Onward Homes Limited (202115233)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115233

Onward Homes Limited

3 February 2022

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 concerns how the landlord handled:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak from the roof of the property.
2. Investigations into allegations of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s ASB policy categorises anti-social noise as ASB and states it will investigate reports of noise nuisance reported to it. When it receives a report, the policy states that the landlord will speak to both the complainant and alleged perpetrator, look to gather evidence, install noise recording equipment or provide the use of a noise app, and attempt to reach a resolution by encouraging the parties to meet and/or use a mediation service.
When taking action against an alleged perpetrator, the policy notes that the landlord will look to resolve the matter at the lowest possible level and will write to the alleged perpetrator before considering taking any further action.
The landlord’s repairs handbook describes the three categories it uses to prioritise repairs and its target response times. These are:
1. Emergency repairs (complete within four hours). Repairs which put the health and safety of the tenant or anyone else at immediate risk or can affect the structure of a tenant’s home or nearby properties.
2. Urgent repairs (complete within five working days). Repairs that require attention quickly but do not put the tenant’s home or anyone else in immediate danger.
3. Routine repairs (complete within 20 working days). All other repairs are classed as routine repairs by the landlord.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. When it first receives a complaint, the landlord will attempt to resolve the matter at the first point of contact. If that is not possible, a formal complaint will be logged. An acknowledgement letter will be sent to the complainant within two working days and a stage one response will then be sent within ten working days.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. The escalation request will be acknowledged within two working days. The landlord will then consider the grounds that the complainant has requested the escalation on, and a stage two response will then be sent within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation guidelines recommend that a discretionary goodwill payment be considered when a complainant has received poor customer service The guidance also suggests payments for when there’s has been delays in completing scheduled repairs. For delays in completing a roof or ceiling leak, the guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £150.

