Ongo Homes Limited (202204205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204205

Ongo Homes Limited

13 April 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Decoration to the resident’s bathroom and dining room and a banister repair.
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 25 September 2009. The property is a three bedroom house.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has three priorities for repairs:
1. Same day priority for emergency repairs.
2. Next day priority for urgent repairs.
3. An appointment offered based on customer requirements and the availability of resources.
The landlord’s maintenance policy says that it will carry out repairs to a loose, or detached banister, or handrail on an appointment basis.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within ten working days. Stage two complaints are responded to within 14 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may make a payment where a complaint has been upheld and it believes its actions or inactions caused distress, inconvenience or loss to the complainant. The landlord may also pay compensation to customers if it fails to keep a pre-arranged appointment and financial loss is suffered as a result.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised the issue of damp in her bathroom in May 2020. Works to remedy the damp were agreed and completed through the disrepair process. The concerns brought to this service by the resident, and considered through the landlord’s complaints process, relate to the decoration of the bathroom, and a small area of the dining room, following the bathroom refurbishment. This investigation will therefore only examine events in relation to the bathroom and dining room from April 2022 onwards. This timeframe aligns with the landlord’s complaint responses.

Summary of events

On 23 March 2022, the resident reported an issue with her banister. The landlord attended to complete a repair and drilled two large screws through the spindles into the landing, splitting the wood and leaving the screw heads protruding.
In April 2022, the landlord completed a full bathroom refurbishment due to continuous leaks into the downstairs dining room of the property.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and arranged to complete a final inspection of the bathroom following the refurbishment works. The inspection took place on 13 April 2022.
On 13 April 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she was unhappy with the standard of decoration in the bathroom, the damage caused to her dining room decoration, and the standard of repair to her staircase banister. Following a conversation with the resident, the landlord also considered a missed appointment in its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
On 14 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported damage to her bath panel. The landlord had not noted the damage during the inspection the day before.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property to inspect the issues raised by the resident in her formal complaint.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one response on 29 April 2022. The complaint was upheld. The landlord apologised, acknowledged that there had been failings, and said:
1. The bath panel had been purchased by the resident and fitted by the landlord. This was a flexible panel, and it was not sturdy enough to fix properly without using a large amount of sealant. The landlord agreed that if the resident purchased a more suitable panel, it would return and reseal the new panel.
2. The paint was darker in colour in some areas of the bathroom. The landlord agreed to repaint a small area of the wall at the top left of the bathroom window and three small areas of the wall above the toilet.
3. The cupboard doors, architrave and skirting looked to be original. The landlord was satisfied that the applied paint finish was to an acceptable standard and in accordance with its lettable standards.
4. The repair of the staircase and banister was not acceptable or appropriate. Upon inspection all handrail joints were found to be secure. The banister, spindles and handrail were found to be structurally sound, safe and fit for purpose. The landlord agreed that it would replace the screws with a timber spacer or block.
5. The surface of the wall to the left of the dining room window was uneven. The landlord said that it would apply a bonding agent and re-skim the wall, to make it more suitable for applying wallpaper.
6. The small area on the ceiling above the dining room window was dry and suitable for redecorating.
7. Compensation of £30.60 was awarded for a missed appointment, in line with the landlord’s maintenance procedure and compensation policy. It also awarded £50 vouchers for redecorating the small area in the dining room.
On 29 April 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two as she was unhappy with the proposed repair to the banister, and she believed that the installation of a new staircase and banister was needed. She was also unhappy with the level of compensation awarded for redecoration.
On 14 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about a leak from her bathroom sink. The resident said that the water had gone into her dining room below and damaged the decoration.
On 31 May 2022, the resident contacted this Service as she had not received her stage two response from the landlord, and this was overdue.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent the resident a stage two response on 6 June 2022. The complaint was upheld. The landlord apologised and said:
1. The actions set out in the stage one response were very comprehensive and clearly set out remedies for the required work.
2. The banister could be repaired using the solution set out in the stage one response.
3. The compensation awarded of £30.60 for the missed appointment was in line with the compensation policy.
4. In addition to the £50 decoration vouchers, it would pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience caused.
On 9 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that she did not accept the proposed compensation offered in the stage two response as the water leak reported on 14 May 2022, the related damage to her dining room decoration, and the related damage to her vanity unit, had not been considered.
The landlord responded on the same day and said that the water leak was being dealt with by the repairs department. The landlord said that it could deal with the leak as a separate compensation claim, and the relevant documents had been sent out, but not returned. It also offered to see whether the leak could be dealt with under stage two of the complaint process.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it would assess the claim for compensation once it received the documents and supporting information. The landlord said that the resident had not confirmed how she would prefer the landlord to deal with the issues relating to the leak. The landlord said that the claim was relevant to the service complaint, and that it would be recorded as part of the stage two resolution.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property in relation to the leak from the bathroom sink, but refused to complete the work as the sink was still under warranty.
The landlord attended again on the 6 July 2022 and repaired a minor leak. It reported that on inspection the dining room ceiling was stained, but dry.
On 6 July 2022, as part of a discussion about the leak, the landlord again informed the resident that the leak had already been dealt with at stage two of the service complaint. The landlord told the resident that it had increased the compensation payment to include an additional £30.60 due to the plumber attending but refusing to deal with the leak.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of decoration to the resident’s bathroom and dining room and a banister repair.

