Onward Homes Limited (202121697)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121697

Onward Homes Limited

28 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of a recurring leak into the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of issues with damp and mould.
3. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a ground floor one-bedroom flat. It should be noted that the resident has been represented by Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) in many of her complaint communications. For ease of reference the report will refer to “the resident” when CAB made representation on her behalf.
The resident initially reported a leak on 29 October 2020. The corresponding repair record noted that the resident suffered from water ingress when it rained. It is understood that the leak stemmed from the roof of a bay window which leaked into the resident’s bedroom.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the issue on 28 July 2021. She was unhappy that the leak remained, despite having been given various appointments to complete the necessary works. She also mentioned that she had not been informed about when work would commence going forward.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 28 August 2021 and upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that the length of time that it had taken to rectify the roof repair was unacceptable and apologised for its poor service. It also acknowledged that the resident’s contact history showed that it had let her down. It awarded £350 compensation for the overall inconvenience. It said that it had inspected the roof on 19 August 2021, and that work was scheduled to be undertaken on 1 September 2021. It said that once it completed the roofing work, it would complete plastering works to repair the leak damage to the bedroom ceiling.
The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaint procedure in November 2021. She said that water continued to leak into her bedroom when it rained, despite the landlord having undertaken recent repair work. It was not seen in the evidence that the landlord responded to this. This Service wrote to the landlord in March 2022, and asked it to contact the resident in order to progress her complaint. This Service then had to contact the landlord again in September 2022, and asked it to provide the resident with a final response.
The landlord issued a final response on 10 October 2022. It said that it had inspected the resident’s home that month, due to concerns the resident had raised with damp and mould following the leak activity. It said that there still appeared to be a leak following rainfall, and that it had raised a repair to investigate the issue. It said that during the inspection, it did not identify any “additional causes” of damp and mould and that it had found no “smell” of mould. It said that it did detect high moisture readings in the property and that it would raise a repair to assess if improved ventilation was required. It acknowledged that the resident had asked if it would be possible to damp proof the basement area as she used this for storage but said that it would not do this because the area was classed as a non-habitable room. It said that it would have a repairs specialist ensure all required work was carried out satisfactorily and apologised that it had taken longer than expected to complete them. It acknowledged that the situation would likely have caused the resident additional inconvenience but maintained its initial offer of compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In late October 2022, she advised this Service that the leak still recurred when it rained and believed the landlord had not responded appropriately to the situation with the damp and mould. To resolve the matter, she wanted the landlord to complete the necessary repairs and pay additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a recurring leak into the property.

The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including the roof, ceilings, and plasterwork.
The landlord’s website sets out the timescales within which a resident should expect repairs to be responded to, depending on how the repair is categorised. Emergency repairs, such as uncontainable leaks, should be attended to within four hours. Urgent repairs, such as water leaks that can be easily contained or minor roof leaks, should be responded to within five working days. Routine repairs will be undertaken within twenty working days.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will pay compensation up to £150 when leak repairs have gone on for up to five months. It does not provide guidance for repairs that have gone on for longer than that.
In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord did not resolve the leak within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord has provided limited repair records during this investigation in relation to the remedial repairs it carried out in its attempts to resolve the source of the leak. It is also not apparent from the evidence if it has since rectified the issue.
It is apparent that the leak repair remained unresolved by the time the landlord issued its initial complaint response in August 2021, which was unreasonably almost ten months after it received initial notification of the repair and considerably exceeded its five working day timeframe for urgent repairs.
In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the delays, in part, were due to numerous appointments that were cancelled due to its contractors not turning up for appointments and as a result of their availability. It also recognised that other appointments were postponed due to the need for scaffolding. However, the landlord also said that on 10 March 2021 additional repair work was raised as previous work had not resolved the issue, but offered no explanation as to what those works were and why they had failed. Its repair records also did not account for what remedial work had been carried out up until that point, which has raised concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. This is because it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Without this, the landlord has not been able to sufficiently explain the entirety of the delays.
Nonetheless, in its initial response, the landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint and in doing so accepted full responsibility for the situation and overall delay to resolve the matter. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and awarded compensation of £350.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service in its initial response, and that its delay to resolve the leak up until that point had necessitated an unreasonable level of contact by the resident. While the landlord did not explain how it calculated its compensation (and good practice would have been for it to do so) the £350 it offered at that stage exceeded its compensation guidance. This was appropriate, given the length of time the leak remained unresolved for which will likely have caused the resident ongoing inconvenience due to intermittent water ingress and time and trouble spent in pursuing the repair. This, in addition to it apologies, would have provided a reasonable remedy to the resident’s complaint, had the landlord then sufficiently resolved the repair issue and repaired any associated damage to the ceiling in a prompt manner.
