We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Onward Homes Limited (202233095)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233095

Onward Homes Limited

31 July 2025

 

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 response to the resident’s complaint about an increase in his service charge.
  2. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a weekly assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord, who is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has lived there since 2013. The landlord completed an equality act assessment with the resident in February 2025. This captured the resident’s health concerns and included a referral to its tenancy support services.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2023 to raise a formal complaint about an increase in his service charge. He said that he believed that the increase was due to the running of the communal laundry facilities which he did not use. He said that other residents used these to “wash dog blankets”. He suggested that the landlord install a coin operated laundry. He said that his service charge had increased from £20 to £50 a week and he believed such an increase was unacceptable in “the current cost of living crisis”. He asked for a senior manager to investigate his complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 17 April 2023. It called the resident on 26 April 2023 and escalated this to a manager. It provided a written response to his complaint on 9 May 2023. It acknowledged his concern about the increase. It said that:
    1. This was due to an increase in energy costs. It explained that it had set a fixed price for its electricity in 2019. This had expired in October 2022. It had obtained a new contract, but prices had significantly increased.
    2. It had subsidised the costs for residents from October 2022 to March 2023, but it could not do this indefinitely. The new service charge from April 2023 reflected the current energy costs. This has been calculated on the costs incurred by the landlord. It did not make a profit on the service charge.
    3. Its financial inclusion team could offer him further advice and support. It included the contact details for the team.
    4. It provided the washing machines as a service chargeable service which was valued by residents. It was contractually obliged to continue to deliver the service in its current form. It said that it would keep this under review.
    5. It agreed that residents should use the facilities appropriately. The neighbourhood officer would contact him to gather further information about the use of the machines and would speak to residents as appropriate.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted us in June 2023. As the landlord had not recorded its response to the resident in May 2023 as a formal complaint response, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 reply by 16 August 2023.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2023. It then contacted the resident on 31 July 2023 to discuss his complaint with him. He told it that he didn’t use the washing machines due to another resident using them to wash dog blankets.
  6. The landlord provided its formal stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. The content of this letter mirrored the information provided in its letter to the resident of 9 May 2023. It restated the information about increased energy costs and that the landlord made no profit from the service charge. It said that it had referred the resident to its financial inclusion team in June 2023, but it had been unable to speak with him further. It told him that he could contact them directly or speak with his neighbourhood manager. The neighbourhood manager would speak with residents to remind them to be considerate about the use of the laundry facility that it provided for the use of all residents.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 September 2023. He said that his service charge had increased to £120 per month for a washing machine which was regularly used to wash dog blankets. He said he couldn’t use the machine as this left his clothes “smelling of dog” and full of bacteria. He said that he could organise his own washing for this amount of money. He also included within the letter a list of the bacteria potentially carried by dogs. He said that he felt that this was a breach of health and safety.
  8. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request on 2 October 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded further to this.
  9. The resident contacted us on 26 January 2024 as he had not received a response to his complaint. He said that his landlord had threatened to take possession action, forcing him to pay the increased charge. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 12 March 2024.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 March 2024, having referred this to its director of housing and specialist living. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 April 2024. It said that his complaint was about the level of his service charge. It said it was sorry that he had to complain and apologised for the delay in its reply. It offered the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill to reflect this. It said that:
    1. The charge for 2023 to 2024 had been affected by significant external price rises both in energy costs and in delivering its wider services.
    2. Costs for utilities had reduced and it had reflected this in the service charge for 2024 to 2025. It noted that costs overall remained high.
    3. It communicated the changes to the service charges through its rent and service charge letters. It has also spoken directly to those residents affected by high increases. It did not make a profit on service charges as these were set to cover the costs that it incurred.
    4. It had noted that the resident was one of a few within the block who had old storage heaters. It asked if he would like to be considered for a boiler upgrade as this would be more efficient.
    5. The washing machines it provided were “largely valued by residents”. It said that it had investigated his report that the other residents were using the machine to wash pet bedding. It had spoken with those residents who had dogs. It was confident that it had resolved the issue but would continue to monitor this.
    6. It largely agreed with its findings set out in its original letter from May 2023. It did not believe that there was a “failure of service within the complaint”.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and was looking for it to reduce his service charge. He asked us to investigate his complaint in November 2024. He said that he believed the increase was due to the washing machine he could not use, and which others used to wash dog beds.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service does not have jurisdiction to review a landlord’s decision to charge or to increase a service charge. We cannot decide whether a service charge is reasonable. The focus of our investigation has been to look at how the landlord handled and responded to the resident’s complaint.
  2. Should the resident wish to further challenge the level of the service charge applied by the landlord he may wish to make an application to the First Tier Tribunal who has jurisdiction in such matters.

