Onward Homes Limited (202227575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227575

Onward Homes Limited

30 April 2024

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 the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint concerning her kitchen renewal.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 19 August 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom house, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records stated that the resident suffered with mental health issues associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. It further stated the mental, and physical health vulnerabilities of her resident’s children.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy stated that residents would be offered an appointment within 20 days for repairs that could be completed in 1 visit. It said that it would agree a date with residents for larger or more complex jobs, which could be for an inspection. It stated that it would then keep in touch with the resident, and aim to complete the works within 90 days.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process, with responses issued within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively.
It stated that it would acknowledge requests for complaints to be escalated to stage 2 of its process within 2 working days. It said that its stage 2 investigating officer would introduce themselves to the resident, explain the stage 2 resolution process, and gather information to help their understanding of the complaint.

Summary of events

On 8 June 2022 the resident reported kitchen repairs to the landlord. The landlord raised a routine repair for 27 June 2022. Its record stated that it attended that day, and refixed a drawer front, and 2 kitchen unit doors. Later the same day the resident asked the landlord to renew her kitchen. The landlord told the resident that it would raise an inspection, and contact her within 48 hours. The landlord’s record noted that the resident’s kitchen was due for renewal in 2032.
On 4 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had not heard from it since her contact on 27 June 2022. The landlord raised an inspection for 18 July 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended that day, and reported back that the unit doors were old and unaligned, but serviceable. The landlord closed the job as complete.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord left a message for the resident advising that her kitchen did not warrant a further inspection. The resident called the landlord to discuss this, and was promised a call back.
On 2 August 2022 the resident told the landlord she had not heard from it, and that parts of her kitchen needed replacing. The landlord raised a routine repair, which its record stated the resident declined on the basis that she wanted a replacement, not a repair.
On 15 August 2022 the resident reported various issues with her kitchen to the landlord. The landlord’s initially raised an inspection, but subsequently changed this to a ‘neighbourhood specialist’ visit, to assess whether the resident should be recharged for her kitchen repairs. Its record stated that the resident had painted her kitchen unit doors and drawer fronts, which meant that they could no longer be matched.
On 14 October 2022 the resident called the landlord to speak to its repairs team, but was told that it was not available. A member of the landlord’s tenancy support team made support offers to the resident regarding her, and her children’s vulnerabilities, which the resident declined as she said she already had support in place.
On 24 October 2022 the resident chased the landlord regarding her kitchen, and the landlord raised a routine repair for 2 November 2022. On 3 November 2022 the landlord raised a routine job to renew the resident’s kitchen unit doors, and drawer fronts.
On 22 November 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord concerning the works it was undertaking to her kitchen. She said that the landlord’s contractor had attended her property at inconsistent times, and with inadequate or damaged materials. She said that the contractor’s manager had been rude to her, and that despite chasing the landlord’s repairs team she felt that she was, “getting nowhere with this kitchen”. The landlord spoke to the resident the same day, and sent her its formal acknowledgement of her complaint 2 days later.
On 24 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she had recently paid for kitchen wallpaper and flooring, and asked for its assistance with the cost. On 28 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. She highlighted the impact that the issues with its contractor, and her kitchen were having on her mental health.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It provided a chronology of events since the resident reported her kitchen repairs on 8 June 2022. It apologised for the occasions that it had failed to call the resident back or keep her informed, and for the time taken to progress her kitchen. It said that an urgent job had been raised to renew the resident’s kitchen. It agreed it would reimburse the resident the £576.85 cost of her wallpaper, decoration, and flooring.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident further to their earlier discussion. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the miscommunication, and issues that she had experienced. The resident replied the same day, and asked that the landlord call her as, “today has just gone even worse I can’t cope with this anymore”.
On 9 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not called her the previous day as it had promised to, and about its communications in general.
On 16 December 2022 the resident said that her cooker hood had fallen from her kitchen wall, and hit her head. The resident told this Service that this occurred after the contractor had finished for the day, and at the end of the working week. She said that she messaged the contractor about the incident shortly after it occurred, and sent it photographs. This Service has not seen those messages, but has seen photographs of the resident’s head, and of where her cooker hood had detached from the wall. She told this Service that the contractor had initially said that it would return the following day, but subsequently advised that it had been unable due to personal issues. She said that the contractor returned to attend to the cooker hood on 19 December 2022.
The resident told this Service that she did not report the cooker hood incident directly to the landlord but that the contractor must have done, as the landlord called her about it the following week. This Service has not seen any record of that call, nor what was discussed or agreed between the landlord and resident.
On 12 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had taken advice regarding her injury from the cooker hood, and had been told that she should seek around £500 compensation. The following day the landlord told the resident that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process, and the resident replied immediately to ask why.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had escalated her complaint, as it could not authorise her injury compensation request. It said that it would provide the resident a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The resident protested to the landlord that it should have escalated her complaint the previous month, and that she should not now have to wait a further month. She asked for the details of who would be undertaking the landlord’s stage 2 investigation, and how she could discuss it with them.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that the resident had painted her kitchen unit drawer fronts, and doors but had remained dissatisfied with them. It said that despite the kitchen still being usable, it had agreed to renew it without recharging her.
