Onward Homes Limited (202505319)

Background

1. The resident told his landlord about ongoing repair issues at his property. He made a formal complaint but remained unhappy with the responses the landlord provided. He also raised separate concerns about possible asbestos following the landlord’s attendance, including concerns about potential exposure.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property
   2. the resident’s report of a loss of hot water
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property
   2. reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s report of a loss of hot water
   3. maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property

4. The landlord failed to demonstrate how it assessed if there was a risk once the resident raised concerns, in line with its asbestos safety policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a loss of hot water

5. The landlord acted within its repair timescales and the compensation offered reasonably recognised the impact on the resident.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to address all elements of the complaint in its stage 1 response and it delayed in acknowledging and escalating the resident’s complaint.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told us that he had concerns that he might have been exposed to asbestos, putting his health at risk. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconveniences.

What we have investigated

8. The resident reported a fault with the bathroom extractor fan on 12 June 2024. The landlord attended on 28 June 2024. At the visit, the landlord said it needed to replace the fan. It could not repair the fan because the parts were no longer available.
9. The landlord also saw a warning sign behind the fan. The sign said the wall contained asbestos. Because of this, the landlord did not replace the fan at that time. It recorded that it needed advice from a supervisor before taking further action.
10. This was reasonable at the time. The landlord identified a possible risk and paused the work so it could follow the correct asbestos process.
11. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) say asbestos was widely used in buildings built before 2000. It usually does not cause harm if it stays in good condition and is not disturbed.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that asbestos does not usually need to be removed if it is undisturbed. This matched HSE guidance and the landlord’s asbestos policy, which focuses on managing risk.
13. The resident said he did not receive an asbestos report at the start of his tenancy. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had not provided asbestos information and apologised. In its stage 2 response, it changed this position and said it had provided the report. The landlord’s records show it emailed a welcome pack on 18 March 2024, which included the asbestos report.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to correct its position at stage 2 after checking its records. However, the incorrect stage 1 response likely caused confusion and uncertainty for the resident.
15. On 25 March 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. He said he decorated the area before he knew asbestos was present. He explained that he stripped wallpaper and paint and worried this work may have disturbed asbestos.
16. After this, the landlord needed to make sure the asbestos had not been disturbed and that there was no ongoing risk. This required it to assess the resident’s concerns, check the condition of the materials, and decide whether to provide advice, reassurance, or arrange further inspection.
17. There is no evidence the landlord took these steps or explained whether the work caused any risk. While it gave general information about asbestos, it did not respond to the resident’s specific concerns. This was not in line with its asbestos safety policy
18. As asbestos is a recognised health hazard, this failure left the resident worried about possible health risks. The lack of clear advice or reassurance caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. This also meant the landlord did not handle the concern fairly or reasonably.
19. The resident told us he is still worried about this issue. We have therefore ordered the landlord to take action to address his concerns and to pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with our compensation guidance.

20. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs on the same day. For repairs that need 1 visit, it will complete them within 20 days.
21. The resident reported no hot water on 31 January 2025. The landlord attended on 19 February 2025, 13 working days later. This was within the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs.
22. The landlord’s website says it treats a loss of hot water in winter as an emergency. However, in this case, the landlord raised the repair as routine. It explained that this was because the resident had an electric shower.
23. At the visit, the landlord found the fault. The plate heat exchanger was blocked. There was also a leak from the boiler.
24. On 19 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord chasing the repair. The landlord explained that it needed parts and said the parts usually took 3 to 5 working days to arrive. The explanation was reasonable.
25. The landlord raised a follow‑on repair on 24 February 2025, 3 working days later. It completed the work on 7 March 2025, 12 working days from the date it raised the follow-on works.
26. The landlord could not complete the repair in 1 visit. However, it explained this to the resident, gave timescales, and kept him updated while the work remained outstanding. This was in line with its repairs policy.
27. We recognise that being without hot water would have been difficult and inconvenient for the resident. We have taken this impact into account when assessing the landlord’s actions.
28. In its complaint response, the landlord recognised its failings and offered £200 compensation. This covered this repair and another issue which we have not investigated, to reflect the delay, distress, inconvenience, and poor communication. It would have been helpful if the landlord had explained how the amount related to each issue and clearly set this out so the resident could understand how it reached the offer.
29. In the interest of fairness, we split the £200 evenly. We allocated £100 to each part of the complaint the landlord addressed. When we compare this to our compensation guidance, we are satisfied that the overall amount reasonably reflects the impact on the resident. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation.

30. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2024 edition. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code.
31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 workings days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the acknowledgement.
32. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2025, 5 working days from when it received the complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2025, 10 working days from its acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
33. The Code requires landlords to provide a clear response to the issues raised, including explanations, outcomes, and where appropriate, details of any actions to put things right. While the landlord referred to the bathroom extractor fan in its stage 1 response, it did not explain what would happen next, provide any timescales, or set out how the issue would be resolved. The response summarised the events rather than a meaningful attempt to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
34. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 25 March 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 8 April 2025, 10 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
35. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 May 2025, 21 working days after acknowledgement. This was outside the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
36. Although the resident did not escalate the extractor fan repair to stage 2, the quality of the stage 1 response to this was poor. As the complaint was not progressed beyond stage 1, we have not undertaken a further investigation. We can only review matters that have completed all stages of a landlord’s internal complaints process.
37. Therefore, we have recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of the resident’s complaint about the extractor fan. We have also ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident, in line with our compensation guidance, to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Learning

38. It would have been helpful if the landlord had clearly allocated compensation to each element of the complaint and explained how the amounts were calculated. This would help residents understand decisions, manage expectations, and reduce avoidable frustration and further dispute.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. In this case, the landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly record decisions, actions, or outcomes in relation to the extractor fan. Better information management, including accurate record‑keeping and clear documentation of how issues are resolved within the complaints process, would help ensure complaints are fully addressed.

Communication

40. It would have been helpful if the landlord explained what it was doing to address the concerns about possible asbestos exposure. This would have helped the resident understand the landlord’s position and reduced the risk of him feeling ignored or dismissed.