Onward Homes Limited (202120506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120506

Onward Homes Limited

16 September 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 landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of a faulty washing machine, and request for a smart meter.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, moved into the property in August 2021. Following the move, the resident found several issues within the property such as a faulty washing machine, broken blinds, faulty toilet seat/lid, missing/faulty lightbulbs, and broken/missing handles on kitchen cupboards and drawers. Whilst waiting for these repairs to be completed, the resident also asked the landlord for permission to have a smart meter installed.
3. After further delay in addressing the outstanding repairs, and the landlord’s failure to clarify its stance regarding the smart meter, the resident approached this Service for advice. In a phone call with this Service on 6 December 2021, the resident advised that the washing machine was still broken, and that the electricity meter needed replacing. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to investigate these issues as a formal complaint.
4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response acknowledged that it had failed to address the urgent repair of the washing machine within the timeframe set out in its repairs handbook, and that there had been miscommunication and missed appointments in relation to the washing machine, and confirmation of the smart meter approval. It offered £100 compensation for the delay. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 21 December 2021, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this. Following this, on 6 January 2022, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £250; however, it still had not escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaints process at that point. The resident had requested £481.98 compensation, as she had deducted 20% of her rent for the period when the repairs had remained outstanding. The resident wanted the landlord’s compensation offer to reflect this amount. On 27 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the complaint had been escalated, and it issued its final response on 10 February 2022.
5. The landlord maintained the offer of £250 in recognition of the time without a washing machine, and the inconvenience that had been caused. It did not consider that the resident’s request for £481.98 was reasonable or appropriate in regard to the delays. It also apologised for the failures in its service.
6. Following mediation by the Ombudsman, the resident adjusted the amount of compensation that she wanted to £453.71. The landlord proposed an increased offer of £350 compensation, but the resident declined this as she wanted the full amount she had requested. The resident and landlord both confirmed that the repairs had been completed on 4 January 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that ‘urgent’ repairs have a ‘target to complete within five working days’ and routine repairs have a ‘target to complete within 20 working days’.

Scope of Investigation

8. Throughout her correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised issues regarding faulty cupboards and drawers in the kitchen, damaged blinds, faulty or missing light bulbs, and a toilet seat/lid that needed replacing. However, when the resident contacted this Service on 6 December 2021 in order for the Ombudsman to raise the formal complaint to the landlord on her behalf, the only issues raised were the landlord’s handling of the faulty washing machine and its handling of the request for a new smart meter. The landlord responded to both these issues in its formal response. As such, the other issues mentioned in correspondence have not exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally through its complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate.
9. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to address the washing machine repair in a suitable timeframe has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriately dealt with through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty washing machine, and request for a smart meter

