Onward Homes Limited (202301796)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301796

Onward Homes Limited

15 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. At the time of the complaint, the resident had 5 children living with her at the property.
  2. The resident reported repairs were needed to the loft in January 2022. When the landlord’s contractor attended on 9 February 2022, they observed signs of pest activity which required treatment. A work order was raised by the landlord on 14 February 2022 to remove the loft insulation to provide access, and she was informed to contact the local authority to conduct pest treatment. On 31 May 2022 it said it replaced the loft access.
  3. In September 2022, the landlord’s repairs records note that holes in the loft used by vermin needed repair. When its contractor attended on 22 September 2022, pest activity was found. It instructed pest contractors to complete treatment and cleared the loft insulation.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 November 2022 to repair the holes in the loft but was unable to. It referred to a repairs contractor and discovered there was still sign of pest activity. On 9 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about her experience with the loft and pest infestation in the property. She was unhappy that she was told repairs would take another 3 weeks as she had been experiencing vermin activity in her loft since February 2022.
  5. On 23 January 2023, the landlord’s pest contractors decided a sticky board treatment would take place in the property. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of the same day, it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £300 in compensation. It noted that repairs to the loft were needed in January 2022 and in subsequent months repairs were required for insulation damaged by pest infestation. It said the length of time to rectify the issue was unacceptable and apologised for the distress, inconvenience, and upset caused. It also apologised for contractors being unable to complete required works when attending the property. Feedback from its internal investigation would be shared with the relevant parties. It also recognised it failed to keep her updated.
  6. The resident’s MP first contacted the landlord on her behalf on 10 February 2023. The MP sought to clarify the status of her complaint and the action taken by the landlord. On 17 February 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord and indicated to it that she might escalate her complaint. She escalated her complaint in a phone call on 14 March 2023, as she was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response. Additionally, she was still facing issues in the property. The contractor had attended, but the loft was not clear of pests, meaning further contractor work could not be carried out. She also said there was a lack of communication throughout.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023. It apologised that the works were still incomplete. It said its pest contractor would attend the property on 18 April 2023. All works would be inspected by it to ensure the resident was happy. It acknowledged multiple attempts made by her to contact it and that its communication should have been better. It accepted its organisation between its repairs contractor and pest contractor was not satisfactory. Further feedback was provided to its teams and identified learning from the complaint. It said it would oversee cases where there was a requirement for more than 1 contractor to resolve issues and it would work closely between its own teams.
  8. Due to the further delays and inconvenience experienced by the resident, the landlord awarded an additional £200 to the £300 previously offered at stage 1. Making the total offer of compensation in its final response £500.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to this Service on 14 April 2023. She wanted the landlord to complete the works required to treat the pests and repair the loft, and offer more compensation.
  10. The pest issues were still ongoing after the landlord’s final response. It was not until 28 June 2023 contractors attended the property and resolved the issue. The resident called the landlord on 16 August 2023. She remained unhappy with the £500 compensation offered at stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure. Following this conversation, it revised its compensation offer to £2,000.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has accepted that it failed in its service delivery to the resident. She initially disputed the level of compensation offered by it in its final response was not sufficient. Therefore, this report will concentrate on whether it has offered fair compensation. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the internal walls, floors, and ceilings.
  3. The landlord operates a ‘remedies and financial redress guidance’ policy. It has different tiers when considering compensation for service failures. It offers between £150 to £700 for ‘medium impact’ on residents. Medium term is defined as between 3 to 6 months. It will consider awards above £700 for service failures causing a high detriment to residents. It provides examples of this, when there are long-term delays in the completion of a repair or resolving the cause of complaint. It can also be when there is a significant breakdown in communication between the parties, or if the period affected is 6 months or more.
  4. In this case, it was not disputed that there had been delays by the landlord addressing the pest infestation in the property and organising follow on works to the loft. It was also not disputed that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £500 for the inconvenience caused at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It revised its offer of compensation in August 2023, which was after the resident exhausted its internal complaints procedure. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to complete repairs in the loft, to prevent access of pests, and pest infestation.
