Onward Homes Limited (202109531)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109531

Onward Homes Limited

31 January 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 the way the landlord handled:

a)     The resident’s request for repairs to internal doors

b)     the management of the resident’s rent account

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is a two–bedroom terrace house for which the resident has a renewable assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord has delegated the day-to-day management of the property to a letting agent. The resident has some mental health vulnerabilities that the landlord has known about since 2010.

Summary of events

  1. A routine property inspection carried out by the letting agent on 11 September 2019 did not highlight any issues with the internal doors. However, the resident requested that he would like new doors and, according to the available evidence, the landlord arranged for a contractor to visit on 19 September 2019 (although the resident says it was 17 September 2019). Following this visit the contractor sent the landlord a quote on 1 October 2019 for £850 to ‘Repair and paint 6 internal doors repair doors, shave to size, undercoat and revisit and paint one dry supply and fit new handles and latches as required’. On 2 October 2019 the landlord then asked the resident to supply photos of the doors to ensure that the work required matched the quote.
  2. On 3 October 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had asked about booking in the repair and was awaiting health and safety documents from the contractor before it could proceed.
  3. The landlord recalls that it then spoke to the contractor shortly after 3 October 2019 to clarify why work was required as the routine inspection had not picked up any defects and the photos showed the doors to be in an acceptable condition. The contractor replied that the doors did not need replacing and that it was more of an aesthetic issue. The landlords says that it then spoke to the letting agent to advise that the doors would not be replaced and asked them to contact the resident to tell him, at which point the landlord considered the matter to be closed. However, the landlord has been unable to evidence these communications as it did not make a record of the phone calls on its systems.
  4. There was another routine inspection by the letting agent on 9 September 2020. The resident mentioned that he had been promised replacement internal doors the previous year but had heard nothing more. The letting agent forwarded this information to the landlord. The landlord says that it again fed back to the letting agent that the doors would not be replaced as they were in an acceptable condition. However, again, the landlord has been unable to evidence this exchange as it was not captured on its systems.
  5. On 16 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about another matter but also asked for an update on his internal doors. The landlord replied the following day saying it was sure that the issue with the doors had been discussed with the resident previously and that they would only be replaced if there was a need. It said that internal doors, if treated well, will not deteriorate as some other standard fittings might and that it could find no record of new doors being pledged. However, it had asked the letting agent to supply up to date photos of the doors.
  6. On 17 March 2021 the resident responded to the landlord that he had been informed about getting replacement doors by the letting agent and told by the landlord in October 2019 that the work would be carried out and that he had the emails to prove it.
  7. On 24 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, further to a recent phone call. It said that the letting agent had been employed to manage tenancies on behalf of the landlord but that did not give the agent the authority to promise replacement doors without the consent of the landlord. It asked the resident to provide any evidence that it had promised new doors. The landlord said that the further photos that the resident had sent in showed some issues with the door handles and latches that would benefit from a repair. It also said they showed some wear and tear but that would not constitute a need to renew the doors. It said that the doors could potentially have some minor repairs such as the filling of holes. By 25 March 2021 the resident had forwarded the landlord previous emails he had received about the doors being repaired.
  8. On 7 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident hoping to clarify its position (although the resident has a record of it being sent on 8 April 2021). It said that on 3 October 2019 the landlord had instructed a contractor to attend the property to review the internal doors after which the contractor had advised that the doors did not need renewing or repairing at that time. The landlord said that the outcome of the visit was shared with the resident at that time and that the information had been relayed back to the resident several times since. The photos of the door did show wear and tear consistent with age. However, the landlord offered to arrange for a contractor to visit as it appreciated that photos could sometimes be misleading. It asked the resident to get in touch if he would like to book an appointment for the doors to be assessed. The resident did not receive the letter and it was then emailed to him on 24 June 2021.
