Onward Homes Limited (202311474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311474

Onward Homes Limited

30 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the bathroom and kitchen (including damp and mould).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident has subsequently raised complaints about:
1. The handling of a request for a managed move.
2. Mould in their cupboards.
3. A further leak in their bathroom.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident lives with their baby son. The son was born with only one functional kidney.
On 29 June 2023 the resident contacted this service to report that their landlord was refusing to accept a formal complaint. We wrote to the landlord the following day (30 June 2023) to advise it was required to respond to the resident’s complaint. We explained the resident had told us their complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s handling of their reports of ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The conduct of the landlord’s staff.
4. The landlord’s delay in raising a formal complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. It said:
1. There had been delays in it completing repairs in the kitchen and bathroom. It had also identified examples of incorrectly raised repairs for the kitchen. It apologised to the resident for these failures.
2. It had inspected the property on 28 June 2023 but had not found any signs of visible damp. It had identified further needed repairs in the bathroom and kitchen.
3. It acknowledged it had failed to log the resident’s issues as a formal complaint. It apologised for this failure.
4. It offered £225 in compensation. This comprised:
  1. £50 for the delay in recording the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
  2. £75 to apologise for the poor service.
  3. £75 to apologise for the delays.
  4. £25 to apologise for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
On or around 5 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to state they did not believe the repair works had been carried out to a satisfactory standard. They contacted the landlord again on 25 September 2023 to raise the same concerns. This later contact was marked in the landlord’s records as a ‘new complaint’.
The resident contacted this service on 2 October 2023. They stated they still had ongoing issues with damp and mould and were extremely concerned about the impact it may have on their baby. They advised they had verbally escalated their complaint to stage 2 but were unsure if they had also escalated in writing. We contacted the landlord on the same day to advise the resident wished to escalate their complaint and it should respond to them formally.
The landlord issued its final response on 21 November 2023. It said:
1. It had raised repairs following an inspection on 28 June 2023. It had organised for a resident to stay in a hotel while repairs were ongoing. The repairs were completed on 21 August 2023.
2. Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation, it had commissioned an independent surveyor to inspect the resident’s property to ensure there was no risk to health.
3. The independent survey had not identified any visible damp or mould, but had highlighted essential, as well as some non-essential, repairs.
4. It would carry out all the identified repairs. It would move the resident to a serviced apartment while the repairs were ongoing.
5. It would review medical letters the resident had provided and ensure they were attached to their housing transfer application. It would refer the resident to its Tenancy Support Team to complement the support they were receiving from the Financial Inclusion Team.
6. It would be increasing its compensation offer to £2000. This comprised:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and upset caused by the poor handling and time taken to fully resolve the repairs in the resident’s home.
  2. £900 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the handling of the repairs.
  3. £100 for the delay issuing the stage 2 response letter.
7. It had identified several learning opportunities to improve its services.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

In December 2023, after discussions with the resident, the landlord offered to increase its stage 2 compensation offer to clear the resident’s rent arrears. This was an additional amount of £1,552.10 (bringing the total offered compensation to £3,1552.10). The resident refused the offered compensation. However, in February 2024, the landlord stated it would make a goodwill payment of £1,500 towards the resident’s rent account to allow their housing transfer application to be re-activated.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman is only permitted to investigate complaints duly made to him. A complaint can only be duly made where the specific issue being complained about has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
There is no evidence that the issues specified in paragraph 2(a)-(c) have been raised as a complaint or have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these concerns and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.
This means the Ombudsman’s investigation will not consider:
1. The handling of a request for a managed move.
2. Mould in their cupboards.
3. A further leak in their bathroom.
It will focus on the original reports of repairs in the bathroom and kitchen, including the damp and mould only.

The landlord’s handling of repairs (including damp and mould)

