Ongo Homes Limited (202527256)

Decision
Case ID	202527256
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Ongo Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 March 2026

Background

The resident moved into the property in 2015. In May 2025 the landlord completed a survey and raised several repair issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Repair requests.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair requests.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair requests

The landlord made initial arrangements to complete all required repairs in line with the timescales of its maintenance policy. When it encountered access issues it made reasonable attempts to work with the resident to progress repairs.
However, the landlord failed to identify that its internal communication around the presence of asbestos prevented work being completed on the day it was arranged, and that this, subsequently caused additional worry for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 4 weeks after this report is issued.
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £200, for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. This is inclusive of the £150 it offered in its complaint responses. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 4 weeks after this report is issued.
3	Take specific Action In relation to the installation of the radiator, the landlord must provide a written plan of the works required, to us and the resident, which must set out: Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary, either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 4 weeks after this report is issued.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 June 2025	The resident raised her complaint. In summary she said: She was unhappy with the communication around the repairs. She could not be at the property when repairs were being completed due to her disabilities, dogs, and carers.
7 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
16 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It: Summarised its actions in relation to the repairs, including its decision to temporarily move the resident for some of the repairs between 16 and 17 June 2025. Summarised its communication in relation to the repairs. Identified and apologised for its poor communication prior to the resident’s temporary move. Offered £150 for its breakdown in communication and the distress it caused the resident.
22 July 2025	The resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2. In summary she said she was unhappy as there were outstanding repairs.
29 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
26 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Summarised the resident’s reasons for escalation as insufficient compensation, repairs were still outstanding and her unhappiness with the hotel room she had been temporarily moved to during work. Said it agreed with the findings of the stage 1 investigation and offered the £150 compensation it had previously offered at stage 1 for its lack of communication. Said that although it had booked a ground floor room for the resident, one had not been available, and she had been allocated a first-floor room with lift access. Confirmed that work to install the radiator (the only outstanding repair from the survey) did not require the resident to move from the property. It said that the asbestos report had confirmed there was no asbestos and it had passed the repair to its tenancy team for support in arranging the work.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaint to us, she said she wanted increased compensation, and to be temporarily moved while the radiator was fitted. She said she was concerned about the presence of asbestos and the effect this could have on her or her belongings if it was disturbed during work.

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.

Complaint	The handling of the repair requests
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that this situation affected her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury she considers has been caused by the landlord.
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 have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident told us she felt that the landlord treated her differently than other residents. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised this as an issue with the landlord during this complaint. In any case, allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. As such, we have not investigated this allegation any further.

What we did investigate

The resident told us that the landlord had been aware of some of the repair issues before it completed the damp and mould survey on 21 May 2025. The landlord’s evidence confirmed that 2 of the repair issues had been raised in January 2024, following a roof repair.
The landlord’s complaint investigation considered its handling of matters between May 2025 and 26 August 2025, when it issued its final response. However, we have extended the scope of our investigation and have considered the landlords handling of matters from January 2024 because this is when the landlord became aware of the issues.
The landlord has a maintenance policy. In this it commits to completing routine repairs within either 4 weeks (28 calendar days) or 12 weeks (84 calendar days) depending on the nature of the repair.

Between 12 January 2024 – 13 August 2024

On 12 January 2024 the landlord raised a request for the hallway to be stain blocked. Its operatives attended to complete this on 18 January 2024, in line with the timescales of its maintenance policy. However, there was no answer at the property, and it was unable to gain access.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord raised a request for several areas of plastering to be repaired. Its operatives attended the property on 9 May 2024, in line with the timescales of its maintenance policy. However, the landlord recorded that no access was gained.
Prior to this attendance, on 8 and 21 February 2024, the resident had raised concerns about remaining in the property while the work was being completed, due to her having a respiratory illness.
The landlord has a “decant policy” in place. This covers the circumstances in which a resident may have to be temporarily moved. The policy said that it will assess all cases individually and will take the residents personal circumstances into account when deciding if a temporary move is required.
The evidence shows that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns, the work required and the safety measures which would be in place during the completion of the work. It concluded that a temporary move was not necessary, and its records show that its reasoning was appropriately explained to the resident in both her calls in February 2024.
The landlord’s records show that it continued its attempts to complete repairs by leaving several messages in July 2024 and speaking with the resident on 13 August 2024. In this call the landlord records that the resident had refused access for the repairs to be completed.
The landlord also recorded that it would request its tenancy officer to visit the resident to find a solution. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this and this was a shortcoming.