Response to the resident’s complaint about an increase in his service charge

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy sets out how it will ensure that it is both effective and consistent in its management of service charges. The policy says that it will calculate service charges to ensure that it fully recovers all the costs of the services that it provides.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident gave him an explanation of why his service charge had increased. It detailed where costs had increased, explained that it had delayed passing this increase on to residents and that it did not profit from the service charges. It repeated this explanation in its later response and was consistent in its replies to the resident. This is in line with its service charge policy.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s suggestion that it provide a coin operated laundry. It said that it “was contractually obliged to provide the service” and could not therefore change how it did this.
  4. The resident’s tenancy agreement includes a clause which says “the landlord must provide the services, if any, listed in the scheduled attached to this agreement, for which the tenant will pay a service charge. The landlord has not provided a copy of the schedule included with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It has said that these services are those captured within the resident’s service charge statement. This includes 5 headings:
    1. Utilities and scheme charges.
    2. Upkeep of communal areas.
    3. Health and safety provisions.
    4. Personal service charges.
    5. Management charges.
  5. The landlord has said that the maintenance, renewal, and running of the washing machine is within the electricity charge. It does not list these separately on the statement of services provided. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have included this level of detail to provide greater clarity to residents about the charge.
  6. The resident raised his concern about the use of the laundry service by other residents, leaving him unable to use the service. The landlord told him that it had followed up on his concerns. It had spoken with those residents who had pets. It said that it would continue to monitor this. Its actions in following up the resident’s reports with other residents were reasonable in the circumstances although it did not provide any clarity about how it would monitor this going forward. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have written to all residents about the use of the laundry facilities, setting out the parameters for their usage. It could then have agreed with the resident how he could report future concerns and agree a basis for its forward monitoring of the use of the laundry facilities. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord in its handling of this element of the resident’s complaint, that left the resident dissatisfied with the outcome.
  7. While it has said the service is “valued” by residents, it could have captured the level of support for its continued provision of a communal laundry facility. It could also have presented the resident’s suggestion of a coin operated laundry to the wider group of residents who pay for this service. Its service charge policy says that it will seek feedback from service charge payers “at regular intervals to assess service satisfaction”. Further it says that where possible it “will seek to offer choice to service charge payers regarding the level of services provided to their scheme or block” It would therefore have been reasonable in light of the resident’s complaint that it sought the wider opinion of resident’s about the continued provision of the service and how this should be delivered in the future. We have made a recommendation, in line with its original correspondence with the resident, that the landlord review the continued provision of this service.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says that it will aim to resolve complaints at first point of contact, but if it is unable to resolve this within 1 working day it will record a formal complaint. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy says that complaints will be dealt with by its dedicated complaint resolution team. Where a resident asks for their complaint to be escalated the complaint resolution team will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and give the resident the name of the director who will provide its final response.
  2. On receiving the resident’s complaint in April 2023, the landlord provided an acknowledgement in line with its complaint’s procedure. It did not however follow this through in its response. The local service area dealt with the complaint rather than its complaint resolution team, as set out in the landlord’s complaint policy. While it did provide a detailed response it did not include information on how the resident could pursue his complaint if he remained unhappy. The landlord took a total of 19 working days to reply, outside its published response time of 10 working days. The landlord only provided a formal stage 1 complaint response following the intervention of this service. The formal stage 1 response was provided within the target set by this service and in line with the landlord’s published procedure.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 September 2023. It appropriately acknowledged this, but there is no evidence presented that it investigated his complaint or provided an escalated reply. The resident contacted us on 26 January 2024 to pursue his complaint. We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 12 March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 4 March 2024. It provided its final response on 10 April 2024. This was a significant delay by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Its reply was 7 months after the resident asked it to escalate his complaint. The landlord did not act in line with its own procedure or respond appropriately to the request of this service to provide an escalated complaint response to the resident. Given the significant delays there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. In its stage 2 reply it acknowledged a failure in its service and offered the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill. We have reviewed the landlord’s offer considering the significant delay in its complaint responses. These were outside its published response times and left the resident to pursue his complaint through this service. This offer was not proportionate in the circumstances. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an added amount of compensation in recognition of the delays and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about an increase in his service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 calculated as follows:
      1. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to consider a review of or provide clarity around its monitoring of the services provided.
      2. £200 for the delay in its complaint response and the inconvenience this caused to the resident.
      3. This is in addition to the £50 awarded by the landlord as an outcome to its stage 2 complaint. The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid both amounts to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of the continued provision of the laundry facilities at the resident’s block. It should canvas resident views and consider putting in place rules for the future use of the facility if these are not already in place.