Onward Homes Limited (202502130)

Background

1. The resident occupied her home with her son. Her daughter who lives elsewhere represented her in her complaint. This report will refer to the representative as if she were the resident. The resident reported that she had suffered for years with issues of a blocked toilet and drains. The blockages led to upsurges of drainage including raw sewage into the garden.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to her reports about her blocked toilet and drains.
3. We will investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her blocked toilet and drains.
5. We found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. While the landlord carried out investigations and repairs, there were delays in identifying underlying causes. The issues lasted a significant time and had a significant impact on a vulnerable resident. While the drains appeared to have been repaired, the toilet blockages remained. As the landlord made a sizeable offer of compensation, we did not increase it.
7. There was no evidence that the landlord noted any learning about the main issues in this complaint (apart from communication). Apart from referring to its policy, it did not explain why it did not look at the history of the repairs. This was frustrating for the resident as she had asked for this as an outcome.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. It was not disputed there had been a lengthy history of drainage and blocked toilet issues since 2015/6 with 102 works orders raised, some of which were duplicates. We have not looked at the entire history as we would expect residents to bring complaints promptly. The passage of time will make a fair investigation more difficult as records may be lost and memories fade. We have, however, noted the history for context and to take it into account.
9. The repair records showed that the landlord carried out a number of works including repairs to the drainage, replacing pipe work, unblocking the toilet and drains. While there were occasions when the landlord did not attend, or attended with the wrong equipment, overall, it attended promptly and unblocked the drains. However, this does not diminish the distress and inconvenience for the resident.
10. As the landlord acknowledged, there was a delay in contacting the water company. The contractor had suggested on 2 July 2024 that the defective drains were the responsibility of the local water company to address. The landlord contacted the water company in November 2024. This was an unreasonable delay. The water company disputed responsibility and only undertook a “very small” cleaning. Nevertheless, the landlord carried out works. It was reasonable that the landlord carried out works to drains that were the responsibility of the water company.
11. One of the obstacles was that the resident’s garden was overgrown. This was affecting the drains and was making it difficult to access the drains for inspection and carrying out works. Normally, garden upkeep is the responsibility of the resident, even if this means residents paying for services.
12. Where a resident has disabilities, the landlord should consider any duties under the Equality Act 2010 and whether it was reasonably able to offer assistance. This was in particular as repairs were required in order to access the drainage. Moreover, the housing officer initially stated that the landlord would address the garden, raising the resident’s expectations. Awaiting the landlord’s decision created a delay. There was no evidence it had made clear it may not assist her. This was unreasonable.
13. However, in January 2025 the landlord reasonably arranged to remove overgrown shrubs, rubbish and carry out some preparatory works for a new drain installation and other repairs. In September 2025, the landlord funded the costs of another clearance in order to access the drains but, in the event, the evidence indicated the work was carried out by a neighbour of the resident.
14. The evidence showed that the landlord acted promptly in response to the resident’s reports in unblocking the toilet. It marked the jobs as priority as the resident was vulnerable. The evidence demonstrated that it carried out repairs and CCTV investigations. It carried out works on drains that belonged to the local water company. That was reasonable. It was positive that the landlord instigated preventative quarterly surveys although it had failed to consider this sooner.
15. Despite the resolution in the Stage 2 response of May 2025, the resident made further reports of blockages. The landlord carried out further works to unblock the drain as well as the routine CCTV inspections it had promised, as follows:
    1. On 29 April 2025 the resident reported the drains overflowing and on 10 June 2025 the resident reported a toilet blockage.
    2. On 30 June 2025 a blockage was cleared. The cause was suspected to be due to waste and “excessive” toilet paper.
    3. On 7 August 2025 a CCTV inspection and cleaning was carried out. The drains were clear.
    4. On 3 September 2025 the landlord unblocked the toilet due to a blockage in the manhole.
    5. An inspection of 1 October 2025 showed there was a blockage due to “excessive” tissue and wipes. It was cleared.
    6. On 3 December 2025 the resident told us that the toilet had overflowed again 6 weeks previously.
16. The evidence indicated that the issue with the drains was resolved, but blockages continued, due to material being flushed down the toilet by residents whose properties shared the drains. That was not the landlord’s fault however it required landlord management. There is no evidence the landlord considered how to address this aside from one round robin letter in June 2025. We appreciate it is a sensitive subject. However, the issue is sufficiently important to address robustly, if sensitively. The landlord has the option of more targeted communication, including liaising with the neighbours. While it was positive the landlord carried out a preventative programme, we are not satisfied it had done enough to prevent blockages from the shared drains.
17. The drainage and blocked toilet had a considerable impact on the resident including:
    1. The resident has a number of physical conditions affecting her mobility.
    2. According to the resident’s daughter, there were occasions when the resident had to use a commode. This was undignified and embarrassing for her. The situation was affecting her mood.
    3. She had incurred costs of additional cleaning.
    4. It was limiting the use of her garden.
    5. There were occasions when raw sewage came into the garden as well as into the toilet and on at least one occasion, the bathroom sink. This was extremely unpleasant and concerning as a health risk.
    6. According to his support worker, her son, who was autistic, found it distressing and this caused him stress and anxiety due to the health risks.
18. While it addressed repairs as a priority, there was limited evidence of the landlord’s appreciation of the impact on the resident.
19. The resident also reported that she suffered a number of falls and she had contracted sepsis because of the raw sewage. We understand how distressing this must have been for her. However, we are unable to say the fall and the sepsis was due to the drainage as this would require expert investigation, including consideration of liability and would be a matter for a court to decide.
20. The Stage 2 offer of compensation went a long way to being fair and showed the landlord recognised the severity of the situation. We appreciate the landlord took steps and efforts to address and resolve the issues. However, we do not consider that the offer was sufficient. There was no evidence that the landlord took into account that this had been going on a significantly long time, which made the impact worse, the resident’s vulnerability and the undignified situations she faced.
21. There was also a delay in taking a proactive rather than reactive approach. There were a number of reports and repairs over the years but little evidence of the landlord carrying out investigations in order to address the underlying causes. Given the long running history of reports, the landlord should have reviewed the repair history in full at an earlier point and proactively addressed the issues including considering any preventative action it could take.
22. While preventative measures are in place, and may not be the fault of the landlord, blockages have continued to occur. We are concerned this indicates that the measures are not sufficient. We consider the landlord has offered sufficient compensation. The resolution at this stage is not more financial redress. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation but have focussed on specific actions which aim to prevent recurrence.
23. While the complaint was not about her application to transfer, the condition of the toilet and drains was adversely affecting the resident as well as a number of other unrelated reasons to move. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord considers whether a management move is possible. We appreciate this may not be possible for a number of reasons.