  5. The resident first reported the repairs in January 2022, it was not until 31 May 2022 that the landlord replaced the loft access. Although it agreed an initial appointment on 9 February 2022 (after a call from the resident on 10 January 2022), its responsive repairs policy does not provide timescales for completion of repairs. Despite the absence of timescales in its policy, the repairs were made 111 calendar days after it initially inspected the property on 9 February 2022, which was an unreasonable amount of time.
  6. However, the landlord was reliant upon receiving confirmation from the resident that the local authority had completed pest treatment. Although it would have been reasonable for it to have taken a more proactive approach and checked with her when pest control services were attending. This way, the onus would not have been on her to inform it. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that there were delays, which was a factor in its compensation offer, and doing so was appropriate in the circumstances.
  7. It is unclear from the evidence provided why no further works were carried out by the landlord until September 2022. The landlord said that it was unable to align the visits of the repairs and pest control contractors. This meant pest activity was ongoing, until 28 June 2023. This was more than 9 months since it had realised that further repairs were required to the loft due to the pest infestation. This delay was unreasonable and unfair in the circumstances and undoubtedly caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It is evident from the information provided she called for updates and chased a response on multiple occasions from February 2022 until completion of works.
  8. Positively, the landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint, which was appropriate. It confirmed that from its final response, it would monitor cases like the resident’s where more than 1 contractor was involved. This was to avoid delays from occurring because of poor co–ordination between its contractors. Additionally, it would work closely between its own teams and provided feedback to its staff. This demonstrated it was willing to learn from outcomes.
  9. However, the landlord’s policy states it would consider compensation over £700 where residents are affected for more than 6 months. The resident had no resolve to her issues from 1 September 2022, and in its final response, it committed to repairs on 18 April 2022. This period is more than 7 months and the resident was affected by previous delays from 9 February 2022 until 31 May 2022. It is this Service’s opinion that the resident’s experience satisfies the high detriment criteria in the landlord’s remedies and financial redress guidance. On this occasion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered more compensation in its final response, given the cumulative length of time the resident was affected. Therefore the compensation offered was not in line with its own compensation policy, which was not appropriate.
  10. This Service acknowledges that an offer of £2,000 was made by the landlord to the resident for this complaint after 16 August 2023. It is the Ombudsman’s view that although the landlord did identify points of learning, it missed the opportunity to provide suitable redress within its internal complaints process and before the case was accepted by the Ombudsman for formal investigation.
  11. As the resident was unhappy with the level of compensation following completion of works, the landlord increased its offer from £500 to £2,000. Although the landlord showed a willingness to put things right, it is evident that the landlord was aware in May 2023 that the resident had referred the matter to this Service. It is unclear whether the revised award of compensation would have been offered had the complaint not been referred to this Service for investigation. It did not provide this Service a breakdown of how the award of £2,000 was calculated and whether this was put in writing to the resident.
  12. The Ombudsman will not find maladministration or service failure for when the landlord had provided reasonable redress. The Ombudsman expects it to have done so within its internal complaints process. This encourages earlier resolution to complaints.
  13. Had the landlord offered this level of compensation in its final response, or committed to re-assessing the compensation (as works were outstanding), the £2,000 offered would have been considered reasonable redress. Based on the compensation of £500 offered in its final response, it was not proportionate to the detriment the resident faced over a long period of time. She experienced delays, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble due to the poor communication. The detriment continued beyond the final response. As such, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding the level of compensation offered for its handling of her reports of pests in the property. An order is therefore made for it to pay her the revised offer of £2,000 it made in August 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the revised £2,000 compensation stemming from August 2023, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review the case and identify reasons for the delays and why the landlord could not co–ordinate 2 contractors’ attendance. This is to include, but not limited to the actions it will take to prevent this happening again.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must review its responsive repairs policy and provide clarity in relation to timescales for attending and completing repairs. This is to include, but not limited to emergency repairs and non-urgent repairs.
  3. The landlord is to provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.