Ongo Homes Limited (202515554)

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to complete outstanding repairs at the property including for damp and mould, electrical work and asbestos. The landlord advised that it was unable to carry out repairs that did not present a health or safety risk as the resident had an active right to buy application for the property. The resident lives with a health condition which the landlord is aware of. The resident lives at the property with her husband who has acted as her representative. For the purposes of this report we have referred to both as “the resident.”

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs prior to the resident purchasing the property.
3. We have also considered how the landlord responded to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs prior to the resident purchasing the property.
5. We made a finding of no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord explained its position on repairs at the beginning of the right to buy process. It reviewed the resident’s survey and completed the repairs it considered necessary. Its complaint responses gave reasonable explanations as to why it would not complete other repairs. However the landlord did not inspect the damp and mould in the property with sufficient urgency, given the resident’s health condition.
7. The landlord responded to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the required timescales.

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.

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. The landlord set out its position on repairs at the start of the right to buy process. On 11 November 2024 when the landlord accepted the right to buy application, it told the resident that it would complete only essential health or safety repairs while the application was ongoing. In correspondence dated 10 and 13 January 2025 the landlord confirmed that it could not provide assurance about the condition of the property, had not carried out a survey and would not undertake works beyond its legal obligations. The landlord reiterated this position in its complaint responses.
9. We recognise that the resident said they believed that that landlord had completed a survey when they began the right to buy process. The landlord explained in its final response that it had completed a valuation only, and not a structural survey. The matter for our consideration is therefore whether the landlord acted reasonably by determining that repairs relating to damp and mould, asbestos, and electrics did not fall within the scope of essential health or safety repairs.
10. The resident said that they reported damp and mould in 2024. The landlord addressed this and advised that the last damp and mould report it had received from the resident was in 2014. In the absence of any recent reports or evidence that damp and mould posed an immediate health and safety risk, it was reasonable that the landlord did not initially investigate.
11. However the resident then raised concerns about the impact on their health and disputed the landlord’s decision not to act. At that point, the landlord should have followed its damp and mould policy and investigated within 14 days. The landlord did not complete an inspection until 36 days later. This inspection acknowledged the resident’s COPD and concluded that the damp and mould present did not pose a significant health or safety risk. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take further action.
12. However given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the landlord could have taken more prompt action to assess any potential risk. This delay represented a more serious failing than it would have been for a resident without such vulnerabilities. The resident also reported worsening health conditions which they attributed to mould in the property. We are unable to determine causation or liability for the resident’s reported health impacts, as this would be a matter for a court or personal injury claim.
13. The resident said that their survey identified asbestos materials in the roof. An asbestos survey conducted in 2010 by the landlord tested the roof space and found no asbestos. In its complaint response the landlord explained that asbestos may be obscured behind other materials and that a further survey would only be required if intrusive works were planned. The landlord’s asbestos policy allows asbestos to remain in situ if it is in good condition, low risk and not disturbed during normal occupation or works. As there was no evidence of exposed asbestos and no planned disturbances, it was reasonable that the landlord did not treat this as an essential health or safety repair.
14. The resident’s survey identified potential risks posed by cables in the loft space and recommended an inspection by a registered electrician. The landlord confirmed that a valid electrical safety certificate was in place which found the cables in the loft to be in satisfactory condition. The landlord added that no electrical alterations had taken place since this inspection. As the identified concern had already been assessed by a registered electrician and found to be satisfactory, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the electrics did not present a health or safety risk.
15. It is also noted that the landlord reviewed the survey and completed some repairs including replacing the boiler and fixing the chimney. This suggested that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and fairly assessed which repairs it was still obligated to complete.
16. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision as they said the landlord had been aware of the repairs for over 15 years. The resident added that the landlord had not kept the property in a good state of repair as required by the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence of outstanding repairs reported by the resident. The landlord completed a stock condition survey in April 2024 which confirmed that the main components of the property were in good or satisfactory condition and not due for replacement. The evidence does not support that the landlord failed to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair or failed to complete repairs reported by the resident prior to the right to buy process commencing.
17. The landlord clearly communicated its position on repairs when it accepted the resident’s right to buy application. It reviewed the survey, completed necessary repairs and explained why other repairs were not essential for health or safety. Our finding of service failure is based on the landlord not acknowledging the resident’s reports of their health deteriorating. It also failed to investigate damp and mould with the required urgency, exceeding its policy timescale by 22 days.
18. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the frustration and inconvenience this caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings of a short duration which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to the vulnerabilities of the household, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and responded to each of the resident’s complaints within the required timeframes.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.    

Communication

21. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s communication.

Other

22. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s complaints and provided clear reasons for its decisions.