Onward Homes Limited (202213478)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213478

Onward Homes Limited

13 February 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 the installation of new windows in the resident’s property and subsequent remedial works.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a three-bedroom house, and the landlord has vulnerabilities on record for the resident.
3. In March 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to work that had been recently carried out to replace her windows and the subsequent remedial works. Between March 2021 and February 2022, the resident continued to frequently contact the landlord in relation to her complaint and in relation to outstanding work to again replace her windows. On 2 February 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would raise a new formal complaint on her behalf, because, her complaints that were currently open, did not contain any information about her windows. The landlord noted that she was happy for it to investigate its delay to carry out the works.
4. The landlord’s overall complaints response was that all the works that it had agreed to carry out had been completed, although it did acknowledge that there had been delays and it had taken steps to make certain that this did not happen again. It also awarded her £50 compensation in recognition of its failure in its customer service.
5. The resident then contacted this Service and advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in carrying out the works, the impact that the delay had on her health and wellbeing and the amount of compensation that the landlord had awarded her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. Although the resident has asked for compensation in recognition of the impact on her mental health and wellbeing, this is not something that will be considered in this investigation. This is because, under paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this relates to a matter where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This report will investigate whether the landlord considered the impact of its handling of the installation of new windows in the resident’s property, on the resident’s health and wellbeing and also the general distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of new windows in the resident’s property and subsequent remedial works