Summary of events

On 17 March 2020 the landlord opened an ASB case following reports of noise nuisance made against the resident. The landlord spoke to both the resident, who denied the allegations, and the neighbour who made the reports. It collected recordings from its noise app and the resident and neighbour were referred to a mediation service in April 2020. The landlord closed the case on 14 July 2020.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord sent a formal warning to the resident relating to noise nuisance from the resident’s property at unsociable hours. The landlord said that it had received noise related complaints about the resident and that he had admitted, during a call with it earlier that day, that he had friends round to the property and played loud music regularly. The landlord informed the resident that his behaviour could be considered a breach of his tenancy and asked him to be mindful of other residents in the building.
The resident called the landlord about its letter on 7 June 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident denied the allegations. He noted that other residents in the building played loud music and he felt he was being targeted.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about his conduct towards a staff member earlier that day. It noted that he recorded his conversation with the staff member, which was illegal. It advised the resident that if a similar incident occurred it may consider taking further action such as a formal warning or limiting his contact with the landlord.
On 5 July 2021 the resident reported a leak from the roof of the building. The landlord booked an urgent repair for 7 July 2021 to complete a temporary repair and assess what further work was required. The resident also brought up the 14 June 2021 letter during the telephone call. That landlord’s notes state that the resident informed it that the allegations in the letter were false.
The resident called the landlord on 7 July 2021 to inform it that the contractor had not attended. The appointment was rescheduled for 9 August 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. He explained that he had called the staff member who wrote the 14 June 2021 letter to complain and was informed that he could only make a complaint in writing to the landlord’s head office. The resident disputed this information as he had previously raised complaints with the landlord via email. He also disputed the contents of the letter and said that he felt victimised by the landlord.
The resident also called the landlord on 14 July 2021 to enquire if the roof repair appointment could be brought forward. The landlord and resident agreed to a new appointment date of 23 July 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 29 July 2021 and asked for an update on his complaint. The landlord wrote back on 9 August 2021 and requested a copy of the 14 June 2021 letter, which was provided by the resident.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 9 August 2021. It explained that the information given to the resident was incorrect as individuals are allowed to make recordings, providing the recordings were for their own use and not shared with a third party. It informed the resident that it had removed the letter from his file. The landlord enquired if this would be an acceptable resolution to his complaint.
The resident called the landlord on 9 August 2021 to inform it that the work by its contractor had not repaired the leak. A new appointment was arranged for 16 August 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2021 and informed it that he wanted his complaint to go forward. The landlord then wrote to the resident to confirm that a formal complaint had been opened and that it aimed to respond by 26 August 2021.
The roof repair appointment of 16 August 2021 did not proceed, with the landlord confirming in its stage one response that its contractor completed a visit to scope out the work on 17 August. On that same date, the contractor contacted the landlord to inform it that scaffolding would be required to identify the source of the leak. An appointment was arranged for the scaffolding to be erected on 1 September 2021 and for the contractor to attend on 2 September 2021.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the elements of the complaint on 19 August 2021 and then sent the stage one complaint response on 26 August 2021. The landlord informed him resident that:
1. He had previously raised a complaint in June 2020 relating to a leak from the roof and had stated in during the telephone call that the current issue was a result of poor workmanship from the earlier repairs. It had spoken to its contractor, who had confirmed that the current leak was from a different location and was not related to the previous issue.
2. It provided a timeline of the current repair and confirmed that the contractor was scheduled to attend on 2 September 2021 once the scaffolding had been erected. The landlord also recognised that there had been missed appointments during this process and apologised to the resident.
3. The resident was incorrectly informed that his complaint had to be made in writing. The landlord apologised and confirmed that this was not the case.
4. It was satisfied that the 21 May 2021 letter it sent to the resident was reasonable as he had admitted to listening to loud music after 11pm. However, the letter it sent on 14 June 2021 contained incorrect information about recording staff members. The landlord confirmed that the resident can make recordings of staff members as long as they are not shared with a third party, and that this letter had been removed from his file.
5. The resident had informed the landlord that he felt he was being victimised as he had received compensation from a previous complaint. The landlord assured the resident that this was not the case, that it had acted in line with its ASB policy and had found no evidence of victimisation.
6. It apologised for the delays he had experienced during the repairs to the roof and for the wrong information it had provided. The landlord offered £225 compensation, which it broke down as £175 for the distress caused by delays in repairing the roof and £50 for the inaccurate information.
The resident called the landlord on 6 September 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident disputed the stage one response and that its offer of compensation was inadequate. The resident suggested a more appropriate compensation offer would be £10,000.
An internal landlord email sent on 8 September 2021 confirmed that the repairs to the roof had been completed and the scaffolding would be removed the following day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 September 2021. It explained that it was satisfied that its compensation offer was fair and made in line with its compensation guidance and for it to consider the residents request for £10,000 it would need further information on how this figure had been calculated.
The resident replied on 10 September 2021 and explained that the £10,000 figure was in recognition of the delays in repairing the roof and the victimisation and racial stereotyping he had experienced from landlord staff members. The resident highlighted issues where he was accused of sending a letter to a neighbour based solely on his Arabic name, and that a landlord staff member had informed him that they were a former police officer in order to intimidate him.
The resident also noted that he had made no admissions to the landlord relating to noise nuisance and the 14 June 2021 letter was sent without any prior warning.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021 to inform him that it had escalated the complaint to stage two and that it aimed to provide a response by 1 October 2021.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 1 October 2021. The landlord informed him that:
1. In April 2020 a letter was found outside of the resident’s property which a neighbour believed belonged to him and brought it to his attention. This matter was raised by resident at the time and after speaking to the parties involved, it was deemed to have been a mistake with no intent to upset the resident.
2. During a conversation about the qualifications a landlord staff member held to enable them to investigate the noise nuisance complaint made against the resident, the staff member informed him about his former police role. This was done in an effort to explain the staff member’s experience in dealing with disputes and the landlord apologised for the upset that this had caused to the resident.
3. It was satisfied by the position as set out in the stage one response relating to the other elements in the complaint and the level of compensation it had offered.
The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised hm on the steps to take to bring his case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
In an email to this Service sent on 6 November 2021, the resident explained that the outstanding issues of the complaint were that the landlord had not properly responded to his dissatisfaction with its noise nuisance investigation, the length of time it took to repair the roof, and the victimisation and discrimination he had experienced from landlord staff members.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested £10,000 compensation and for the 14 June 2021 warning letter to be removed from his file.