  9. The resident responded that the letter of April 2021 contained factual inaccuracies. He explained he had been told that the contractors had actually provided a quote for the doors and that he had received an email from the landlord on 3 October 2019 confirming that the work was to be carried out. He further explained that he had already supplied these emails to the landlord.
  10. An email from the resident to the landlord dated 29 June 2021 is the first email that the Ombudsman has seen that references the rent account. In it the resident says that he is not in debt by £1,366.96. He said that he had lived in the property for over 12 years and had never missed a payment. He said that this had caused him considerable upset and stress and that the landlord knew that he was under the care of mental health services.
  11. On 30 June 2021 the landlord referred the resident back to its letter of April 2021 that addressed the issue of the internal doors and again invited him to arrange for a contractor to visit if he so wished. It advised the resident that if he was unhappy with the response, he could make a stage 1 complaint. The resident responded the same day to confirm that he wanted to make a formal complaint and received an acknowledgement saying that the resident could expect a response by 16 July 2021.
  12. The landlord has provided an internal email dated 2 July 2021 that says it is liaising with the letting agent to ensure all payments made by the resident had been accounted for on the landlord’s rent account and that it would not pursue any arrears until the true balance had been established.
  13. Sometime at the beginning of July 2021 the resident found out that his rent account was now showing as £1,891.96 in arrears.
  14. On 13 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to reiterate that he had emails on 2 October and 3 October 2019 proving that there had been a quote given by a contractor for work on the doors. The resident said that he had received an email from the landlord on 2 July 2021 (which the ombudsman has not seen) telling him to ‘stop querying the same issue’ and that is when he took an overdose.
  15. On 13 July 2021 the landlord tried to call the resident in response to his request to discuss matters. As it was unable to contact him, the landlord then sent an email. It said that it had clarified the position with regard to the doors on 7 April 2021 and that the offer to send another contractor to assess them remained open. It also told the resident that there appeared to be an issue with the letting agent forwarding payments. It apologised for any distress caused by the false arrears balance and was now looking into it as a matter of urgency. It said it would update the resident when the investigation had been completed and assured the resident that no action would be taken against him in the interim.
  16. On 16 July 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. With regard to the internal doors, it said that it would approach more than one contractor to obtain quotes for any work. It said that on 3 October 2019 a former member of staff had instructed a contractor to attend the property and that the contractor then advised that the doors did not need replacing. It said that it had acted based on information provided by the contractors at the time who advised that the doors did not need replacing, however, the offer of a further inspection remained open. With regard to the arrears showing on the rent account, it said that it was established that there was an issue with the letting agent not forwarding the relevant payment information that the landlord required to update the account. It apologised for any distress caused and reiterated that no action in relation to arrears would be taken. The landlord therefore partly upheld the resident’s complaint and offered him £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
  17. On 21 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the contactors had said the doors needed filling, sanding, painting and new handles etc which was in the quote that the former member of staff spoke about in her email of 3 October 2019. The resident also requested that his complaint should be escalated to stage 2.
  18. On 22 July 2021 the letting agent emailed the resident to say that it had sent the rental account over to the landlord and that it was showing no arrears.
  19. The landlord’s further investigations found no evidence that the contractor had attended again after providing the quote dated 1 October 2019, although staff had strong recollections of that being the case.
  20. On 31 July 2021 the letting agent emailed the resident to say that a contractor was going to get them a price on the doors to send to the landlord for approval. They said the contractor would then need to attend to measure up and arrange a time and date to fit them. It said once the job was approved the resident could decide whether he wanted them completed at once or in stages.
