Onward Homes Limited (202317440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317440

Onward Homes Limited

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Kitchen repairs and a kitchen replacement during planned (major) works.
2. A warning letter of unacceptable behaviour, sent to the resident.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. This is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat, and the tenancy ended on 2 February 2024.
The resident made several complaints between 2019 and February 2023, regarding multiple repair issues and antisocial behaviour (ASB), which the landlord responded to.
The landlord’s repair records show that there were planned kitchen replacement works in the resident’s block and that the works were authorised on 1 April 2023.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident on 18 July 2023 to discuss the schedule of works and the kitchen design. During this visit, they told the resident that the landlord had agreed the kitchen design and that they had to adhere to all health and safety measures on a new kitchen installation. The landlord’s records and a completed ‘incident report’ note that the resident was unhappy with the design and became “very aggressive.” At this point, the landlord’s contractor informed the resident that his behaviour was “not acceptable” and he would need to contact the landlord if he wanted to complain about the kitchen design.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 19 July 2023. He said:
1. He was offered a plan for the kitchen which had very limited storage space (his current kitchen had an additional cupboard).
2. The kitchen refit had been due in 2018, and the lack of repairs was making “people suffer.”
The landlord sent the resident an ‘Unacceptable Behaviour Towards Onward Homes Employee’ notice on 24 July 2023. It told the resident that he became “volatile and aggressive” towards its contractor and that it would not tolerate aggressive, abusive, intimidating, or threatening behaviour towards its staff, as per the tenancy agreement. It asked the resident to remain respectful towards all staff at all times and advised that if the behaviour continued, it may result in further action, including legal action. It gave details, should the resident want to request a review of this decision.
On 29 July 2023 the resident made a further stage 1 complaint to the landlord about receiving the warning letter. He said:
1. He wanted the landlord to review the decision in terms of unacceptable behaviour.
2. The contents of the letter were not a reflection of what occurred and he wanted the landlord to consider his previous calls to the landlord and his attendance at its offices.
3. He wanted a named member of staff to attend with him, when “presenting his case.”
4. He had also contacted his local Member of Parliament (MP).
On 17 August 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the kitchen replacement works. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding and offered the resident £50 as a “gesture of good will.”
2. Further to the resident’s telephone call of 4 August 2023, it acknowledged his request to decline the kitchen replacement. The landlord’s technical officer and the kitchen designer had visited the resident on 28 July 2023 to discuss works to the kitchen and the resident had declined a kitchen replacement at this time.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint regarding the warning letter. It said:
1. The contractor’s resident liaison officer had said the resident became “very angry” when he saw the kitchen design. They had tried to explain that the landlord needed to comply with legislation but the resident continued to raise his voice and became “more aggressive.”
2. The resident had said he no longer wanted the kitchen and the resident liaison officer left and had since refused to return.
3. It believed the warning letter was proportionate, given the details of the incident. It would not be taking any further action in relation to this matter.
On 18 August 2023 the resident made a stage 2 complaint regarding the kitchen replacement. He said:
1. He rejected the £50 compensation. He had been asking for the kitchen to be replaced or modernised since 2018 and had many complaints thereafter.
2. The complaint was about the landlord and contractor’s “inability” to coordinate works. He was concerned that the landlord had not acknowledged this.
3. He was frustrated as he had declined the kitchen installation, yet further workers accessed his property unannounced and via multiple rings on his doorbell after he had come off a night shift.
4. The contractors had left building materials in the communal area.
5. He would welcome the kitchen issues to be fixed (including a missing extractor fan cover, flooring replacement, extreme cold, rusted door handles, and cupboards full of fly eggs).
6. Nobody could use a kitchen without storage and he wanted adequate storage.
On 21 August 2023 the resident made a stage 2 complaint regarding the warning letter. He said:
1. The letter noted the behaviour was towards an ‘employee,’ but the person in question was a contractor.
2. He had not been aggressive and remained at a distance from them at all times. He only showed disbelief that it had taken the landlord so long to propose a new kitchen be installed with only a “shoe box sized” storage.
3. He had been told to stay at home all day and the following days for the visit, which had resulted in lost earnings and no visit or contact had been confirmed.
4. He wanted to discuss the lack of communication and information and landlord staff waking him up by ringing the doorbell when he had been on a night shift.
5. He wanted a meeting to discuss the issues.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord responded to both the resident’s stage 2 complaints. It said:
1. It had reviewed the incident report and it was fitting that the resident had been issued with a warning letter for his conduct. Staff members and contractors should be treated with respect whilst carrying out their work and not be subject to aggressive behaviour.
2. As it had previously explained, it would not be taking any further action against the resident in relation to this matter as long as this type of incident did not reoccur.
3. In respect of the planned kitchen replacement, the kitchen space is small and storage available very limited. The proposal was to remove one wall unit to accommodate the resident’s full height fridge freezer. This would have left the resident with less storage than the current configuration.
4. Its project manager had met with the resident to discuss the kitchen plans to see if it could amend them to accommodate more storage. It had made 2 suggestions, which would have given the resident an extra cupboard, but it could not come to an agreement with the resident to proceed. The resident then informed it that he did not want the kitchen replacing at all.
5. The project manager would be happy to discuss this again. It wanted to update the kitchen but had to consider the resident’s safety and wellbeing. It would be happy to work with the resident to accommodate as much storage as possible. But it had to ensure it was complying with health and safety regulations, so could not place wall units above a full height fridge freezer, or on a wall where the resident could stand under the units.
6. It asked the resident to contact it if he wanted to proceed with the kitchen replacement.

