Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Onward Homes Limited (202234766)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234766

Onward Homes Limited

30 April 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Handling of structural repairs to the property.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The property was a 4-bedroom house. The landlord was a housing association. The tenancy ended in May 2022. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. On 1 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about “serious” structural issues at the side of the property. She said it had inspected the property in March 2019 but had not provided her with details of the findings or its planned approach to repairs.
  2. On 19 June 2023, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about issues while she lived at the property, this included structural repairs and ASB issues.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It said it completed some repairs in 2020. It said:
    1. On 1 April 2021 it raised an emergency repair for masonry falling from the roof. Its contractor was instructed to secure the area and erect scaffolding to ensure there was no further movement and the property was safe.
    2. A structural engineer attended in May 2021 to inspect the coping stones and gable elevation. It was advised to take down the loose copings, kneeler stones and brickwork. A further inspection was conducted in June 2021 and the structural report was finalised for the roof design and submitted to the planning office for approval. The required repairs were approved and outstanding repairs were completed.
    3. It upheld the resident’s complaint about structural repairs. It apologised that the resident and her family had to live in a property that was not structurally sound and for the time taken to rectify the issues. It accepted the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £400 compensation.
    4. For the ASB issues it explained the action it had taken on historical issues in 2016 and 2019. It said it received reports of ASB in May 2021 and asked for further information from the resident. Despite chasers, it did not receive further information and closed the ASB case on 30 July 2021. It did not uphold the ASB complaint.
    5. It had identified learning opportunities which included better communication with its contractors to manage referrals as soon as they were received and raise repairs within a timely manner.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 August 2023. She told the landlord that its stage 1 response ignored the impact her living situation had on her health and family life. She said the compensation offer was substantially lower than what she would be prepared to accept. On the same day the landlord asked to speak to the resident to discuss compensation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 October 2023. It said:
    1. For the structural issue. Repairs were required following a larger scale scheme review that raised issues with the design of some buildings. It said it required a structural survey to ensure it worked safely and that the repairs would resolve the issue permanently. It explained how it secured the structure initially and made it safe. It said this did not impact the internal use of the property. It apologised if scaffolding and safety fencing caused some inconvenience. It noted that the resident felt the property was not safe and offered its assurance that it did everything to make the property safe and habitable during the project.
    2. For ASB. It explained that ASB cases were closed following failed attempts to contact the resident.
    3. It increased the compensation offer to £2,000. It said this was made up of:
      1. £1,400 for the distress, inconvenience and upset caused for the 14 months taken to complete work (£100 per month).
      2. £600 for the costs of the resident’s move to her new home.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and said it had not considered the “serious impact” of her living conditions. She referred her complaint to this Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and can not consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint from June 2023 she has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of historic ASB issues. The evidence shows these issues were from 2016, with the last report from May 2021.
  3. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
    1. were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising
  4. The Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised the ASB issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. There is no evidence to show the resident did this and after careful consideration of the information available, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB is outside of jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she reported structural issues at the property for a number of years prior to 2021. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. The evidence shows that some concerns about structural issues were raised on 1 March 2021 as part of the resident’s complaint, which the landlord did not respond to. As such, this report will consider the landlord’s handling of structural issues after March 2020. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time (12 months) have not been assessed within this report.
  2. Over the course of the resident’s complaint and in communication with the landlord and Ombudsman, the resident has said her living conditions had an impact on her health and wellbeing. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health or wellbeing. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. Within the resident’s contact with this Service, she has raised concerns about losing her 15 year discount when she moved from the property. It seems the resident is referring to a discount to purchase the property after living in it for 15 years. It is important to explain that the Ombudsman can not determine the causational link between the issues at the property, the resident leaving the property and losing her 15 year discount in these circumstances. The resident is free to seek independent legal advice on this.

