Onward Homes Limited (202403318)

Background

1. Between December 2020 and March 2022, the landlord replaced roof tiles and lead and did chimney repairs. In April 2023 the resident reported a kitchen ceiling leak. The landlord inspected and completed related repairs in July 2023. The resident was unhappy that it did not re–tile the roof and complained about its handling of the matters.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of roof leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks, damp and mould.
4. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not keep proper oversight of the repairs or adequately communicate with the resident. These failings contributed to delays in completing repairs and had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord recognised this and offered compensation which was enough to put things right.
6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered proportionate compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. We may not investigate events that residents do not raise as a formal complaint within 12 months of reporting an issue. In this case, the resident reported roof leaks since December 2020, and the landlord carried out repairs. However, we found no evidence that she complained about the landlord’s handling of the leaks before July 2023. The evidence also shows there was a gap of a year with no reports between March 2022 and April 2023. Therefore, while earlier events provide context, we have investigated events from April 2023 onwards when the resident reported a leak through her kitchen ceiling.

What we did investigate

8. Between April 2023 and July 2024, the resident reported roof leaks and damp and mould. She described water ingress from the roof into her kitchen and damp and mould in several rooms. This was understandably distressing for her. However, the presence of leaks and damp and mould does not, on its own, amount to a failure by the landlord. We also recognise that identifying and resolving the root cause of leaks and damp and mould can be complex and take time.
9. In this case, the landlord completed remedial repairs, returned when the issues reoccurred and completed the final repairs in August 2024. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged that it had not handled the matters in line with its responsive repairs and damp and mould policies. However, the resident felt that the remedies offered did not reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by following its policies, and any agreements with her, and whether it acted reasonably and took adequate steps to put things right.
10. We recognise that the landlord completed some of the repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy. For instance, on 13 April 2023, the resident reported a leak in her kitchen ceiling, and that the front of the property needed repointing. The landlord inspected the issue 7 days later but could not complete the repair and booked a follow‑up visit. It inspected the property again 5 days later and identified external remedial works such as repointing and replacing bricks. It assessed the works as complex and set a 90‑day completion target. It completed the external repairs 56 days later. This was reasonable and complied with its policy timeframe for complex works.
11. On 27 September 2023, the landlord inspected the property and recommended clearing the gutter gully and checking the pointing beneath the windows. On 13 October 2023 the contractor confirmed that it had completed the roof and gutter works but could not finish the repointing due to poor weather. It said it returned on 14 November 2023 to complete the work. It is reasonable to conclude that the contractor completed the works, as the resident was proactive in reporting issues and there is no evidence she raised further concerns at that time. The contractor therefore completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
12. Following a damp and mould survey on 18 June 2024, the landlord said it would complete more roof repairs, which involved erecting scaffolding, prior to raising the internal repairs. Once it completed this, it inspected the property on 12 July 2024 and raised internal damp and mould remedial works which it scheduled to start on 24 July 2024. It completed the repairs on 14 August 2024, 57 days after completing the damp and mould survey. This was in line with its responsive repairs policy timeframe for complex works.
13. However, we also identified repeated failings which contributed to delays in completing the repairs and caused inconvenience to the resident. These included delays in responding to her reports of damp and mould, poor communication, lack of coordination and oversight of the works and poor record keeping,
14. Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case, the landlord did not show that it acted with a sense of urgency once it was aware of damp and mould in the property. Had it done so, it may have avoided some of the failings that it later acknowledged. For instance:
    1. On 13 April 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her kitchen and bedroom. The landlord applied a mould wash on 30 June 2023, 53 days after the report. It may have delayed the work until completing external repairs, but we saw no evidence of this. It also did not explain the reason for the delay to the resident. This failed to meet its damp and mould policy which requires clear updates on work schedules and delays.
    2. The resident reported damp and mould in several rooms on 5 December 2023. We found no evidence that the landlord acted on her report, and she raised the issue again in February 2024. Although the landlord attended on 8 March 2024, it could not complete the remedial work and cancelled the job in error. It then completed a damp and mould survey on 18 June 2024, around 6 months after the resident’s initial report. While we understand it was also addressing roof repairs and external repairs, we did not see evidence to account for this delay or that it explained this to the resident.
15. Between April 2023 and July 2024, the landlord did not demonstrate that it proactively updated the resident or communicated with her adequately. For example:
    1. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for repair updates. Although she knew what works it agreed to complete, the landlord did not provide a schedule of works with expected completion dates. It also did not show that it confirmed appointments or gave proactive updates. This failed to meet its responsive repairs policy which requires it to keep residents informed. These failings led to duplicate jobs, confusion, and inconvenience for the resident who had to chase updates and struggled to plan time off work.
    2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would contact the resident on 4 September 2023 to inspect. However, the evidence does not show that it did so. Instead, the resident contacted the landlord several times to confirm the inspection date. This was unreasonable because a key part of resolving complaints is following through on commitments, which is essential for rebuilding trust. The landlord’s failure to do so, combined with its poor communication, caused the resident frustration.
    3. The landlord identified roof repairs on 8 March 2024. On 4 April 2024, the resident said the contractor had agreed a plan to complete the repairs. However, by 24 April 2024, she was still chasing the landlord for an update. On 13 June 2024, she reported that the contractor had erected scaffolding without informing her. It remains unclear when the contractor completed the roof repairs. There was a 2 month delay in erecting the scaffolding, and the landlord neither explained the delay nor communicated with the resident about it. It also failed to clarify whether the repair fell under the 90‑day complex repair timeframe or the 20‑day routine timeframe. This was unreasonable and not in line with its responsive repairs policy.