10. The resident informed the landlord that the washing machine had been faulty from the time when she first moved into the property. The landlord noted that on 17 September 2021, the issue had been referred to a contractor, and that a new machine had been requested. However, in an email to the landlord on 5 October 2021, the resident advised that she had not heard any updates regarding the replacement of the faulty machine.
11. It is important to keep the resident informed of progress and timeframes relating to outstanding issues that the resident had raised. By keeping the resident informed, the landlord can manage the resident’s expectations. Managing expectations is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery as not only does it provide the resident with an idea of how long they can expect the resolution to take, but it also could have reassured the resident that the landlord was being proactive in its attempts to resolve the issue. Its failure to do so potentially increased the resident’s sense of uncertainty which could have contributed to stress and anxiety experienced.
12. The landlord confirmed that the issue had been raised as an urgent repair on 18 October 2021. By this point, the resident had been without access to a washing machine for almost two months. Prior to the issue being raised as ‘urgent’, it is reasonable to assume that the repair was only classed as a ‘routine repair’. As explained above, the repairs policy states that ‘routine’ repairs have a ‘target to complete within 20 working days’. However, the landlord failed to commit to this. Once the repair was raised as ‘urgent’ on 18 October, the landlord should have responded within five working days in line with its repairs policy. However, the issue was not resolved until 4 January 2022.
13. The landlord failed to stick to the timeframes given in its Repairs Handbook. The landlord acknowledged in its formal response to the complaint that there had been miscommunications with its contractor, which had led to delays and missed appointments. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this error, it should have made sure that the contractor had the correct information required in order to satisfy the repair within a suitable timeframe.
14. Additionally, throughout the complaint, the resident was required to chase responses on multiple occasions. It is clear from the evidence provided, that several requests for updates were left unanswered. Failure to respond to the resident can cause unnecessary frustration for the resident, as well as conveying the notion that the complaint was not being taken seriously. The resident particularly had to chase responses to her request to have a smart meter installed. These missed responses were acknowledged by the landlord in its formal response.
15. The resident had made clear in her requests for a smart meter, that she only needed permission from the landlord to have one installed, and was not asking the landlord to repair or install the meter itself. However, the landlord responded saying that it was not something that it would carry out, and that she would need to contact her electricity supplier. The landlord failed to identify that the resident was simply asking for permission, and that she had made clear that she had already been in touch with her supplier. The landlord gave permission on 9 December 2021, almost one month after the resident initially asked on 15 November 2021. The landlord should have ensured that it clearly understood what it was that the resident was asking for. Had it identified that she was simply asking for permission, and had not for the landlord to carry out the work itself, the landlord could have responded far sooner, which would have allowed the resident to have her new meter installed much sooner.
16. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident a degree of unnecessary involvement by having to chase responses from the landlord, and clarify her request.
17. As well as failing to consistently respond to the resident, further delays were caused due to contractors failing to adhere to pre-agreed appointment times. For example, a contractor was booked to attend on 8 November 2021 for an afternoon appointment. However, on the morning of 8 November 2021, the contractor called the resident to advise that he would be there that morning. The resident explained that she would be unavailable as she had made plans around the pre-agreed afternoon appointment. The contractor attended nonetheless and was unable to gain access to the property due to the resident not being present. Additionally, the contractor did not return at the agreed time. Resultingly, this became a missed appointment and further prolonged the time in which the repair remained unresolved. The landlord must ensure that its contractors stick to pre-arranged appointments in order to minimise unnecessary delays.
18. There was no dispute from the landlord that there had been failings in how it had addressed the repairs, and that its communication had not been up to standard. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an apology and compensation for its failings. When there are admitted failings by a landlord it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord has taken reasonable action to put right its errors. This Services’ remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that for instances in which there was ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’, a payment of £250 to £700 would be reasonable. The landlord’s offer of £350 compensation is in line with this range and is therefore a reasonable offer for the repair delays.

The landlord’s complaint handling

19. Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 21 December 2021, in which she explained that she was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord. However, the complaint was not escalated until 27 January 2021 after the resident had chased the landlord for the stage two response. In an internal email on 4 January 2021, the landlord suggested that it had not heard from the resident since the stage one response had been given. However, on that same day there was another internal email in which the landlord stated that it had ‘received an email from [the resident] asking for her stage one complaint to be escalated to a stage two complaint.”
20. This internal exchange shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint and that it acknowledged it internally, yet failed to escalate the complaint and provide a final response. This failure led to a delay of just over one month in the resident having her final response. This meant that there was a delay in when the resident could have her case independently investigated by the Ombudsman. The landlord should ensure that once it had seen a request to escalate from the resident, it should escalate it immediately and respond in line with its complaints policy. The resident had to chase the landlord for a response. This caused unnecessary involvement in the complaint, and further time and trouble for the resident. This was a service failure by the landlord, and an offer of compensation would be appropriate in view of this.
21. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as set out above) suggests that we may award between £50 and £250 compensation in cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. The delays in the landlord escalating the complaint caused inconvenience to the resident but this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint as the landlord completed the outstanding repairs and offered appropriate compensation for the repair delays. Therefore the landlord should pay a further £100 compensation for errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the residents reports of a faulty washing machine, and request for a smart meter.
23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

24. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This is in addition to the £350 offered previously by the landlord which should also be paid if it has not been paid already.