Assessment and findings

Roof repairs/leak

Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord is required to complete repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable timeframe from the date the issue was reported. What constitutes a reasonable timeframe is not defined in law, though it is common for landlord’s to include timescales for repairs within their repairs policy based upon the degree of complexity and how serious the issue is. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the roof and that it had missed appointments. The landlord apologised and offered £175 compensation for its service failures on this aspect of the complaint.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There were at least three failed appointments during the period where the contractor was working to locate and repair the leak from the roof of the building (7 and 23 July and 16 August 2021). The resident also stated that the three months it took to repair the roof was not acceptable and the landlord acknowledged this in its response to the formal complaint. The landlord has also accepted that the resident was required to chase the repair on multiple occasions, including on 9 August 2021, when the landlord’s contractor completed some works, but did not resolve the issue. Further investigation was then required and scaffolding needed to be erected to allow the leak to be fully repaired in September 2021.
As the issue occurred during a clement part of the year, the impact would likely not have been as significant as it would have been at other times of the year. In addition, the repair itself ended up requiring scaffolding which the Ombudsman appreciates can take time to arrange (though it is also noted that the landlord missed the opportunity to arrange this at an earlier point). That said, the landlord’s communication and failure to attend appointments contributed to the overall delay and it was therefore appropriate that compensation was offered.
The landlord’s compensation offer of £175 for the failures relating to the roof leak is considered reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. This figure was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and also accords with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. As the landlord’s offer was towards the higher end of this range of payments, and because there was no evidence that the roof leak issue had a major impact upon the resident, the compensation award is considered to amount to reasonable redress for the landlord’s failures. In reaching this conclusion, the three missed appointments, the communication failures and the overall delay in resolving the roof repair issue have all been considered.

Noise disturbance and ASB

The Ombudsman expects a landlord to act in a fair and balanced manner to reports it receives about ASB, including issues relating to noise disturbance. An Ombudsman investigation will consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably.
In this case, the resident disputed the warning letter sent by the landlord in May 2021. He denied that he was the source of the noise nuisance and requested the letter be removed from his file. The landlord supported its decision making here by referring to noise app recordings it had obtained and also to a telephone call during which it said that the resident had admitted that he regularly played music loudly at the property. The landlord was entitled to rely on the evidence it had obtained to make a balanced decision as to what action, if any to take in response to the noise reports it had received. As such, no service failure has been attributed to this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord has acknowledged however, that a second warning letter it sent the resident (14 June 2021) had contained incorrect information. It acknowledged that it had made an error when it said that it was illegal to record a conversation with a staff member and confirmed that it had removed this warning from the resident’s casefile, though it also explained that the resident would need to ask for consent if he were to record discussions in this manner in future. The landlord also acknowledged that it ought not have informed the resident that he was required to submit a complaint in writing to its head office if he wished to progress this issue.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify and address any service failures, with a suitable remedy where such failures have been identified. In this case, £50 of the overall amount of compensation of £225 was attributed to the landlord’s acknowledged failures. In the circumstances, this sum is considered reasonable. There was no evidence that the first warning letter was sent inappropriately and the landlord accepted that it made mistakes regarding its communication and the second warning letter, which it rescinded. The offer of additional compensation, whilst not being a significant figure, nonetheless reflects the landlord’s acknowledgement that the resident had been distressed by its actions.
The resident also accused landlord staff members of victimisation and discrimination. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord’s staff members were discriminatory in their contact with the resident because matters of discrimination, including racism, are legal issues which are better suited for a court to decide. However, the landlord’s response to this issue has been considered and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it acted fairly and reasonably.
The landlord looked into the issues raised by the resident, both in relation to a letter written in Arabic that had been presumed to belong to him, and a staff member confirming his previous employment with the police. It looked into the reasons for these actions, acknowledged that a mistake had been made regards to the letter and that the staff member had been clarifying his relevant experience in dealing with the noise issues at hand. On the basis of the evidence available, the landlord was satisfied that there was no evidence of victimisation and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
The resident described the landlord’s compensation award as inadequate and requested it be increased to £10,000. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint in respect of:
1. Reports from the resident of a leak from the roof of the property.
2. Investigations into allegations of noise nuisance and ASB.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in completing repairs to the roof and the incorrect information it provided relating to how to raise a complaint and making recordings of conversations with its staff members. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation offered during the complaints process.