Onward Homes Limited (202207051)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207051

Onward Homes Limited

4 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about cyclical works to steps at the rear of her property and installation of new stones.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of operatives and staff.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the property; namely, the resident has autism which the landlord is aware of but does not have recorded on its system.
  2. The resident was informed in November 2021 that routine works would be taking place in May 2022. This was set to include works to external steps at the rear and front of the property as well as concrete and flagging works. However, an exact date was not provided for the work to commence.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in May 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the work completed in her rear-garden. The resident raised a number of issues with the landlord including:
    1. The contractor had taken the lock off her gate to gain access and removed steps at the rear of the property without notice and stuck a piece of paper on her front door to inform her.
    2. The boards and bricks laid on her grass had subsequently “killed” it.
    3. The contractors had made inappropriate comments in her garden whilst completing the works.
    4. The resident was also not satisfied with the colour stones installed.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, which it partially upheld. It acknowledged that the contractors should not have gained access to the resident’s rear-garden by taking the lock off her gate, nor should the gate have been left open at the end of the day. It apologised for this, and offered to replace the gate as a resolution. The landlord also stated that the contractors should have posted a letter to the resident in advance to advise that works were due to commence, and this should not have been stuck to the resident’s door. It further informed the resident that boards were placed on the grass as to avoid causing damage to it or leaving the grass muddy.
  5. It also stated that it had spoken to contractor about its behaviour whilst on-site, and it advised her that if the behaviour reoccurred, the resident should inform the site manager. In regard to the stones, it stated that it was agreed that the stones would need to be replaced after the work had been completed due to them sinking into the ground; in addition, the resident had agreed on the colour stones to be installed as the original colour was unavailable. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused, for new stones to be installed and for the gate to be replaced as a resolution to her complaint.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in October 2022. The resident remains dissatisfied with the colour of the stones laid in her garden. In addition, she is unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports of poor staff conduct. As a resolution the resident would like the stones returning to its original colour and increased compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Cyclical works