16. The landlord did not effectively coordinate the works or maintain oversight of the repairs. Its failure to do so caused delays and inconvenience for the resident, who repeatedly reported concerns. For example, in July 2023, it raised a job to repair loose roof tiles at the front of the property. However, scaffolding for repointing works—raised with a different contractor—blocked access to the roof. This caused a 2 week delay because the landlord was unsure who the scaffolding belonged to. While we understand that separate contractors carried out the roof repair and the repointing, the landlord should have coordinated and overseen the works to prevent these issues.
17. The evidence provided by the landlord indicates poor record keeping. Some repair details appeared only in contact centre notes of conversations with the resident, rather than in the landlord’s repair logs. The absence of logged records for multiple repairs raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of its repair records. For example:
    1. On 13 October 2023, the contractor confirmed that it had completed the roof and gutter works. The landlord said it returned on 14 November 2023 to complete the repointing. We saw no evidence of these works in the landlord’s repair logs.
    2. On 4 April 2024, the resident said the contractor inspected the works and agreed a plan with her. We did not see evidence of this on the landlord’s repair logs.
    3. In July 2024, the landlord raised internal remedial repairs. While it showed it completed the repairs, we did not see that it recorded these on its repair logs.
18. We understand that the resident asked the landlord to replace the roof. However, landlords must ensure value for money and should only replace items that are beyond repair. We saw no evidence that the surveyor or roofing contractors said the roof was beyond repair. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs rather than replace the roof.
19. We recognise that the roof had recurring issues, and the landlord attended several times to carry out repointing. We did not see evidence that these repeat visits resulted from poor workmanship. While the landlord failed to respond to some reports, such as damp and mould, most roof repairs appeared to be newly identified faults with similar consequences. For example, the roof leaks arose from different broken tiles, gutter problems, and an issue with the chimney.
20. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged that it had not handled the repairs in line with its policies. Its compensation guidance says it will offer compensation when its failings cause distress and inconvenience but does not specify the compensation amounts.
21. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failings that have a significant impact on a resident. Given the significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period, we therefore determine that the level of compensation the landlord offered was sufficient alongside its apology and lessons it said it took from the case. It also sought to put things right by completing works within a month of the stage 2 response. We have therefore found that the landlord offered reasonable redress.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay.
23. The resident said she hand‑delivered her complaint to one of the landlord’s offices on 7 July 2023. When she contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023, it told her it had not received the complaint. While we do not doubt the resident, we saw no evidence of the hand‑delivered complaint or that the landlord failed to log it correctly.
24. The landlord told the resident it had not received her email with the copy of her complaint and asked her to resend it, which she did on 28 July 2023. However, the evidence shows she had already emailed the complaint on 24 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 17 August 2023, 18 working days after her first email, exceeding its 5 day timeframe. The evidence also shows that it knew she wished to complain when she contacted it on 21 July 2023, even if it had not received the email. We saw no evidence that the landlord acted proactively to locate and log her complaint. Instead, the resident contacted it several times to confirm receipt and request action. This was unreasonable and caused her inconvenience and frustration.
25. The landlord dated its stage 1 response 28 August 2023 but the evidence shows that it sent it to the resident on 1 September 2023. The resident therefore received it on that date. This was 1 day outside its complaint policy timeframe, but the delay was minimal and we saw no evidence that it affected the resident.
26. On 20 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint and discussed this with the landlord during a phone call the following day. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to her request. This was unreasonable and not in line with its complaint policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. As a result, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint for a significant time.
27. On 8 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord she wanted to raise a new complaint about its handling of the roof repairs. We did not see evidence that it acknowledged or acted on this request. It did not log a new complaint, discuss escalating her previous complaint or explain to her why it would not consider her request. This was not in line with its complaint policy or the Code and caused inconvenience to the resident, who sought our support to escalate the matter.
28. Following our intervention, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 31 May 2024. It then informed her that it needed more time to respond, in line with its complaint policy. It issued its stage 2 response on 23 July 2024. Although this was 3 days before the revised response date, it was 24 working days after the landlord extended the timeframe. This did not comply with the Code, which limits extensions to no more than 20 working days without good reason. We found no evidence that the landlord provided a reasonable explanation for exceeding this limit. We recognise the delay was short; however, it further extended the resident’s wait for a response to a complaint she had escalated 7 months earlier.
29. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered £150 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failings that have an adverse impact on a resident. We therefore consider the landlord’s compensation offer appropriate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Effective knowledge and information management is essential to ensure that repairs do not slip through the cracks. When staff identify the need for follow‑up works but simply record the findings and close the job, the landlord risks overlooking these additional tasks and failing to raise them. The landlord must have robust systems and processes in place that reliably capture any required follow‑up works and ensure it raises them promptly.
31. When appointing external contractors, the landlord should record the repairs and the contractor’s actions on its repair logs, including details of the job and completion dates. This allows the landlord to maintain accurate audit trails and ensures staff can easily access records when responding to residents queries.
32. The landlord said that it would provide training to its contact centre specialists to ensure that they check all notes on the relevant repairs prior to raising further works to avoid duplication of repairs and appointments. It also changed the structure of the Property team to now have dedicated repairs and voids inspectors to provide a better service for residents. This is positive.

Communication

33. Clear and timely communication is essential when managing repairs. The landlord must give regular updates, so the resident does not need to chase for information. When booking work, it should confirm the scope of repairs with contractors and share the schedule of works with the resident. Good practice includes explaining what work will take place, confirming dates, and ensuring all parties understand the requirements. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience. The landlord should ensure it is able to deliver this kind of service.