Westward Housing Group Limited (202341878)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341878

Westward Housing Group Limited

10 January 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to his property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of excessive heating costs at the property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for the property, a two-bedroom bungalow.
  2. At the end of 2023 the resident raised a number of issues relating to his property being draughty and cold. The landlord summarised the action it was taking to the resident on 17 January 2024. This included reinstating cavity wall blocks and installing a radiator and positive input ventilation.
  3. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 19 February 2024 stating he had made multiple complaints about repair issues to the landlord with no outcome. The Service passed his complaint to the landlord on 22 February.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the complaint on 1 March 2024. It explained it would inspect the property to investigate the resident’s concerns, and gave information about renewal or replacement of his kitchen, windows and doors. It also provided information about moving properties and financial support for heating costs.
  5. The landlord completed the inspection of the property on 4 March 2024. It raised a number of repairs and asked the resident to confirm he wished for work to be scheduled. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 March raising several other repair issues. These included his front door, guttering downpipe and his roof condition.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 April 2024. It told the resident the following:
    1. It reiterated it would complete repairs required at the property and asked the resident to provide consent for it to commence. It explained the resident’s property had an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of Band B. This meant it had “high energy efficiency.” It advised the resident he could contact the local authority to be assessed for adaptations for his home. It said its housing officer could offer advice on moving.
  7. By 1 October 2024 the landlord completed a range of different repairs and maintenance issues. Some repairs remained outstanding whilst the landlord waited for the resident’s agreement to proceed. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident explained he wanted compensation for “damage” as the resolution to his case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident raised issues relating to his washing machine, manhole cover, a porch collapse, his garden path and other concerns he has about the landlord’s recent actions. He also complained that the landlord’s staff had disputed his disability, and said new problems had arisen with his windows.
  2. These issues either arose after the end of the complaints process, or were not previously complained about to the landlord. Because of that, and in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, this investigation will not consider them. The resident needs to raise any concerns he has about the landlord’s actions or decisions as formal complaints with the landlord and exhaust its complaints process before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate them.

Reports of repairs to his property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs under two categories. These are emergency repairs which it will attend to in 24 hours and routine repairs which it aims to complete within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a wide range of repair and maintenance issues in his original and his escalated complaint. The matters he escalated included issues with his internal and external front doors, an external downpipe, insufficient loft insulation, the poor condition of his bathroom floor, windows, moss on the roof, concerns about his toilet, and damaged internal doors.
  3. In its complaint responses the landlord explained in detail the actions it had taken, or was planning to take in response to each of the issues the resident raised. For example, it explained it had previously offered to replace the resident’s external front door, but the width of the new door would be slightly smaller, and he had declined because of that. It repeated its offer and said it could alternatively draft proof the existing door. It asked the resident to confirm his preference. It also explained it had subsequently inspected the internal front door and not found any problems with it.
  4. The landlord explained that several of the issues in the resident’s complaint remained unresolved because of disagreements or misunderstandings with him about the landlord’s planned resolution. This included the external downpipe, which it said the resident had declined further action on because excavation work in the garden was involved, and a misunderstanding about the landlord’s intentions regarding the bathroom door and floor.
  5. The landlord confirmed its position on each of the repair issues, and for most of them it explained it was happy to proceed with resolving them based on either its planned solutions or the alternatives it had offered. The only issues which the landlord did not agree there was a need for further work was the loft insulation and internal front door. It explained it had inspected the insulation and the door and found them to be of an appropriate condition. Nothing in the evidence provided by the resident or landlord suggests the landlord overlooked any specific aspect of the resident’s complaint, or that its explanations and intentions with the repairs were unreasonable.
  6. The landlord explained about its scheduled programme of works. For windows and door replacement, it said this was 2024/2025 and for the kitchen 2032. It appropriately explained it would still inspect the kitchen and complete any works as necessary. It also said its window contractor would contact the resident about an appointment. Replacement of the windows and rear door was completed on 1 October 2024.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained its approach to repairing the resident’s loft hatch. It explained it needed to do this in a “controlled way”. This was due to the potential presence of asbestos in the ceiling. It appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about the potential impact on him while the work took place. It asked the resident in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response to confirm if it should proceed with the repair. It is not apparent when or if he did so, but the landlord’s response to the issue was reasonable in the circumstances of the issue and the concerns the resident had raised.
  8. In summary. the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about repairs at his property. It explained its scheduled programme of works and completed the replacement of the windows as part of this. The landlord appropriately inspected the property quickly after it agreed it would. It raised several repairs to be completed and asked the resident to consent for it to commence with these. At the time of the resident’s complaint the repair work was largely unresolved, but the evidence does not indicate that was due to any specific lack of effort by the landlord. The majority of the repairs reported by the resident were subsequently completed, and progress with the remaining issues appears to have been dependent on the resident’s agreement.

Reports of excessive heating costs at the property.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident is to meet all outgoings applied to the property for which he is responsible.
  2. The resident reported in his initial complaint his heating costs were excessive due to the outstanding repairs at the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident for support from its hardship fund. The resident would later make an application for and receive a payment from this fund.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not discuss the repairs at the property in the context of the impact on the resident’s heating costs. However, it did so in its final complaint response. It explained the steps it had taken to improve the wall cavity insulation, and that its inspections had shown the loft insulation was at an appropriate level. It confirmed the property had an EPC rating of B, and explained what that meant in terms of heating efficiency. It confirmed his boiler was still relatively new and had been serviced annually.
  4. The landlord’s response appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about heating costs at his property. It effectively explained the repairs it had completed to make the property energy efficient and how this had resulted in a B EPC rating. To further support the resident, it both directed him to and made payments through its hardship fund.

The resident’s request to move.

  1. In his initial complaint the resident requested he be moved to a property that met his needs. He did not specify what those needs were. The landlord’s response signposted him to a website with options and advice on moving home in the local area. The landlord also offered to contact the resident to discuss his housing options.
  2. The resident did not raise the request to be transferred properties again in his complaint escalation. However, the landlord acted reasonably providing further information in its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated its stage 1 response. It also appropriately directed the resident to the local authority for consideration of adaptations to his home. It also suggested its housing officer could discuss moving with the resident.
  3. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request to move by providing information to him about his options, and offering to provide further advice and guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to his property.
    2. The resident’s reports of excessive heating costs at the property.
    3. The resident’s request to move.