7. The landlord does not dispute that there were delays by it in carrying out the works to replace the resident’s windows and the subsequent remedial works. It acknowledged this, apologised and awarded her £50 compensation for its “poor customer service”. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will be on whether its response to her complaint was reasonable.
8. The resident first reported an issue with her recently installed windows to the landlord on 23 March 2021, and the works, including replacing those windows, were not completed until 6 April 2022, 266 working days later. Although the landlord did respond to a number of the resident’s requests for updates advising that there were delays in acquiring the replacement windows, it did not ultimately explain what the cause of those delays amounting to over a year which it took to acquire the replacement windows, and this was not reasonable. This is because it should have offered a reasonable explanation in order to manage the resident’s expectations, especially due to the delay being significant. Whilst the landlord offered £50 compensation alongside an apology, noting it had taken steps to make certain that this did not happen again, this was not enough to resolve the complaint and the failings with its handling which amounted to service failure.
9. After the resident initially contacted the landlord on 23 March 2021, in relation to her windows, it attended her property on 7 April 2021, and carried out an inspection of her windows and subsequent remedial works. The inspection identified 14 defects, some of which were minor and some that were identified as issues for the manufacturer and/or supplier of the windows to resolve. This means that it took 11 working days, between 23 March 2021 and 7 April 2021, for the landlord to attend the resident’s property after initially being contacted by her in relation to her windows. This was not wholly unreasonable.
10. The resident then contacted the landlord on 19 April 2021 to request an update. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 21 April 2021, in order to discuss the outstanding issues. The resident then heard nothing further from it and so she contacted it on 6 June 2021 and advised it that the window manufacturer had attended her property and had carried out “cosmetic repairs” but nothing else. The landlord’s contractor did attend her property on 9 June 2021, in order to fix some of the issues that had been previously identified. She then advised it on 14 June 2021, that its contractor had attended her property without an appointment, and allegedly in an unprofessional manner, and had allegedly advised her that a report would be sent to the landlord in order for it to decide what to do next.
11. The landlord’s contractor should not have attended the resident’s property without making an appointment. This was an unreasonable action and gave no consideration to the resident’s time or whether this action would have been inconvenient. Although the landlord did advise the resident that it had referred this matter to its relevant department to investigate, the outcome of that investigation does not appear to have been communicated to the resident. Therefore, there was further service failure by the landlord, in relation to no consideration given for the resident’s time and inconvenience, and poor communication by it when it failed to inform the resident about the outcome of its investigation into its contractor.
12. After failing to hear from the landlord from 15 June 2021, the resident contacted it on 16 August 2021, at which time she was informed by the landlord that its contractor had expected to receive the replacement windows for her property on 27 July 2021. It advised that it was awaiting an update from its contractors about when the windows would be fitted in her property, because some of the windows had been received damaged from the window supplier. It was not reasonable for the landlord to have not kept the resident updated over a period of 45 working days, between 15 June 2021 and 16 August 2021. Best practice would have been for it to have maintained contact with her, even if it was to simply advise her of a continued delay to works, and/or to initially advise her about when she could expect contact from it, in order to manage her expectations rather than have left it up to her to chase it. This was further poor communication by the landlord, and again it failed to consider the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered by the resident. Again this amounted to service failure.
13. In its previous communication with the resident, the landlord had advised her that it would contact her once it had an update, and therefore, between 16 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 it did not contact her as it had no updates. This was reasonable because it had previously managed her expectations by explaining to her when it would contact her.
14. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 September 2021 and carried out an inspection of the remedial works, and found that almost all of the previously identified defects relating to the installation of the resident’s new windows and subsequent remedial works, were still outstanding, as were the replacement windows. This was further compounded by the fact that in its inspection report on 31 January 2022, the landlord noted that 13 out of the 14 defects that it had previously identified on 7 April 2021, still remained unresolved. This was unreasonable because it offered no explanation to the resident as to why these issues had remained outstanding up to that point, especially considering the fact that its records showed that it attended her property on 9 June 2021, specifically in order to resolve the outstanding defects, and yet between that date and 31 January 2022, 166 working days later, only 1 of the 14 defects that had been initially identified had been resolved.
15. Neither the landlord’s first or final stage complaint response, indicate that it gave any consideration to the resident’s claim that its handling of the installation of the new windows, and subsequent remedial works had impacted her mental health and wellbeing. This was unreasonable because the very least that it could have done was to apologise to her for any impact on her health and wellbeing, and to have signposted her to its liability insurers in order for her to make a claim about the impact of its handling on her mental health and wellbeing.
16. The £50 compensation that the landlord awarded the resident was in recognition of the delay, which it classified as poor customer service. Under section 2 of its complaints policy, £50 compensation is the only amount payable to a resident, for poor customer service, where their complaint is upheld. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord for its poor customer service then was in line with its compensation policy. However, although the landlord attempted to redress its failure, the £50 compensation was not proportionate to the number of failings identified within this report. This is because the delay was over a year, there were significant issues with the landlord’s communication, no consideration was given to the inconvenience and distress the resident would have suffered, nor was consideration given to the impact on her vulnerabilities. As a result this amounted to maladministration, and a compensation award of £50, although the maximum amount that it could award under its compensation policy, was not a true reflection of the impact of its failings.
17. Whilst the landlord did apologise and noted it had learnt from its failure, further redress is required and a compensation amount of £600 would be an appropriate level of redress for the maladministration. This is inclusive of the £50 compensation that the landlord awarded the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which states that redress for service failure or maladministration, where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but its redress offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation, an appropriate amount of redress would be between £100 to £600 compensation.
18. Additionally, the landlord is ordered below to apologise to the resident for any impact that its handling of the installation of the new windows, and subsequent remedial works, may have had on her mental health and wellbeing, and provide her with the details of its liability insurers in order for her to make a claim in relation to the above, if she so chooses.

Determination

19. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the installation of the new windows in the resident’s property and subsequent remedial works.

Orders

20. The landlord is order to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 compensation, which is inclusive of its compensation award of £50 if not paid.
    2. Apologise to the resident for any impact that its handling of the installation of the new windows, and subsequent remedial works, may have had on her mental health and wellbeing.
    3. Provide the resident with the details of its liability insurers in order for her to make a claim in relation to the above.
    4. Make sure that in future it acts in a proactive manner in relation to keeping residents informed of progress and/or delays, rather than allow residents to chase it for updates.
    5. Carry out staff training in order to redress its failings in relation to its poor communication.
21. The landlord will contact this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.