Between 12 May 2025 and 26 August 2025

On 12 May 2025 the landlord raised a request for a damp and mould survey to be completed. It also requested that all outstanding repairs were discussed with the resident. This was completed on 21 May 2025, in line with the timescales of its damp and mould policy.
No damp and mould was found at the property; however, several repair issues were raised on 22 May 2025, including the repairs outstanding from January 2024. The landlord planned attendance for these on 23, 27, 28 and 29 May 2025, in line with its maintenance policy.
On attendance on 23 May 2025, it was assessed that an additional radiator was required. The evidence shows that this was scheduled for 30 June 2025, as the operative noted that it had to be established if the ceiling (which would be disturbed in the installation process) contained asbestos.
During work on 28 May 2025, the resident experienced a medical incident which required treatment from an attending ambulance crew. The resident believed this was because of the stain block being used in the repairs and asked the landlord to postpone any further work.
On 29 May 2025 the landlord’s contractors attended the property as planned. However, the resident refused access because of her medical issues the previous day. This was likely to have caused the resident distress; therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise and explain that it had not had the opportunity to reschedule the works.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response notes that further consideration was given to temporarily moving the resident to complete the work required. This was initially declined and an explanation provided to the resident, however, the evidence shows that the resident refused access to the landlord’s contractors on 10 June 2025.
On 11 June 2025 the landlord agreed to move the resident into temporary accommodation between 16 and 17 June 2025 while work was completed. The landlord discussed this with the resident on the day. However, it acknowledged, in its stage 1 complaint response, that, between 11 and 16 June 2025, there had been a lack of communication around what the resident should expect on the day of the temporary move.
As immediate redress for this, the landlord provided transport for the resident to the temporary accommodation. This was positive and demonstrated a customer focused approach, which considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of its failure. The landlord also used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise and offer £150 compensation as further redress for this failure.
On 30 June 2025 the landlord’s contractors attended to fit the additional radiator. However, this was not completed as the operative suspected there was asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord has provided an asbestos survey which confirms there is no asbestos in the ceiling. Therefore, given the question of asbestos had already been raised by the previous operative, it was a failure of the landlord not to have ensured its operatives had been provided this information.
Its failure to do this prevented the work from being completed on the day and caused additional worry for the resident. This is evidenced by the resident requesting another temporary move while the installation was completed. The landlord declined this request.
Its notes record that it had considered the medical letters provided by the resident and that it had explained to the resident that, because the work to install the radiator was not as disruptive as the previous work, a temporary move was not required.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to provide an update on the outstanding work. It told the resident that there was no asbestos in the ceiling and that it would use its tenancy team to support arranging the work. It did, however, miss the opportunity of using its stage 1 complaint response to do this and that was a shortcoming.
The installation of the additional radiator remains outstanding. Where there is outstanding work, we will consider any factors which have prevented the landlord from completing the work. In this case, the resident has confirmed that she has denied access for the work to be completed and explained that this was due to her concerns that asbestos in the property might be disrupted during the process.
This investigation has identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and we have found service failure. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider what it did to put things right. In this case the landlord offered an apology, transport to the temporary accommodation and compensation as redress, along with a renewed commitment to progress the installation of the radiator.
Its complaint investigation, however, failed to identify that its internal communication around the presence of asbestos delayed the installation of the radiator and, that this, subsequently caused additional worry for the resident. Therefore, the landlord missed the opportunity to consider this in its offer of redress.
Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation was proportionate for the failings it identified in its complaint investigation. However, it had not identified or considered redress for the failing identified in our investigation. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to better reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to both stages of the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales of the Code.
In her escalation request the resident raised an additional issue related to the hotel room provided by the landlord in the temporary move. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain that it had requested an appropriate room for the resident’s circumstances.
The Code, however, says that when residents raise additional issues after a landlord has issued its stage 1 response, it should raise a new complaint. Adding this to its stage 2 response meant the resident did not benefit from a two-stage complaint process in respect of this this issue and this was a shortcoming.
The resident told us she was unhappy that the landlord completed its internal complaint process before the repairs were completed. This, however, was in line with the Code which says that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
It was positive that the landlord used its stage 2 response to update the resident on other outstanding repairs. While it made it clear the issues were not related to the complaint it demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the residents’ concerns.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There were no issues identified with the landlord’s record keeping throughout this investigation.

Communication

It was positive that, throughout the complaints process, the landlord identified its own communication issues, to prevent similar issues in future. It committed to reviewing and addressing the issues internally.
There were no additional issues identified with the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this investigation.