After the internal complaints process

The resident contacted this Service on 20 September 2023. He complained that the landlord had closed his complaint. He would like the landlord to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience and to address its failings.
The landlord and resident corresponded several times between September 2023 and December 2023 in respect of the kitchen, where the landlord offered to arrange meetings to discuss a way forward with the kitchen replacement.
The resident made several further complaints about disrepair, ASB, and staff conduct to the landlord between September 2023 and January 2024. He vacated the tenancy in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has said that the handling of this matter by the landlord has affected his health and wellbeing. While we appreciate the resident’s distress, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by the courts. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on this matter. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident has also stated that he had additional disrepair issues which dated back several years. While we appreciate the resident’s frustration, the Ombudsman will usually only investigate complaints which were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issues occurring. This is to give the landlord the opportunity to investigate the issues whilst they remain ‘live.’ While some earlier events have been noted for context, this investigation will focus on events from 25 October 2022 (when the resident reported repairs needed to his kitchen) until the landlord’s final complaint response of 20 September 2023.
The resident has also made several further complaints about disrepair, ASB and staff conduct after 20 September 2023. This Service has opened another case to address these complaints, and these are currently awaiting allocation under case reference 202342303.

Kitchen repairs and the kitchen replacement

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for kitchen units and internal walls and floors. It says that it also carries out planned improvement programmes to kitchens and will be in touch with customers when it plans to do this. Its welcome handbook to residents says it will keep kitchens in working condition with accessible cupboards and drawers. It says it will always let residents know when one of its contractors is going to visit the home.
The landlord operates a 20 day time frame for non- emergency repairs.
The landlord’s contract delivery procedure states that all residents included on a contract must receive an initial notification letter. Subsequent letters including more specific information can be issued by contractors with prior agreement of the contract officer. It carries out pre-entry surveys with residents to determine any specific requirements and to make an accurate record of the existing condition of the property and full extent of works required. It may carry out component design visits sufficiently in advance of works commencing.
The landlord’s contractor’s kitchen replacement programme information pack says the following:
1. Their site team will ensure the works in the property run smoothly and that residents are involved in the planning and delivery of the works.
2. Residents will be regularly informed when access is needed. They will also respond to any questions the resident has and deal with any concerns.
3. The resident liaison officer will be the main point of contact prior to works commencing and while works are carried out. They will plan access with the resident and organise appointments and also respond to any queries or concerns. They will carry out a pre-entry survey with residents to explain how the work will be carried out. This will be done in residents’ homes so that they can discuss any queries or concerns.
4. The site manager has overall control of the programme. They will work with the landlord to agree the content of works and plan how they will be delivered with the site team and the residents.
5. they will send a letter giving 2 weeks’ notice of work starting and will visit residents during the week before works are due to start to discuss works with the residents. During the visit, they will discuss the specific works and how long they will take.
The records show that the resident reported repair issues to his kitchen cabinets and kitchen flooring on 25 October 2022. The landlord raised an order for repairs to be completed by 17 November 2022, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. The resident cancelled the works on 28 October 2022; however, the landlord’s contractor still attended the property on 17 November 2022, to carry out the works. The landlord’s policy states that it will offer appointments to residents and ‘always let residents know’ when a contractor will visit, so it is not appropriate that the landlord’s contractor attended when the resident had notified the landlord in writing (with plenty of notice) that he wished to cancel the job. Also, there is no evidence on file that the landlord or its contractor contacted the resident to advise him of the visit. This points to poor communication and poor record keeping and this is a failing which caused the resident distress and frustration.
Strong record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of letters regarding the proposed kitchen works. These letters are auto generated and undated. The landlord has stated it only has these auto generated copies for planned works. It is unclear when the works were first authorised; however, we have seen copies of letters regarding a 2022/2023 kitchen replacement programme sent to residents. Further to this, residents were sent a letter entitled ‘2023/2024 kitchen replacement programme.’ This is confusing and points to the fact that the kitchen works may have initially been programmed for 2022/2023.