24. The landlord acknowledged it did not respond to the resident’s complaint of March 2023. It offered compensation for its failure which we consider reasonable and within our own guidelines. The Stage 1 response provided a timeline and both responses acknowledged its failings. The evidence showed that the complaints officer monitored the repairs as they said they would. This was positive.
25. There was a delay to the Stage 2 response from February to April 2025 however that was due to the necessity of arranging the resident’s consent for her daughter to be her representative in the complaint.
26. The landlord limited its investigation to the 12 months before the complaint was made. Its policy stated that a resident should make a complaint within 12 months of the event complained of, which the resident had. This does not necessarily limit the period of investigation. We appreciate that it may be disproportionate to extend an investigation to before 12 months. It was in the landlord’s discretion whether to go back 6 years as requested by the resident. However, it was unreasonable the landlord did not give its reasons for not doing so, except to refer to its policy. It was also unreasonable not to consider that these issues had been of a very long duration.
27. Despite the resident specifically making the request, the landlord did not set out its learning from the complaint apart from its communication in the Stage 1 response. It missed an important opportunity in what is a serious case. Our Code states that landlords must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of any learning from the complaint.
28. We have made a finding of service failure because we do not see evidence of the landlord learning from this complaint despite the resident asking it to do so. It also did not explain why it did not look at the history or take the context into account. This was frustrating as she particularly wanted this as an outcome to her complaint.

Learning

29. The complaint highlighted the need to:
    1. ensure the landlord resolves underlying causes at an early stage, such as, in this case, drain defects and the water company’s responsibilities.
    2. implement preventative plans in a timely manner.
    3. escalate issues internally sooner where there are repeated repair orders over a number of years.
    4. keep at the forefront of all decisions a resident’s circumstances, the impact of any issues on residents and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We did not have concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

31. We consider the landlord could have expressed a greater understanding of the resident’s specific circumstances and ensured she was updated via her representative.