  21. On 2 August 2021 the director emailed the resident following an earlier phone call. It said that the landlord recognised that there were no rent arrears and apologised for any distress caused by the error. It also said it accepted that it could not prove that a contractor visited in October 2019. However, the fundamental issue was that the resident wanted new doors and to move that forward it suggested that an inspection be arranged to get the opinion of a contractor. It understood that the resident had previously been given a commitment that the doors would be replaced but that this commitment should not have been given. It was however happy to send another contractor out to assess whether new doors were needed.
  22. The resident responded the same day to say that the issue with the doors was now in its 26th month and that he had written proof from 3 October 2019 that repairs would be carried out. He also said that six contractors had been sent out since and that the issue was one of a fundamental mishandling of a simple repairs or replace issue. However, he was happy for another contractor to inspect the doors. Regarding the rent account, although the landlord had stated that there were no arrears, he had checked his account and it was still showing arrears of £991.96.
  23. A contractor attended the property on 10 August 2021 to assess the internal doors. After receiving feedback from the contractor, the landlord contacted the resident on 18 August 2021 to confirm that it had authorised six new doors and it was expected that they would be installed within the next two weeks. It said that the letting agent would be in touch with the resident to agree dates and times. The landlord has told this Service that the offer to replace the doors was done as a gesture of goodwill rather than because they needed replacing because repairs to the handles and latches would have sufficed.
  24. The stage 2 response was delayed whilst the landlord awaited feedback from the contractor. However, it then did provide its substantive response on 19 August 2021. The landlord apologised for any upset and anxiety caused by the arrears showing on the rent account which was due to problems in the transfer of payments from the letting agent to the landlord. Regarding the internal doors, it was said that it had discussed with the resident over the phone that its previous position that it had instructed a contractor on 3 October 2019 to inspect the doors could not be proved. However, following a visit from a new contractor, the resident had now been contacted to confirm that six new doors had been authorised for the property and the letting agent would contact him to arrange dates for installation. The landlord apologised for the extended time it had taken to resolve the issue with the doors.
  25. On 19 August 2021, there were email exchanges between the resident and the landlord. These indicate that the resident was initially unhappy that the offer of £50 made in the stage 1 response had not been repeated in the stage 2 response and stated that the amount did not cover emotional distress. The landlord replied that it had unreservedly apologised for any upset caused so far. It also said that the offer of £50 had been a gesture of goodwill rather than compensation. It said that in all the phone calls and emails with the resident, he had never mentioned that he wanted compensation. However, it would now consider compensation if the resident would let it know what amount he would consider reasonable. The resident replied that he did not want money and only wanted to be able to remain in the property.
  26. On 14 September 2021 the landlord chased the letting agent about the doors, which had not yet been fitted. The agent explained that there was a supply issue, and that the contractor still did not have a delivery date. This information was conveyed back to the resident. The resident replied on 17 September 2021 to say that he understood the delay, although he later complained about it.
  27. The landlord has told this Service that the new doors have now been fitted.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports about the internal doors and rent arrears and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman can only consider events up to the point where the landlord has made its formal complaint response, because the landlord has not had the opportunity to formally respond to any later issues. In this case the resident has raised the issue of his rent being increased and the renewal of his tenancy being shorter than the two-year period he had requested. As these issues did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, they will not be addressed in this report. If the resident remains unhappy with those issues, he may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord. However, this Service does not consider complaints about the amount or level of increase of rent.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaint resolution policy states that compensation and/or goodwill gesture payments may be considered where appropriate as part of a resolution to a customer’s complaint. However, it does not provide any tariffs for the levels of compensation that it might award.