However, the evidence of what happened following the landlord’s initial response in relation to resolving the roof leak is unclear. On 14 September 2021, the landlord noted that completion of the remedial work had been postponed until 13 October 2021. It was not apparent from the repair records if work went ahead on that date. It is reasonable to assess that some work was completed around that time, as the resident confirmed in her initial escalation request in mid-November 2021 that repair work had been undertaken in the preceding weeks. However, she also reported that that work had not rectified the leak.
Considering the above, the landlord should have arranged to reinspect the repair issue in a prompt manner. Nothing in evidence shows that it did so, nor accounted for any further assessment of the leak for a considerable period following this. In February 2022, the resident advised this Service that no further works had been carried out by that time and that “the hole in the roof” remained. In June 2022, the resident advised this Service that external repairs had been completed at that time, but that she had had to pay for the internal repairs (understood to have been plasterwork to the ceiling) to be completed herself. This indicates that the landlord potentially carried out additional roof repairs at some point between February and June 2022.
However, by the time the landlord issued its final response in October 2022, it said that the leak still occurred. As such, it set the expectation that it considered the issue to be the same ongoing leak, and not a new unrelated issue. This suggests previous remedial work either not been completed to a satisfactory standard or had not suitably remedied the source of the leak. Without sufficient contemporaneous evidence to support it previous repair activities, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it acted appropriately when undertaking previous work.
In light of the above, the landlord advised the resident in its final response that it would again investigate the leak. However, it unreasonably did not set out any specific timeframe in which it would do so and thus did not sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations in that respect. Also, it was unreasonable that it did not award additional compensation, to remedy the additional trouble the resident had been put to since the first complaint response fourteen months earlier. Although the evidence suggests that the leak was intermittent, it clearly did not have any robust fix almost two years after initial notification of the issue. Given that it is not apparent if the leak has been resolved since, the landlord has failed, and is failing to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its basic duty to maintain the resident’s property in good repair and it did not provide sufficient remedies to its failings. As such, given the considerable timeframe involved, its failings in that respect amounts to maladministration.
The landlord advised this Service that to in order to resolve the leak, it arranged to carry out a repair in December 2022 “to attend and renew render outside of bay window”. However, the evidence suggests that this repair was similar in nature to repair work the landlord had attempted previously. Approximately sixteen months earlier on 13 August 2021, the landlord noted that “the render at the back of the property is cracked and needs repairing”. Without the appropriate records to support the landlord’s previous repair activities and its further assessment of failed repairs, it is unclear if repairs were not carried out to a good standard, or if they only provided a temporary fix and if a more long-term solution needed to be established.
Lacking the above, it has not been possible to determine if the resident’s repeated reports of the leak and resulting damage were logged, responded to, investigated and rectified appropriately. Good record keeping is one of the fundamental aspects of housing management, and without it a landlord is often unable to support any claims it has made about the actions it has taken or provide evidence that it is meeting its obligations fairly and consistently. The landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted this Service’s ability to robustly assess the severity of the leak, the landlord’s failed repairs, and the impact this had on the resident. In addition, this Service has been able to determine if the landlord has ultimately proposed a suitable resolution to the issue. As such, the landlord’s insufficient record keeping in this case amounts to maladministration.
To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to reassess the situation, and to complete any necessary repairs. An order has also been made for additional £250 compensation, bringing the total payable for its poor response to the leak, and its failure to put things right at an earlier time, to £600. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which will likely have adversely affected the resident, but where there has been no apparent permanent impact. The landlord has also been ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of its poor record keeping. The landlord has also been ordered to review its record keeping practices and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspection records going forward.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

It is apparent from the evidence that the resident’s concerns with damp and mould, related to various areas of her home which included her bedroom, basement and bathroom. It was unclear to what extent the collective damp and mould issues related to the roof leak, as the landlord has provided limited evidence in relation to what it considered to be the source of damp issues it identified and some resulting mould.
It was not seen in the evidence that the resident’s reports of damp and mould featured as part of her initial complaint in July 2021, nor initial escalation request in November 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord in March 2022, and advised it that the resident had complained about the presence of damp and mould within her home. Once on notification of the damp, a landlord is expected to undertake an inspection and carry out any identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. However, it was not seen in the evidence that the landlord took any action to inspect the damp and mould situation until five months later (following additional contact from this Service) when it undertook an inspection in October 2022. This unreasonably exceeded any measure of a reasonable timeframe for routine repairs, which the landlord did not acknowledge or explain in its final response. This was a failing.