2. It said that on arrival, the resident had complained about the contractor’s attitude, and that the new kitchen parts were damaged. It said that its contractor had refused to reattend the resident’s property due to her behaviour towards it, and so it had engaged a second contractor.
3. It stated that on the day of the kitchen installation, its contractor had been delayed by a traffic accident, which meant that the works started later in the day than had been planned.
4. It described various other issues over the course of the works, which it said its contractor had tried to resolve with the resident. It said that this had included the resident being without a cooker for a weekend, for which she was given a food allowance. It summarised the £245 paid by its contractor to the resident as follows:
  1. £100 food allowance.
  2. £25 for a damaged lifting trolley.
  3. £120 for “alleged damage to dish washer”.
5. It said that it had ensured that the £576.85 decoration reimbursement that it had offered at stage 1 had been paid directly to the resident, rather than offset against her arrears. It said that this was to avoid any financial loss to the resident for her previous decoration work, and that it had offered her a further £100 compensation for its service failings 2 days later.
6. It stated that it had endeavoured to meet the resident’s expectations, and resolve issues as they occurred, but accepted that her kitchen renewal had not proceeded as it would have hoped.
7. It offered the resident a further £100 compensation, which brought it and its contractor’s total reimbursement of costs, and compensation award to £1021.85.
8. It said that the resident’s personal injury (PI) claim regarding the cooker hood had been passed to its insurer. It provided its insurer’s contact and policy details.
9. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 3 and 7 February 2023 the resident replied to the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with its stage 2 response. She complained that the landlord had not given her the opportunity to have her say about the complaint. She said that the landlord’s stage 2 response had contained lies about the condition of her kitchen prior to the renewal, and about her being rude to its contractor. She protested at the time that it had taken for the landlord to pass her PI claim to its insurer.
During this investigation the resident told this Service that the landlord’s insurer had passed her PI claim to the contractor’s insurer, who had passed it to its sub-contractor’s insurer. She said that the claim had made no progress, and that she felt as if the landlord, and insurers were trying to avoid dealing with it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord accepted that the resident’s kitchen renewal had not gone as it would have hoped, and that there had been associated communication failings. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord appropriately apologised for its failings to the resident, and handled some aspects of her complaint in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord, and its contractor’s reimbursements for damaged items, and lack of cooking facilities, prior to and during stage 1 of its complaint process, demonstrated reasonable efforts to be fair, and put things right.
However, the landlord failed to handle its escalation of the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy. This delayed the handling of the resident’s complaint, and deprived her of the opportunity to discuss it with the landlord, despite her specifically requesting to. Furthermore, while the landlord stated its intention to learn from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint, it failed to demonstrate that it had done so.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its identified failings. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s £200 offer was not proportionate to the impact of those failings on the resident, with particular regard to her mental health vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning her kitchen renewal.
The resident reported the issues with her kitchen to the landlord on 8 June 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise, and attend a repairs appointment on 27 June 2022, which was within the timeframes of its policy.
Following the landlord’s attendance, the resident expressed her view that her kitchen was beyond repair, and required replacement. The landlord promised the resident a call back within 48 hours to discuss this. It would have been frustrating for the resident that 5 working days later she had not heard from the landlord, and had to chase it herself. As the landlord later accepted, this was the first of several contact failings, and the landlord’s communications to the resident were therefore unreasonable.
Having chased the landlord, it raised and attended an inspection of the resident’s kitchen, again in line with the timeframes of its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to call the resident shortly after the inspection to discuss its findings. The landlord left the resident a voicemail, and the resident returned its call to discuss her kitchen. The landlord promised the resident a call back, which it again failed to do, and would have added to her frustration, time, and trouble.
The resident reported various issues with her kitchen during August 2022, and the landlord visited her to assess whether the decoration she had completed to her units and drawers should make any repairs rechargeable. The landlord’s records did not state its reasoning, but it decided that it would not recharge the resident. The landlord’s record keeping, with specific regard to the reasoning for its decisions, has been further considered below.
On 14 October 2022 the resident called the landlord to discuss her kitchen. It was reasonable for the landlord’s tenancy support team to discuss support options with the resident, which demonstrated the landlord’s consideration of the resident, and her children’s vulnerabilities. However, the resident did not get to discuss her kitchen with the landlord’s repairs team, as was the purpose of her call, and she again found it necessary to chase the landlord for an update, which she did 10 days later.
The landlord raised, and attended repairs to the resident’s kitchen at the start of November 2022, again in line with the timeframe of its policy. The landlord subsequently told this Service that works to the resident’s kitchen did not go ahead at these attendances due to damaged materials and other issues, and that the resident was further inconvenienced.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2022, and 2 days later asked it to assist her with her wallpaper and flooring costs. Again, the landlord’s records did not state its reasoning, but on 30 November 2022 the landlord decided to bring forward the renewal of the resident’s kitchen. While the resident disputed it, the landlord had previously assessed the resident’s kitchen as still usable. As such, its decision to bring forward the resident’s kitchen renewal by several years demonstrated a resolution, and customer focused approach. Nevertheless, while the landlord’s record keeping was in the main reasonable, it would be expected that it should also be able to demonstrate the reasoning or rationale behind its decisions. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation to this regard.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 December 2022, which was in line with the timeframe of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and with its own policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its communication failings, and to reimburse the £576.85 costs towards what the landlord has subsequently described to this Service as her damaged decoration. It was appropriate for the landlord to make this payment directly to the resident for the reasons it stated, rather than to offset it against her arrears. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s own position regarding offsetting, as is further described below.
