple repair issues. The repairs included the doors, windows, taps, heating system, draughts, flooring, bathroom and kitchen. From review of the records we have not been able to clearly assess how the landlord responded to the repair issues once raised as the records provided do not contain sufficient or clear details. We can however see that there were some missed appointments, some cancelled appointments and some partially completed appointments. From this information we can however reasonably conclude that the landlord’s response to some repairs was not completed in accordance with its repairs policy. As a result the resident will therefore have experienced inconvenience and distress. The landlord acknowledged that its repairs service was not always satisfactory.
While the repair records are limited, the report following the inspection on 28 November 2023 confirmed that the property was habitable with no outstanding repair issues. We understand that the inspection was in response to contact by the resident in late 2023 detailing multiple repair issues. The inspection was an appropriate response by the landlord to determine if there were any issues which required its intervention.
From review of the evidence we understand that the resident’s concerns relating to fire safety were primarily in relation to the property’s front door, specifically that it was not fireproof, was poorly fitted and in need of repair.
In January 2024 the landlord commissioned a fire door inspection. The evidence documents that the inspection was in response to updated legislation on fire safety. The results of the inspection confirmed 4 remedial actions were required to address “minor” issues with the property’s door which included “excessive door to frame gaps” and damaged hinges and screws. We note that these are issues which the resident had raised with the landlord prior to the inspection and in 2023. We cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the door to explain why or why not any intervention was needed prior to the inspection. This is a failing. It was appropriate that the landlord committed to replacing the door promptly following the findings of the survey.
The landlord’s records document that a carbon monoxide detector was installed in the property in May 2023. From the evidence we cannot see when the resident began raising concerns regarding the device after it was installed. However we note that the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in replacing the device following contact from the resident reporting that it was defective. It is concerning that the landlord delayed in replacing the device as the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022 confirm that a landlord must ensure that carbon monoxide detectors are repaired or replaced once informed and found that they are faulty.
The landlord’s records document that its contractors attended the building to carry out grounds maintenance on a regular basis. In order to satisfy itself regarding the standard of work completed it inspected the work. While the resident was not satisfied with the standard of work undertaken it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the service provided overall was acceptable based on the outcomes of the inspections. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised that some hedge clippings had not been removed and explained why this had happened.
In responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the level of rent and service charge it was appropriate that the landlord provided a breakdown of the charges applied to the tenancy. We cannot see that the landlord informed the resident of his right to contact the first tier property tribunal property chamber (the FTT) should he remain concerned with the level of rent or service charge. This would have been best practice as the FTT may deal with disputes of this nature.
The evidence shows there has been a significant amount of communication from the resident to the landlord raising issues about his tenancy. While the landlord was communicating with the resident regarding the concerns he was raising we do not consider that its response were always timely, coordinated, structured, or clear on outcomes. This will have resulted in confusion and frustration to the resident. We acknowledge that the high volume of communication from the resident may have been difficult to manage but it was for the landlord to put in protocols to manage this. This could have helped the resident to communicate his concerns and the landlord to effectively manage them. The landlord acknowledged that its communication was not always satisfactory.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the service it had provided to the resident in respect of his tenancy had fallen short on some occasions. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure, the Ombudsman will consider whether the offer of redress the landlord has made is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. In this case the landlord offered a total of £3,750 for the various issues identified and apologised.
In calculating the payment the landlord demonstrated that it considered how the resident had been impacted and to therefore reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. We consider the landlord’s offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress. This is because the level of compensation offered was significant and falls within the range of cases where the Ombudsman considers there have been serious failing by a landlord which has had a detrimental impact on the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Reasonable redress

In responding to the complaint the landlord determined that the most appropriate way to respond to the resident was to provide a stage 2 response as a first response. The landlord explained its reasoning for doing so on 27 February 2024. It said that it considered that a stage 2 response was appropriate to address “all the issues where you feel you have not had an adequate resolution in previous complaints”. We consider that the landlord’s approach was reasonable in order to facilitate and support the earliest resolution to the tenancy issues which the resident raised on 3 February 2024 and said had been outstanding for a significant period of time. We can see that the landlord signposted the resident to us within its stage 2 response on 13 March 2024. This was appropriate as the landlord indicated that its response was its final position.
The landlord did provide an addendum to its stage 2 response on 19 March 2024 following the resident’s request for additional compensation. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was seeking to find a resolution which the resident was satisfied with.
In making a decision on the complaint the landlord awarded some compensation for issues which were not discussed or reviewed within the main body of its response. For example, damage to the carpet following the bathroom replacement and repairs. While the compensation breakdown does include detail about why an offer had been made it would have been helpful if these issues were addressed as part of the main investigation. This would have ensured that the resident was fully aware of the landlord’s position on each matter.
In responding to the complaint the landlord confirmed its position in response to the resident’s allegations regarding the situation on his health and employment. It said that the resident may make a personal injury claim. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident.
The landlord offered £1,250 compensation for failings in its complaint handling. This was reasonable as the landlord recognised that it had delayed in providing a complaint response which addressed the issues the resident had been raising with it for an extended period of time. We consider the landlord’s offer for complaint handling issues was reasonable in recognition of the impact on the resident.

Learning

Within the landlord’s complaint responses it provided a comprehensive learning section. The landlord set out the learning opportunities which had been identified as a result of the complaint. This is good practice and in line with the principles of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which requires a landlord to use complaints to deliver service improvements.
Our investigation identified that some of the landlord’s repair records lacked sufficient detail and information documenting the actions and outcome of a repair. The landlord should ensure that its repair records contain an appropriate level of detail to document how it is meeting its obligations.