There is further conflicting information as the landlord has provided evidence that the planned kitchen works were approved on 1 April 2023. It is unclear why there are no records of works approved in 2022/2023 and the auto generated letters seen were entitled “2022/2023 kitchen replacement programme.” This is a further record keeping failing, which caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
Additionally, all copies of these letters have no date, no address, and no timeline of when the works would commence. This is inappropriate and a failing on the part of the landlord. It is contrary to its information pack, which states that it “will send a letter giving 2 weeks’ notice of work starting.”
This lack of coherent information has impacted on our ability to complete a thorough investigation. It would have also caused the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.
Regardless of when the works were planned to commence, the landlord’s repair records state that kitchen replacement works were approved on 1 April 2023 and there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident until 18 July 2023. Although we understand that delays to planned works can occur due to a variety of reasons, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident anytime between April 2023 and July 2023. This is not resident focussed and this poor communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience and also left him not knowing when the works would be carried out.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 18 July 2023 to discuss the schedule of works and discuss the proposed design with him. This is in line with its kitchen replacement information pack which states that ‘they will carry out a pre-entry survey with residents to explain how the work will be carried out. This will be done in residents’ homes so that they can discuss any queries or concerns.’
It was also reasonable that when the resident initially declined the kitchen replacement due to the storage issues and the kitchen not being a ‘like for like’, the landlord spoke to and wrote to the resident on 24 July 2023, agreeing to visit him again, together with the kitchen designer to see whether additional wall units were feasible. This demonstrates a willingness to accommodate the resident’s requests. It was further reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that current health and safety design standards needed to be met. We would expect a landlord to comply with all relevant legislation, so this is a reasonable response. It also attended the resident’s property on 28 July 2023, to discuss the kitchen design reconfiguration which was further appropriate and reasonable.
When the resident stated that due to his frustration with the progress of the works, he declined the kitchen replacement on 4 August 2023.The landlord followed this up with a letter on 9 August 2023, saying it acknowledged his request to decline the kitchen. This was appropriate.
However, in his stage 2 complaint to the landlord of 18 August 2023, the resident asked it to raise works to repair the kitchen extractor fan cover and flooring and there is no evidence that the landlord raised or considered these repairs. Although we understand that the landlord intended to install a new kitchen, which may well have addressed these issues, there is no evidence that it raised repair works in the interim. This is particularly pertinent, as it was aware of his refusal to have a kitchen replacement and had sent him a letter acknowledging this. We would have expected the landlord to consider raising the repairs reported as per its repairs process and communicate with the resident. The fact that it did not is a failing which caused the resident distress and inconvenience and impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
The landlord went some way to accommodate the resident’s request in respect of the kitchen design. It visited the resident in his home, met with him at their offices to see if it could amend the kitchen design and offered to meet with the resident again, in its stage 2 response of 20 September 2023. This was reasonable and demonstrates the landlord attempted to resolve the issue for the resident.
However, the communication and record keeping were poor throughout this complaint. It is unclear when the planned kitchen works were first authorised, there was confusing communication regarding the financial year when the works would commence, and there are no dates of commencement of works to the resident. Also, there appears to be a significant delay of when works were first authorised to when they commenced in July 2023, without sufficient explanation or communication. Further, there is no evidence that it considered the resident’s requests to repairs to the kitchen and this is a further failing. This caused the resident significant distress and frustration, impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of his home and on the landlord/resident relationship.
As such, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been an impact and the landlord has made some attempt to put things rights but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
The landlord has informed this Service that it is changing its processes for recording communication and record keeping in respect of planned works, so that names, dates and addresses are included in letters in the future. As such, we will not be making any orders for a process change.