Internal doors

  1. Although the resident says he was promised that work would be carried out on the internal doors in the landlord’s email of 3 October 2019, that is not quite the case. The staff member says that she has ‘asked about booking the repair in’ which suggests that the final decision about it had yet to be made. The Ombudsman can understand why the resident would have had his expectations raised, however, the contact from the landlord falls short of being a promise. There is also no evidence that the lettings agent went further and promised repairs or renewal of the doors.
  2. The landlord has been unable to provide any evidence of speaking to a contractor or the letting agent in October 2019 or of how it came to a decision at that time to not carry out any work on the doors. Even if the landlord informed the letting agent of that being the case, there is no evidence that the information was forwarded to the resident. Based on the available evidence the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident was not told that the doors would not be repaired or renewed.
  3. The landlord was within its rights to decline to carry out work on the doors where its expert operatives had assessed it as being unnecessary. The fault lies in failing to communicate its position to the resident.
  4. Much of the resident’s frustration lay in the responses from the landlord that failed to address the key points he was making. The landlord continually disregarded the fact that a contractor had given a quote for repairs on 1 October 2019, saying instead that the contractor had advised that the doors did not need renewing or repairing. It also made statements that were not evidence–based, repeating that it was on 3 October 2019 that a contractor had visited when the resident had already provided emails showing that the visit and the quote pre-dated that, and with there being no evidence of a further visit. The landlord also said in April 2021 that the outcome of the visit (meaning that no work was going to be done) had been shared with the resident several times when that was not the case.
  5. The Ombudsman would expect formal complaint investigations to be more thorough, yet the stage 1 response still contained factual inaccuracies. It said that its member of staff had instructed the contractor to attend the property on 3 October 2019 when the evidence indicates that the date was actually when the staff member emailed the resident further to the quote that had already been received. It says that the contractor had concluded that the doors did not need replacing but made no mention of the contractor identifying some repairs, hence the quote for works. And it again stated that the outcome had been shared with the resident at the time, when it had no evidence that either it or the letting agent had contacted the resident.
  6. It is apparent that there has been some miscommunication between the landlord and the letting agent. For example, the letting agent contacted the resident on 31 July 2021 to say that it was getting a price for new doors, whereas the landlord told the resident on 2 August 2021 that it would send someone round to assess whether or not new doors were required. Based on what the resident has said, it is also possible that other contractors had visited since January 2020 that the landlord was unaware of.
  7. The stage 2 investigation went a long way towards remedying some of the earlier errors. There was verbal and several email communications with the resident. It was at this point that the landlord accepted that there was no proof that a contractor had attended in October 2019, which helped in moving matters forward. The landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue and the resident accepted the resolution of having the doors replaced.
  8. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have considered offering compensation for this part of the complaint due to the lack of communication and poor complaint handling prior to the stage 2 investigation.

Rent account

  1. Following information from the resident on 29 June 2021 that his account was incorrectly showing arrears, the landlord quickly identified that the problem appeared to stem from procedural issues relating to the letting agent rather than actual non–payment of rent by the resident. However, from the evidence provided, the landlord does not appear to have communicated this to the resident until 13 July 2021. This must have been a very anxious period for the resident, particularly given his mental health problems.
  2. The issue was not corrected immediately, meaning that the resident continued to see arrears on his account even after the landlord had told him that it had identified the problem. However, some of the issue seems to have been outside the landlord’s control and it is reasonable that it took some time to sort the matter out with the letting agent. The resident had also been reassured by this point that no action would be taken against him.
  3. The stage 1 also contains an inaccuracy in relation to the rent account issue. It says that the resident first contacted it about the matter on 1 July 2021 whereas the Ombudsman has seen an email the resident sent on 29 June 2021 highlighting this issue.
  4. The landlord fully apologised for the problems with the rent account and offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill. However, the Ombudsman does not consider £50 to be sufficient to compensate the resident for the stress and inconvenience he suffered as a result of errors with the rent account.

Both issues

  1. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have considered a compensation award as part of its response to the resident’s complaint about the internal doors and the rent account. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health problems and it is clear that these issues have caused him some distress and anxiety. However, the landlord does not seem to have taken this into account when offering an amount as a gesture of goodwill.
  2. When considering appropriate remedies for identified failings, the Ombudsman has regard to its own Guidance on Remedies and the terms of the landlord’s Compensation Policy. This Service’s compensation awards are not punitive and are designed to put the complainant in the position they would have been in but for the landlord’s failings, rather than putting them in a more favourable position. The remedy should be proportionate to the errors identified and reaching an amount will involve assessing a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. With this in mind, a compensation award is made in respect of the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the internal doors and rent arrears.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:

a)     The resident’s request for repairs to internal doors.

b)     The management of the resident’s rent account.

Reasons

  1. There was poor complaint handling prior to the stage 2 response. Although the landlord has apologised for the delay in resolving the issue with the doors and problems with the rent account, it should have given more consideration to an appropriate level of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 in total for distress and inconvenience with respect to the two issues.