We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Onward Homes Limited (202408471)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408471

Onward Homes Limited

4 November 2025


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:
    1. handling of repairs.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. His tenancy of the property began in 2012. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records reflect that the resident has a brain injury.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 July 2024 that it had not completed various repairs in the property. This included repairs to windows, the shower, the toilet, door handles, electrical switches and plasterwork. He also said a ceiling was leaking and the property was damp.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 16 July 2024. It said:
    1. it had attempted to attend to repairs at the property on “numerous occasions” over the previous 3 years but the resident cancelled or was not at home to allow it access each time.
    2. following receipt of the resident’s complaint, it arranged to inspect the property on 10 July 2024 but was unable to gain access.
    3. it had arranged for a further inspection to take place on 25 July 2024.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 3 September 2024. He said all the repair issues he previously reported remained outstanding.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would issue a stage 2 response by 1 October 2024. However, it did not respond until 24 April 2025. It said:
    1. it did not carry out the inspection it arranged for 25 July 2024 as the resident was not at home when the operative attended.
    2. it arranged a further inspection for 11 December 2024 but the resident cancelled the appointment as he said he had other commitments.
    3. it had arranged to carry out a full survey of the property on 29 April 2025. It would then write to the resident with details of any remedial work required.
    4. it was sorry for its “significant delay” in issuing the stage 2 response. This was due to an administrative error. It offered the resident £250 compensation as an apology.
    5. upon determining the repair requirements, it would consider if it should pay the resident compensation for the outstanding issues.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response and referred his complaint to us. He told us he wanted the landlord to complete all the outstanding repairs and to compensate him for the distress its delay in doing so had caused him. He also asked us to consider its complaint handling. The complaint became one we could investigate on 12 May 2025.
  7. Meanwhile, the landlord’s survey of the property on 29 April 2025 did not go ahead. Its records show it rearranged this at the resident’s request and carried it out on 19 May 2025. It found the overall condition of the property to be “good”. It identified that numerous “minor repairs” were required to electrics, plasterwork, kitchen cabinets and worktops, and in the bathroom. It also noted some “light mould” around windows and signs of recent water entry.
  8. On 3 June 2025 the landlord told us it had completed the electrical work. It had built scaffolding to survey the roof and fix the cause of the water leak. It said it was in “ongoing discussions” with the resident about arranging a convenient time for it to complete the remaining remedial works.
  9. A senior officer of the landlord met with the resident on 21 June 2025 to discuss his complaint and the repair issues at his property. The landlord then issued an updated stage 2 response on 24 June 2025 in which it offered the resident £4,000 compensation for its “failure to complete works”. It advised us that it has since paid this to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs

  1. The landlord was responsible under a combination of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement and its policies for resolving all of the repair issues included in the resident’s complaint.
  2. Having received the complaint on 3 July 2024, the landlord should have inspected the property and carried out any required works within a reasonable amount of time. Its repairs policy does not specify what that timeframe should have been as it varies across regions. However, we would have expected it to provide an urgent response to the reported leak, damp and electrical issues. These are all hazards identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  3. Instead, 10 months passed before the landlord carried out a full survey of the property in May 2025 and determined what work was required. This was an excessive and inappropriate delay that has led us to find maladministration in its handling of the repairs.
  4. We acknowledge that part of the reason the landlord did not complete the full survey sooner was because the resident cancelled or was unavailable for appointments it had previously arranged. Its records show that the resident had reported some of the issues, including the leak, from 2021 onwards. The landlord attempted, but was unsuccessful, in inspecting the property 6 times between 2021 and 2023.
  5. During 2024 it attempted, but was unsuccessful, in inspecting the property in January 2024, March 2024, and twice in July 2024. It carried out a partial inspection in November 2024 but decided a further inspection was required. It arranged this for December 2024 but the resident cancelled it on the day. It did not reschedule this until April 2025 when it told the resident, in its stage 2 response, it would carry out a full survey. The resident asked it to reschedule this, which it did, and it carried out the survey in May 2025.
  6. While we recognise the landlord’s attempts, we have found its approach to rescheduling the missed appointments was not robust enough. For example, we would have expected it to remind the resident of his obligation under the tenancy agreement to permit it access. It should have advised him of the potential consequences of failing to do so, for example, that it could seek an injunction for access. We have seen no evidence it gave him any such advice.
  7. Instead, months at a time passed between its attempts to rearrange inspections. These attempts followed the resident getting back in contact with it each time, as opposed to the landlord proactively trying to rearrange the inspections. This was inappropriate given its repairing obligations.
  8. In our recent Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ we highlighted the importance of landlords making sure they reschedule missed appointments. We have recommended the landlord reviews this case, in particular its management of missed appointments, with reference to that Spotlight report.
  9. A further consideration for the landlord in this case should have been the resident’s brain injury. He told us this affected his memory. This therefore may have contributed to the pattern of missed appointments. The landlord appears to have discussed the case and recognised this vulnerability during an internal meeting in November 2024. It decided that a housing officer should attend the inspection it had arranged for later that month with a repairs officer, to “see if any extra support and help is needed”.
  10. While this was good practice, it appears that the 2 officers who went to the inspection in November 2024 ended it early due to the resident’s behaviour. The landlord noted that the resident was verbally abusive and intimidating towards its officers. We understand the landlord then issued him with a verbal warning for his “behaviour and language towards staff”. We appreciate that the landlord’s officers would have found it challenging to progress with the inspection due to the residents behaviour, so we understand why the officers chose to end the inspection early. However, we have seen no evidence that it considered if there was any “extra support and help” it could offer him so that it could gain access to the property and fulfil its repairing obligations.
  11. For example, the landlord could have asked the resident if there were any reasonable adjustments it could put in place, such as asking a family member or advocate to act on his behalf. We have seen evidence that it did on occasions speak to his family members, but this was an informal arrangement. While we accept the resident may not have wanted to put anything formal in place, the landlord should have made him aware of his options so he could make an informed decision.
  12. Overall, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. This is due to its delay in surveying the property and carrying out remedial works. We are satisfied that it has reasonably compensated the resident for this through the £4,000 offer it made in its additional stage 2 response letter in June 2025.
  13. However, it is unclear from the letter whether it has now completed all the remedial works. We therefore order it to write to the resident, apologise for the failings we identified, and include within this letter its action plan for completing any outstanding repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), requires it to issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days of it acknowledging an escalation request.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the day he sent it. It told him it would reply by 1 October 2024. However, it did not issue the response until 24 April 2025. This was only after the resident referred the complaint to us, and we intervened and asked it to respond.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response for this “significant delay” and offered the resident £250 compensation.
  4. The £250 compensation it offered exceeds the guideline amount of up to £100 that our Remedies Guidance suggests is reasonable for a complaint handling service failure such as this. It also exceeds the £150 maximum that the landlord’s policy states it will offer for a complaint handling delay. However, given the length of the delay, it was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a higher amount.
  5. Overall, we are satisfied the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling prior to our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to his concerns about its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident. The letter should:
    1. contain an apology for the maladministration identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. contain an action plan with timelines to explain how it intends to complete any outstanding repairs in the property.
    3. ask the resident if there are any reasonable adjustments he wishes it to put in place to assist with the scheduling of future appointments.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord reviews this case, in particular its management of missed appointments, with reference to the findings and recommendations in our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’.