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy does not note specific timeframes; however, the landlord’s website notes it aims to respond to:
1. Emergency repairs within 4 hours.
2. Urgent repairs within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
For reports of damp and mould, the landlord states it will respond promptly to assess the type of issue and identify the most appropriate solution, which will be explained to the resident. It further states that if anyone in the household could be particularly at risk from the effects of damp and mould it will visit within 5 working days.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident reported damp and mould in their property on 19 June 2023. The landlord recorded that the resident stated the issues had been ongoing for 11 months without the landlord taking any action.
The landlord has provided this service with copies of repair records for the resident’s property as well as its contact log with the resident. Both contain entries dating back to the start of the resident’s tenancy. However, there is no evidence in either the repair records or the contact log that the resident had raised an issue in or around July 2022.
There is a repair record dated 3 May 2022 relating to the toilet being blocked. The record indicates the landlord attended on 18 May 2022 to remove the toilet so it could check the waste pipe for blockages. The landlord then re-fitted the toilet. There are no further repair records (other than routine gas servicing) until May 2023 when the resident reported their shower was not working. There are no further repair records about the toilet until June 2023.
The Ombudsman can only make decisions based on the available evidence. In this case, there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude the landlord had been aware of issues for 11 months and taken no action.
On 12 June 2023 the resident reported that their radiator pipes were leaking large amounts even when the heating was off. The landlord treated this as an urgent repair and attended on 15 June 2023. This was in line with its policy.
The resident, also on 12 June 2023, reported that their toilet was constantly leaking and pipes were not connected properly. During contact with the landlord on 19 June 2023 and 21 June 2023, they clarified the toilet was not securely fastened to the floor. They stated leaks were coming from the cistern and where the toilet met the floor. This would appear to have also met the landlord’s criteria for an urgent repair (‘water leaks that can be easily contained’), but the landlord did not attend the property until 28 June 2023. This was not within 5 working days and was therefore not appropriate.
On 19 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the property was damp and mouldy. The resident reported they felt the property was unsafe to live in. The landlord arranged to inspect the property on 23 June 2023. This was an appropriate action and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s records indicate that the arranged inspection did not take place due to the resident being unavailable. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 June 2023 to report they had removed the panel from the side of the bath and found stagnant water underneath. They stated the smell was ‘unbearable’. The landlord agreed to attend the property the same day to do the inspection. This was a reasonable action to take.
The landlord identified several repairs that were needed in the bathroom and the kitchen. One of the identified repairs (to remove the kitchen floor covering and allow the concrete floor to dry out) indicates the landlord had measured the level of damp within the kitchen floor as part of its inspection. However, as the landlord has not provided this service with an inspection report it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine the full extent of what the landlord inspected, whether it took any other measurements, or whether the identified repairs were appropriate and sufficient to remedy the reported issues. This is evidence of a failure in record keeping.
As the landlord was aware there had been several leaks in the property and that the resident had advised they could smell mould, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered inspecting under the floor coverings when it had been unable to identify any visible mould on walls or ceilings. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman can reasonably conclude the landlord took this step or had a reasonable explanation for why it did not consider this was necessary.
The landlord’s stage 1 response advised the resident that it had not found any signs of damp in the property. This is not consistent with its identified repair for the kitchen floor. This is further evidence of a failure in record keeping.
The landlord notified its contractor of the required works on 10 July 2023 and asked the contractor to arrange a suitable appointment with the resident. It appears this resulted in the resident contacting the landlord to request it move them into temporary accommodation while the work was ongoing. The landlord agreed to this request and the repair works began on 21 August 2023. While this is outside the timescale in the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable to conclude this was an undue delay or a failure by the landlord.
On 22 August 2023 the resident notified the landlord they wanted to return to their property early as they felt unwell. The required works had been expected to take 4 days to complete. The landlord’s contractor agreed to complete most of the required works on 22 August 2023 to allow the resident to return home in the evening. The landlord’s contact log indicates it spoke to the contractor on 23 August 2023 who advised that they had needed to alter the flooring repair and had instead laid the new flooring over the existing floor covering.
Where a landlord has been unable to meet its obligations due to the actions of the resident it would be unreasonable to conclude that any failure was wholly the fault of the landlord. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be able to evidence that it had considered if there were other actions it could take to demonstrate it had taken all reasonable steps to meet its obligations. The landlord has not provided any such evidence in this case.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2023 to raise concerns about the quality of the completed work and to advise that there was still damp and mould. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 14 September 2023. This was outside its policy for responding to reports of damp and mould and was therefore not appropriate.
The landlord has provided this service with a document named ‘post inspection’, but it is not dated and includes details of events between June 2023 and October 2023. It does contain photographs which appear to be before and after work has taken place, but they are also undated. It is therefore not possible to rely on this document as evidence of any actions by the landlord. This is further evidence of a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord’s contact log indicates a meeting took place on 25 September 2023 to discuss the case. The log states that as the resident had raised a further formal complaint this would supersede any decisions made in the meeting about progressing the matter. It is unclear why the landlord reached this view as it would be reasonable for repairs to continue to be progressed even if a resident had submitted a formal complaint.
The landlord’s decision to instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the property was reasonable and in line with its policy on dealing with damp and mould. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree, as an outcome to the stage 2 complaint, to complete all the repairs identified in that inspection.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response letter that the level of service provided to the resident had fallen short of its expectations. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced and that the circumstances had caused unnecessary inconvenience and distress.
The landlord advised that it could not process any claims for personal injury through the complaints procedure and that the resident would need to make any claims to its insurer. It provided the resident with the relevant contact details. This was a reasonable action by the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns about the final response letter stating that the property did not have any risk of damp or mould. They have stated this was incorrect as, when the repairs took place, mould was found in the concrete floors. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the independent survey report and the Ombudsman is satisfied the information in the final response letter is an accurate reflection of the report. The landlord was entitled to rely on the information the independent surveyor gave to it, unless there was other contradictory documentary or evidence.
While there were failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s undertaking to complete all the repairs identified by its independent survey and its offer of £1,900 in compensation was a reasonable outcome to resolve the complaint. The offered compensation is an appropriate figure in line with the landlord’s compensation procedures.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer a further £1552.10 after the end of the complaints procedure to clear the resident’s rent arrears and allow their housing transfer application to be re-activated.
The resident has told this service that the landlord’s staff suggested that they were imagining the damp and mould issues and/or excessively worrying about the potential impact. The resident has said this was due to them having previously lost a child. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims, it would appear this is a situation where there is no recorded evidence that would confirm what was said during interactions between the resident and the landlord. There is therefore no basis on which the Ombudsman could reasonably reach a decision on whether there was any maladministration by the landlord by what its staff may have said or implied. That is not to say the resident’s experience or account is not true, just that we cannot objectively verify it on the evidence we have seen.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord suggesting they should attend bereavement counselling. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be mindful of support that residents may require and to signpost them to relevant services where this may be appropriate. The landlord’s actions in signposting to counselling services were not unreasonable in the circumstances.