It is not disputed that there were failings in the way that the landlord handled the decoration of the resident’s bathroom and dining room. The landlord accepted that the bathroom paint finish was not to the expected standard, as there were some visible patches of paint that were a different shade to the overall colour. The landlord also accepted that there was damage to a small area of the resident’s dining room wallpaper caused by leaks from the bathroom.
Through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged the failings, offered an apology, agreed to repaint some areas of the bathroom wall and awarded compensation of £50 decoration vouchers for the dining room and £30.60 for a missed appointment. An additional £75 compensation for inconvenience caused was awarded at stage two.
The records show that the landlord had taken photographs of the bathroom on 13 April 2022 during the inspection. The damage to the bath panel was not evident at the time of the inspection. It is unclear from the evidence provided how the damage occurred. However, the landlord’s offer to fit a new bath panel, once purchased by the resident, is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord refused to repaint the cupboard doors, architrave and skirting as it deemed that the paintwork met its lettable standards. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on its skilled operatives in assessing the standard of the painting.
It is also not disputed that there were failings in the way the landlord handled the banister repair. The landlord accepted that the initial repair to the banister was not appropriate or complete. The screw heads were visible and protruding through the staircase spindles and the screw threads were exposed at the landing area. This was not only unsightly, but also a potential health and safety concern, particularly for children. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident.
The resident requested the installation of a new staircase and banister, as she did not agree that a reasonable repair could be completed. However, during the inspection in late April 2022, the landlord made the decision that it could complete a more appropriate repair. The landlord proposed an alternative and more suitable method of repair using wooden blocks, instead of screws. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the results of the inspection in the circumstances and complete a repair rather than completely renewing the staircase and banister.
In summary, the landlord offered an appropriate response with suitable remedies, an apology and a proportionate compensation award for the failings identified. The period of time that the resident was affected by the issues was relatively short. The resident’s ability to safely use the bathroom, dining room, or staircase was not affected. The overall compensation offered of £155.60 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance in cases where a failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The resident’s associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days, which is in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord told the resident that she would receive her stage two response within ten working days of escalation to stage two, which conflicts with the timeframe stated in the landlord’s complaints policy of 14 working days. On 17 May 2022, the landlord extended the response time by a further ten working days on the basis that the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) allows 20 working days for a stage two response.
The resident found it necessary to contact this Service on 31 May 2022, as she had not received a final response. The landlord issued its stage two response on 6 June 2022, 24 working days after escalation. Although the landlord’s final response was just over the timeframe stated in the Code, it is not reasonable for the landlord to publish timeframes and then rely on the Code when it fails to meet those timeframes. The landlord should manage resident’s expectations of response times from the outset, and the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure should be in line with the Code.
The resident told the landlord that she would not accept the compensation offered in the stage two response because it had not considered the damage to her dining room and vanity unit following the leak from her bathroom sink. The landlord responded and told the resident that it had considered the leak from her bathroom sink as part of the stage two response. The landlord has not provided any evidence to support this, other than an offer of an additional £30.60 in compensation for the missed appointment on 5 July 2022. There is no mention of the leak in the stage two response, and the landlord did not provide an updated stage two response. There is no evidence of a full investigation and consideration of any remedy to put things right. This is a significant failure on the part of the landlord. The landlord should have recorded the complaint about the leak as a separate complaint at stage one and followed its relevant processes.
In summary, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and its policy is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord did not manage the expectations of the resident in relation to response timeframes and it did not fully investigate the complaint raised by the resident following the leak from her bathroom sink.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of decoration to the resident’s bathroom and dining room and a banister repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings and apologised to the resident for its handling of decoration to the resident’s bathroom and dining room and banister repair. The overall offer of £155.60 compensation was fair, reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.
The landlord failed to comply with its own policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and when it could not provide a full response in the required timeframe, it justified this by referring to the timeframes within the Code. It failed to fully investigate the resident’s complaint of a leak to the bathroom sink and told the resident that it had, leaving the resident frustrated and dissatisfied.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling highlighted in this report.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling highlighted in this report.
3. Carry out a review of its complaint policy and procedure to ensure that this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service within the timescale set out above to demonstrate compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 decoration vouchers and £105.60 that it awarded through the complaints process.
The landlord to repeat its offer to complete the banister repair if it has not already done so.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.