  1. During the cyclical repairs, the landlord identified that the stones would require replacing due to them sinking into the ground as a result of the works being completed. This shows that the landlord took proactive measures in resolving any damage it had caused during the cyclical process, and its decision to replace the stones was reasonable owing to the fact that it had damaged the stones itself. Therefore, its decision to replace the stones would not be a failure as it was replacing damaged stones in the resident’s property.
  2. The resident’s key dissatisfaction surrounds the colour of the stones, as she does not approve of the new colour and wishes for them to be replaced to the original colour. The landlord suggests that it had communicated with the resident about the colour of the stones and allowed the resident to select the colour she wishes; however, this is disputed by the resident. This Service has seen evidence to suggest that the landlord did offer the resident this as a solution, and due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the colour, the stones were removed on at least two occasions with stone samples left for the resident to approve. Therefore, the landlord attempted to resolve the resident’s complaint regarding the stone colour, as it requested her approval of the stone colour.
  3. In consideration that the resident requested the original stones to be installed, the landlord approached its manufacturers and identified that the stones were unavailable in the previous colour. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a choice of which stones she would like to be installed as a replacement and showed that the landlord was willing to work with the resident to find a reasonable solution to her complaint. Therefore, there is no failure in the landlord’s service in regard to the stones.
  4. It is further acknowledged that the landlord allowed the resident to change her mind on the colour of the stones on at least two occasions, and, due to being unhappy, it had removed these on two occasions. The landlord would not be expected to continue installing and removing stones until the resident was happy with the colour as this would be an unreasonable expectation. It is this Service’s understanding that the resident has been provided stone samples and has yet to select a colour to have installed. It is recommended that the resident select a stone colour and provide this to the landlord so it can have this installed as a resolution to her complaint.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied that the contractors had laid boards and bricks on her grass which had resulted in the grass dying. The landlord appropriately explained to the resident that these were laid so as to avoid damaging the grass further and leaving the area muddy, due to the excessive access that would be required. This was a reasonable explanation, and whilst this Service understands the inconvenience caused to the resident, owing to the nature of the works, it is reasonably expected that damage may occur to grassed areas. Therefore, there was no failing in regard to boards being laid on the resident’s grass.
  6. In contrast, there were aspects of the resident’s complaint that the landlord did not handle well. The resident raised concerns about how the contractors gained access to her property for the cyclical works to take place. This Service requested the landlord’s policy on gaining access for cyclical works, but the landlord stated it does not have one currently, but is seeking to establish one in the near future. In the absence of any policy, it is generally good practice that a landlord should provide a resident with prior notice of an appointment, with a specific date where works will take place. In this case, evidence suggests that the landlord informed the resident that works would be taking place in the week beginning 16 May 2022; however, it is evident that works started sooner due to the resident’s complaint being submitted on 9 May 2022 – the exact date is unknown. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord provided the resident with prior notice that works were set to take place before it removed the lock off her gate and gained entry.
  7. The failure to notify the resident of the appointment led to no access being provided by the resident, the contractor then removed the lock from the resident’s rear gate to gain access and complete works. This was not a reasonable action for the contractor to take, due to the resident being unaware of an appointment taking place, and it had no basis to enter the resident’s rear-garden.
  8. In addition, this failure ultimately led to the resident raising a complaint as she felt that this was an invasive action for the landlord to take, and that upon returning to her property she was “intimidated” by the method in which the landlord informed her, as it had put a piece of paper on her door. It is this Service’s opinion that had the landlord handled the initial cyclical repair work appropriately and provided the resident with an appointment, it could have avoided the subsequent complaint. Therefore, the landlord failed in its service to the resident.
  9. Overall, there is a concern that the landlord did not account for the resident’s vulnerability during the repairs process, and as such did not make any reasonable adjustments towards her. In the communication with the landlord, the resident expressed that the work had impacted her and provided information relating to her autism. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability.
  10. As the resident made the landlord aware that the changes occurring and the work being completed was proving to be detrimental to her mental health as a result of her autism, it would have been good practice for the landlord to adapt its repairs approach in consideration of this vulnerability. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding her vulnerability and, as such, did not adjust its approach leading to a further failure in its service. In light of this, this Service has considered the resident’s autism and deemed this sufficient to justify an increased award of compensation in light of the impact on her.
  11. The landlord did acknowledge its failings and apologised for the confusion. It also offered compensation of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused as way of redress. However, if we consider the inconvenience caused due to a lack of adequate communication and the subsequent effects this had on the cyclical repair work, this falls short of adequately resolving the complaint. In view of this, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 , bringing the total payable to £350, which provides a more proportionate amount in light of the failings. This is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact. 

Staff conduct

  1. Upon receiving reports of poor staff conduct, it is the landlord’s role to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and collect evidence from the contractors and the resident to determine what events had taken place. In this case, the landlord did conduct interviews with the contractors who had attended the property in an attempt to establish the events that had occurred. Therefore, the landlord acted in-line with good practice in conducting the investigation of the alleged events.
  2. During its investigation, the landlord informed the resident that it had reminded the contractors of the correct conduct whilst working on-site, and stressed that the behavior presented was unacceptable. It further advised that if the conduct occurred again, the resident should bring this to the attention of the site manager and any allegations would be dealt with appropriately. Therefore, this Service is satisfied with the landlord’s response to these allegations and the actions it has taken to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint at stage two of the process and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not address some of the concerns the resident raised during her escalation request, such as its lack of recognition of the contractor’s poor behaviour and the lack of appropriate compensation. The incomplete response from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience, which is evidenced by the resident contacting the landlord after the stage two response to inform the landlord that it had misrepresented her complaint.
  2. This lack of meaningful engagement led to delays in the complaints process, as when the resident raised that it had not addressed all aspects of her complaint, it revisited the concerns raised and produced a follow-up stage two response. However, this still failed to explore why it felt that an increase of compensation was not warranted or why it deemed £150 appropriate in the circumstances. This lack of engagement and understanding of the resident’s complaint ultimately led to factors not being addressed appropriately. Therefore, this was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling process.
  3. In light of this, the landlord should pay the resident a further £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s concerns about cyclical works to steps at the rear of her property and installation of new stones.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of operatives and staff.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £350 for its poor handling of the cyclical repairs and the poor level of communication, this is inclusive of the £150 previously offered to the resident, if this has not already been paid.
      2. £150 for poor complaint handling.
    2. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.