In its final response, the landlord said that the above inspection “did not identify any additional causes of dampness and there was no smell of mould at the time”, which accorded with the relevant inspection record. However, the landlord should have been clearer as to what it meant by “additional” causes of damp. It should be noted that the inspector had recorded high moisture readings in the resident’s home, suspected leak activity in the bathroom, and found the presence of damp external walls in the basement. Given that the inspector also did not dispute the resident’s account that she had to maintain high levels of heating to prevent damp and mould forming, the landlord should have clearly explained if it believed that the unresolved roof repair was the sole cause of the damp issues. It then should have clarified if it expected repair work to the roof to resolve issues with damp and potential mould growth. Its failure to do so meant that it failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations in that respect.
The landlord did say that it would raise a job to assess if additional ventilation was required. However, it was not seen that the landlord reattended the resident’s home to assess whether improved ventilation was required, or if so, what the outcome of this was, or if this was communicated to the resident. This was unreasonable and an additional failing.
In response to the resident’s request to damp proof her basement, it was unreasonable that the landlord said that it was unable to do this as the basement area was not classed as a habitable room in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This is because the inspection undertaken in October 2022 clearly noted the basement suffered from damp external walls. The tenancy agreement places a clear obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, which includes the maintenance of exterior walls. It should be noted that that damp is not always a singular issue with a singular cause. The landlord should have realised that the presence of damp external walls potentially indicated that the basement suffered from penetrating or rising damp, which may be related to a structural cause, and if so, would be its specific obligation to address. As such, the landlord should have established what was causing the damp in the basement and acted to remedy this, if it was determined to be its clear responsibility in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s failure to assess this was a significant failing.
In its final response, the landlord also appropriately committed to investigating signs of water staining on the resident’s bathroom ceiling. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 November 2022 and noted that mould was cleaned from this area. The operative noted that a roofer was required to inspect the roof as water was possibly getting in and causing the damp. However, there is no further evidence of the landlord attending to the bathroom roof, to determine if there was a leak and if this was related to roof leak which affected the bedroom. This was unreasonable and an additional failing.
Considering the above, it is unclear why the landlord advised this Service that “following an inspection to the property, there is no mould or damp…”, as no contemporaneous evidence has been provided to support this assessment. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it inspected the bathroom ceiling as it said it would, or assessed the need for improved ventilation, nor adequately assessed the damp issue in the basement. As such, the landlord has failed, and is failing to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its basic duty to address issues with damp, which in this case, amounts to maladministration.
To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to reassess the situation, and to complete any necessary repairs. An order has also been for additional £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. At stage two, landlords must respond to the complaint within twenty working days.
The resident made a formal complaint on 28 July 2021, and the landlord issued its initial response on 23 August 2021, exceeding the time scale of which it is expected to respond to a stage one complaint by nine working days. This was not a considerable delay. However, the landlord unreasonably delayed in escalating the resident’s stage two complaint. The resident requested to have her complaint escalated as early as November 2021. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded to this request. As such, it was unreasonable that the resident had to seek assistance from this Service in February 2022 to escalate her complaint, and the landlord again delayed in progressing the complaint following this. It was unreasonable that this Service had to ask the landlord again to issue a final response, which it eventually did, almost eleven months following the initial escalation request, in October 2022. In addition, the landlord did not apologise to the resident or offer any redress for the considerable overall delay in providing a final response, which was a failing.
Given the considerable time elapsed between the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses, and that the original complaint did not concern issues with damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to register a new complaint concerning these new issues, rather than address them in its final response. A new complaint would have allowed the resident opportunity to respond to the landlord positions on these matters, and comment on any adverse findings before a final decision was made. The landlord’s failure to raise a separate complaint regarding damp and mould in this case, denied the resident a full and comprehensive consideration of this aspect of her complaint, which was a failing.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was poor and compensation is due to the resident for the inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble she will have likely experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £200 compensation for its complaint handling, and to review its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to improve its complaint handling going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of a recurring leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1200 compensation in total. This includes:
  1. £600 for its repair handling failures in relation to the recurring leak. This is inclusive of the £350 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
  2. £200 for its repair handling failures in relation to damp and mould issues.
  3. £200 for its record keeping failures.
  4. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Undertake an inspection of the roof leak in conjunction with a senior member of its staff. The landlord should write to the resident, with a copy to this Service, explaining its findings. If further work is required, the landlord should provide a clear and firm timeframe for completion in a reasonable period.
4. Undertake an inspection of the property regarding the damp and mould in conjunction with a senior member of its staff. The landlord should write to the resident, with a copy to this Service, explaining its findings. If further work is required, the landlord should provide a clear and firm timeframe for completion in a reasonable period.
5. Carry out a review of its record keeping practices and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair records going forward.
6. Carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Complaint Handling Code going forward.
7. The landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould and provide a copy to this Service.