Warning letter to resident

It is not in this Service’s remit to ascertain whether or not the resident behaved in an “unacceptable manner” but to determine if the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policy, taking account all circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s Unacceptable Behaviour Policy states it will engage with residents in a courteous, fair, and consistent manner and will not tolerate “unacceptable behaviour.” This includes verbal abuse, rudeness, and aggression (verbal and physical). It also recognises that residents may sometimes act “out of character” at times of anxiety and distress.
It goes on to say that when it determines that “unacceptable” resident behaviour is evident, the Head of Customer Service delivery will contact the resident to discuss the concerns. They will advise the resident that the behaviour is not acceptable, and if appropriate, issue a warning. Further action may be taken where the behaviour is not modified. Any restriction imposed will be appropriate and proportionate and in most cases, will apply for between 3 and 6 months.
The landlord’s records and incident report of 18 July 2023 note that the resident became “very volatile and aggressive very quickly”, when the contractor visited him to discuss the proposed kitchen replacement design. This is because he was unhappy with the proposed design. The report stated that they were unable to diffuse the situation and the resident began “shouting and screaming and becoming more aggressive.”
On 24 July 2023 the landlord issued the resident with a warning letter, regarding his behaviour. It advised that it did not tolerate aggressive, abusive, or intimidating behaviour, in line with its tenancy agreement. It also asked the resident not to communicate in this manner again and advised him of his option to request a review if he did not agree with its decision. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, it also clarified that it would not be taking any further action in respect of the incident, other than the warning letter. This demonstrates a reasonable and proportionate response, as per its policy.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident beforehand to discuss the concerns. There is no evidence that it either emailed or called the resident to discuss the forthcoming letter, and this is a failing and contrary to its policy. We would have expected the landlord to contact the resident in order to understand his position, prior to sending the warning letter, as per its policy. The fact that it did not caused the resident frustration and impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.
Due to the fact that there is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy, by contacting the resident prior to the warning letter, a finding of service failure has been made, along with orders for redress. We have awarded £50 compensation which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where the outcome for the resident was not significantly affected but there was a minor failure by the landlord, which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

Complaint handling

This Service’s complaint handling code (The Code) says that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. It states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 has not yet been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
There is no dispute that there were delays to the landlord’s stage 1 response regarding the kitchen replacement. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was a reasonable response.
However, the landlord did not comply with The Code in its complaint handling. The resident mentioned disrepair to his property in his stage 1 complaint of 19 July 2023. The landlord failed to seek further clarification or address these repairs in its stage 1 response. It focussed only on the kitchen replacement and this is a failing, which caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issues. We would have expected the landlord to seek further clarification at this point and to then issue a response that took all matters into account.
In his stage 2 complaints to the landlord of 18 August 2023 (kitchen) and 21 August 2023 (warning letter), the resident complained about the communication from the landlord and unannounced visits from contractors. He also complained about building materials being left in the communal areas and health and safety concerns. He told the landlord the issues were causing him distress and having a severe impact on the enjoyment of his home.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint responses did not acknowledge these complaint points, nor did it respond to them and this is a failing and not compliant with The Code. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue, as well as impacting on the substantive issues being resolved.
We would have expected the landlord to respond to these concerns in its stage 2 response or to open a new complaint regarding these issues. The fact that it did not do so continued to cause the resident inconvenience and frustration and impacted on the landlord and resident relationship. It also impacted on this Service being able to investigate these elements of the complaint.
As the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns of communication issues, unannounced visits from contractors, and building materials left in the hallway in its complaint responses, a finding of maladministration has been made, along with orders for redress. We have awarded £150 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this or put things right. We have also ordered the landlord to arrange complaint handling training to all relevant staff. We have not made an order for the landlord to open a complaint regarding these matters as this will be investigated under our case reference 202342303 and is currently awaiting allocation with this Service.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs and a kitchen replacement during planned (major) works.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a warning letter of unacceptable behaviour, sent to the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Arrange complaint handling training for all relevant staff to ensure they are compliant with The Code.
3. Pay the resident £700. This replaces the £50 already offered and should be paid directly into his bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable). This is made up as follows:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the kitchen repairs and kitchen replacement.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience in respect of the warning letter issued to the resident.
  3. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified in this case.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.