Onward Homes Limited (202107346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107346

Onward Homes Limited

19 August 2022

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

1. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of potholes in the communal carpark.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. In May 2021, the resident reported that there were a number of potholes in the communal carpark of her property. The landlord responded by sending its contractor to inspect the repairs, who visited the property on 20 May 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint in June 2021, stating that the contractor had promised to resurface the carpark and asking when this would be completed. The landlord responded promptly, but only to say it was waiting for information from its contractors. It did not acknowledge the complaint.
5. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord contacted the resident in early July 2021, explaining it had logged her complaint. It sent its complaint response on 16 July 2021, explaining that it was waiting for a quote from the contractors and could not advise on a timescale for the repairs. The resident later escalated her complaint in September 2021, as she felt that the landlord had given her conflicting information and she remained dissatisfied with the delay in repairing the potholes. The landlord’s response in November 2021 explained that the repairs were outside the scope of its responsive repairs service and would be completed as part of planned investment works in 2022. It apologised in both responses for any delay that the resident had experienced. 
6. The landlord inspected the potholes again in November 2021, deciding that the condition of the tarmac was worse than previously described. It stated in its inspection report that it would complete some of the repairs at that point, leaving the rest for the planned works in 2022. The landlord has told this Service that the works have now been completed, although the resident has disputed this in her complaint.
7. In her complaint to this Service the resident confirmed that the temporary work had been completed. However, she remained concerned because the landlord had recently told her that, as there were no more potholes, no further work was needed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of potholes in the communal carpark:

8. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s obligation to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including.. pathways, steps or other means of access”. It also states that it will take reasonable care to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises. It is the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain these areas of the property.
9. According to the landlord’s repairs handbook the landlord aims to attend routine repairs within 20 working days. Specifically excluded from its repairs policy are planned capital and cyclical repairs, improvements, and planned revenue maintenance. The landlord’s response to the initial repair report was reasonable as it attended within the routine repair timescales. On realising that the repairs would be more extensive, and therefore more appropriately addressed as part of planned works, the landlord was entitled, in line with its policy, to schedule the repairs for when they would be the most cost effective/convenient for the next financial year.
10. A landlord is not usually obligated to inform individual tenants of communal repair appointments. However, as the resident had reported them it would have been reasonable and good customer service to keep her updated once it was established that the repairs would be planned works, so as to manage her expectations about the length of time it would take to resolve the issue. Effective communication from the landlord may have avoided a complaint altogether, as the lack of progress on the pothole repairs formed the basis of the resident’s complaint. Once the resident raised her complaint, basic good practice would be for the landlord to keep her updated with any steps it was taking to resolve the complaint issue, and again, to manage her expectations. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident in response to her original repair report or her complaint to suggest the landlord kept the resident adequately updated throughout the initial report or the subsequent complaint.
11. In its initial complaint response in July 2021, the landlord apologised for its poor communication about actions following her original reports. It stated that it was awaiting a quote for the repair work and could not advise on timescales at that time. It was only in its second response in November 2021 that the landlord explained that the potholes were outside of its responsive repairs process, and would be allocated to its planned investment team to be completed in 2022. The landlord’s failure to realise, and then explain, until approximately six months after they were reported, that the repairs would be part of planned works was not reasonable. The impact of not explaining the scale or the work meant a delayed resolution and that the resident understandably perceived the landlord was ignoring her and/or taking no action.
12. The landlord has an obligation (as per the tenancy agreement) to repair external means of access. Given the scale of the work it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to address the repairs through planned works at a later date. However, in such situations where full resolution is put off for a future date, a landlord would need to consider what interim or temporary work (if any) it could do to continue meeting its repair obligations. No evidence has been presented showing that the landlord considered any such interim solutions. At its inspection in November 2021, the landlord (through its contractor) found the works to be more significant than previous evidence had suggested, and that the condition of the tarmac in the carpark represented a health and safety risk. This was exacerbated by there not being a pedestrian walkway through the carpark, which meant that the residents needed to walk over the potholes to gain access to the building. In that context, the need for an interim solution was even more relevant than it might otherwise have been if the repair issue was one with only minor impact or implication.
13. Only in its final complaint response in November 2021 did the landlord explain that it intended to inspect again and consider undertaking temporary repairs to the potholes — nearly six months after the repairs were reported. The landlord explained that covid restrictions over the period had impacted its services, and contributed to the delays, but it acknowledged the delays had been excessive, and apologised for that. However, the scale of the delay, the poor communication, and the level of involvement needed by the resident meant that an apology, alone, was not enough to suitably remedy the complaint, leaving the service failure unresolved.
14. The resident confirmed that the temporary work was completed. However, she remained concerned that the landlord had subsequently told her the work that had been done removed the need for further work (presumably in the planned work schedule). In the circumstances of her complaints on the subject, the resident’s concern is understandable. Nonetheless, decisions about how to manage the property are for the landlord to make. Provided that the repairs have been completed, any future work would be dependent on the need, as and when repair issues arise, and it would be for the landlord to decide how to address them. In doing so, the landlord should keep in mind the lessons it will undoubtedly have learnt from this complaint, especially in relation to managing tenant’s expectations around planning and delay.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint:

15. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that after a stage one complaint the landlord will respond in writing within ten working days. If the issue remains unresolved and the resident escalates their complaint, the landlord is again expected to respond within ten working days. As the resident had asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 7 June 2021 regarding the landlord’s handling of the repair, it should have responded in line with its complaint policy, but did not do so until 16 July 2021, after being prompted by this Service. It was necessary for the resident to request intervention again in October 2021 after she escalated her complaint on 7 September 2021, due to the landlord’s lack of a complaint response again. The landlord eventually responded to the escalation on 17 November 2021. Each of the landlord’s responses were well outside its stated timescales. Consequently it did not act in accordance with its own policy. The delays are likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident, who spent significant time and trouble pursuing her concerns, and needed to approach this Service for intervention on multiple occasions before a response was issued by the landlord. The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling delays, apologise, or explain any steps it would take to learn from its mistakes.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s report of potholes in the communal carpark
17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

18. In light of the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the failings identified in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:

1. Pay the resident £175 in recognition of failings in regard to the potholes.

2. Pay the resident £125 in recognition its poor complaint handling.

19. Evidence of these payments must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.
20. The landlord must also review the outcomes of this investigation, and create an action plan to address its communication and complaint handling failings. This review must be shared with the resident and with this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.