However, in addition to reimbursing her costs, it would have been further reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the impact of its accepted failings. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this 2 days later, when it offered the resident £100 compensation. The landlord’s offers of compensation have been further considered below.
Over the following days the resident continued to express her dissatisfaction to the landlord with how her kitchen renewal was progressing. The resident did not specifically request that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to recognise her continued dissatisfaction as such, and to have escalated her complaint in line with the Code, and its own policy.
Around 1 week later the resident said that her cooker hood had fallen from her wall, and injured her. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to advise the resident why any claim for injury would need to be handled by its insurer as a PI claim, and provide her with the relevant insurance details. If the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the workmanship that had caused her cooker hood to fall, or other aspects of her kitchen renewal, the landlord should again have regarded it as a complaint escalation request.
It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord took a further month to escalate the resident’s complaint. It is further unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord appropriately advised the resident regarding her PI claim until it issued its stage 2 response, 50 days after the resident said that she had sustained her injury. The Ombudsman recognises the importance of timely information in relation to potential insurance claims, as such a process needs to be given the opportunity to assess the facts of a case in a timely manner. The time taken by the landlord to provide appropriate advice caused undue delay for the resident, and would have further added to her time, trouble, and distress.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2023. The landlord’s policy stated that its stage 2 investigating officer would introduce themselves to the resident, and gather information to help their understanding of the complaint. Upon escalation, the resident asked the landlord for the contact details of the investigating officer, and for the opportunity to discuss her complaint. The landlord’s failure to follow its own policy deprived the resident of this opportunity, and it was understandable that she expressed her dissatisfaction with this following her receipt of its stage 2 response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 February 2023. The response appropriately apologised for its communication failings, and for the issues that meant that the resident’s kitchen renewal had not gone as it would have hoped. The landlord’s response referred to its intention to learn from the resident’s complaint, which was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this learning, nor that it was communicated to the resident. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered the resident a further £100 compensation for its service failings. As above, while it was reasonable for the landlord to offer redress, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the £200 offered was not proportionate to the overall distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance. It is acknowledged that the landlord, did not dispute the resident’s £821.85 of costs, and that it and its contractor took a resolution focused approach in offering reasonable reimbursements throughout.
Nonetheless, our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. In this instance the kitchen renewal, communication, and complaint handling failures identified above caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, with regards to her mental health vulnerabilities. This is considered in the Ombudsman compensation award below.
The resident told this Service about the delays and difficulties that she said that she had experienced in progressing her PI claim. The resident was advised that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess PI claims, nor the actions of insurers. Nonetheless, the landlord would be expected to provide appropriate, and timely advice to the resident regarding its insurance process, and to intervene should its insurer become unresponsive. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to clarify the status of the resident’s PI claim, and to advise her, and this Service how it will be progressed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning her kitchen renewal.

Reasons

The landlord accepted its communication, and service failings in the handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal. However, it then compounded this with its complaint handling failures, which it failed to recognise.
The landlord did handle aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with the Code, and with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, its delays in escalating the resident’s complaint, and its failure to follow its own policy, deprived the resident of the opportunity to discuss it, and understandably left her feeling that she had not been listened to.
While the landlord did demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, they would have added to the distress she experienced, and compounded the impact of the landlord’s failings. This was not reflected in the compensation offered by the landlord, nor was the additional impact on the resident of its complaint handling failures.
It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident’s PI claim to its insurer, however there was an unreasonable delay in it doing so. The resident has said that progress of her PI claim has stalled, and that it remains unresolved 17 months after the incident it related to.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Writes to the resident, and this Service to advise the status and next steps of the resident’s PI claim.
3. Reviews its staff training needs with regards to recognising complaint escalation requests, and demonstrating its learning from the outcome of complaints, and writes to this Service with its findings.
4. Pays the resident a total of £400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal;
  2. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
5. This amount is separate to the costs that the landlord reimbursed to the resident, and replaces its own compensation award of £200 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £400).
6. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident, and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its staff training needs, with a view to maintaining records of the rationale, and reasoning for its decisions.