Handling of structural repairs at the property

  1. The landlord’s website and its repairs handbook explains that emergency repairs will be attended to on the same day. For complicated work, it says it will agree a date for an initial inspection and it will stay in touch with a resident until the work is completed. It explains it aims to complete complex repairs within 90 days. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, amongst other things.
  2. The landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance allows for discretionary compensation payments where there have been delays in providing a service such as a repair. It says that when determining the appropriate level of compensation, it will always consider the severity of any service failure.
  3. As mentioned previously, this report will only focus on events post March 2020. In October 2020, the resident reported concerns about the structure of the property, it is unclear what the specific concerns were at that time. However, the landlord appropriately conducted an inspection and there is no evidence to show structural issues to the roof were identified.
  4. In April 2021 the landlord completed an emergency repair noting that masonry had fallen from the roof of the property. It is noted that it acted quickly in appropriately securing the area and erecting scaffolding so there was no further movement. On 10 and 14 May 2021 it conducted structural inspections and found the roof design required changing, this needed approval from the planning office. While it requested planning permission in June 2021, it is unclear when this was approved. However, the landlord took until June 2022 to complete the work required to the roof. The timeframe of 14 months to complete work was not appropriate and exceeded the landlord’s complex work repairs timeframe.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor’s report from June 2021 said the “original design of the gable wall parapet is flawed and together with poor workmanship provides a high risk of collapse.” While it is not disputed that the landlord made the property safe, it did not keep the resident updated until the completion of works, as per its policy. This was not appropriate and would have added to the resident’s concerns about when it would complete work.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s handling of structural repairs at the property was not appropriate. While it appropriately conducted inspections and made the property safe, it exceeded its 90 day complex work timeframe, it took too long to complete work, and failed to keep the resident updated during this time. It is unclear whether the timeframe for planning approval had an overall impact on its ability to complete work sooner. However, had the landlord kept the resident updated during that time, it could have helped manage some of her concerns.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it accepted that the resident and her family lived in a property that “was not structurally sound”. Understandably, living in such conditions would have caused the resident upset and worry. When considering the timeframe of 14 months, it is accepted that the worry would have been for a significant timeframe. However, during this time the landlord made the property safe and this would have helped alleviate some of the resident’s safety concerns.
  8. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately apologised for the time taken to complete work and resolve the structural issues. It acknowledged that the scaffolding and safety fencing caused inconvenience. It explained how the structural work was complex and that it made the area safe while work was outstanding. It offered the resident £2,000 in compensation and said this was made up of £1,400 for the distress, inconvenience and upset caused for the 14 months to complete work (£100 per month). It offered a further £600 for the costs of moving to her new home.
  9. The landlord’s compensation offer falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and the high impact amount from its remedies and financial redress guidance. The landlord’s compensation offer of £2,000 has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of structural repairs to the property and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint. Had the landlord not increased its compensation offer and not completed work, the Ombudsman would have found some level of maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint resolution policy from April 2023 says it aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and that it will only close a complaint when agreed actions had been completed. It says a stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint about the landlord’s handling of some structural issues at the property on 1 March 2021. The subject line of the email mentioned “complaint” and there is no evidence to show the landlord triggered its complaints process at that time. This was not appropriate.
  3. On 19 June 2023, on behalf of the resident, this Service passed her complaint to the landlord. The landlord was asked to provide its response by 10 July 2023. It did not meet this timeframe and instead the landlord closed the complaint after being unable to contact the resident. This was not in line with its complaints policy and was not appropriate.
  4. This Service contacted the landlord again on 20 July 2023 and asked it to issue its response by 28 July 2023. While the landlord met this timeframe, when the resident escalated her complaint on 10 August and 25 September 2023, it did not respond in line with its complaints policy. This was not appropriate and meant the resident had to involve this Service again before the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 October 2023.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It repeatedly failed to progress the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It took too long to respond to complaints and at times closed complaints without completing actions as detailed within its policy. The landlord’s complaint handling meant the resident had to involve this Service more than once before it issued its complaint responses. The landlord’s repeated complaint handling failings amount to maladministration.
  6. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings and made no attempt to put things right. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service, especially as she had to repeatedly involve the Ombudsman.
  7. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered as well as the landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance. It is acknowledged that the landlord missed opportunities to put things right as part of its complaints process and as such a compensation amount of £300 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB is outside of jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of structural repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident £2,000 it previously offered if it has not paid this already.