Summary and conclusions

As set out above, there were some errors and failures by the landlord. However, it has now completed the works that were the subject of this complaint and offered compensation which is at a level the Ombudsman considers fair in all the circumstances to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failures.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) states that landlords should accept all complaints, unless there is a valid reason to not do so, and must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had failed to log a formal complaint for the resident and offered £50 compensation. This was a reasonable outcome.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident contacted it 3 times during September 2023 on 5, 21 and 25. The landlord did not appear to consider this was an escalation of the resident’s complaint until the third contact. There is no evidence it passed this promptly to its complaint teams. The landlord’s complaint log records it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 4 October 2023. This was 2 days after this service wrote to the landlord.
The landlord’s final response letter suggests the escalation was a result of this service’s contact. It did not acknowledge that the resident had contacted it during September 2023 to escalate their complaint or that it had failed to do this. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the provisions of the Code and were therefore not appropriate.
The landlord did acknowledge there had been a delay in issuing its final response letter. It provided an explanation and offered £100 compensation. This was a reasonable outcome. The offered compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation procedures.
It is unclear if the landlord’s offered compensation included the £50 previously offered at stage 1. However, the Ombudsman considers £100 was a reasonable offer for both identified failures.
The Code states that landlords should respond to all parts of a resident’s complaint. This service, when notifying the landlord about the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2, indicated the resident wished to complain about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. The landlord confirmed it was aware this was part of the complaint when it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint to the resident. The landlord has provided evidence it set up a separate complaint to deal with these concerns and issued a stage 1 response on 24 July 2023. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered this part of the complaint at stage 2, either within this complaint or the separate complaint. This was not appropriate and was a failure in complaint handling.
While it would have been better for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s concerns at stage 2 of the complaints process, the Ombudsman does not consider there is a need for the landlord to take any further investigative action. This is because the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s concerns as part of this investigation (at paragraph 41).
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address all parts of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaints about:
1. The handling of a request for a managed move.
2. Mould in the resident’s cupboards.
3. A further leak in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs in the bathroom and kitchen (including damp and mould).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £200. This award replaces the £100 offer made by the landlord for the delay in sending its final response letter.
If the landlord has already paid the previously offered compensation to the resident it is entitled to offset that payment against this sum. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if it has not already done so, should:
1. Inspect the works completed (following the resident’s complaint) to confirm they were completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord should also check the resident is happy with the quality of the work.
2. Contact the resident to re-offer the £1,900 compensation for the failures in the handling of repairs. This offer should remain open for at least 28 days.
The landlord should review its record-keeping procedures with a particular emphasis on repair logs and records. It should consider its knowledge and information management and satisfy itself that it has sufficient processes in place to assist with effective repairs and complaint handling.