Onward Homes Limited — case 202406580

Decision Case ID 202406580 Decision type Investigation Landlord Onward Homes Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 23 January 2026 Background After agreeing the resident’s management transfer application, the landlord offered him an alternative property. The resident viewed it and then requested information about the property and about the area in which it was located. The landlord gave the resident a deadline to decide whether he wanted the property.

It then offered the property to another applicant. The resident advised the landlord that he had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and arthritis. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a property it offered in relation to his management move. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a property it offered in relation to his management move.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord gave the resident an appropriate timescale for deciding whether to accept the offer of alternative accommodation. As the resident did not advise the landlord before the deadline whether he was accepting the property, it offered the property to someone else but agreed the resident should receive a further offer. There was a significant delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

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. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 20 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling. No later than 20 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 16 July 2024 The resident made a stage 1 complaint in which he said he was dissatisfied with the way the landlord had handled an offer of alternative accommodation it had made to him.

He said that the landlord’s “demand” for him to make a decision by mid-day the following day was unacceptable as he wanted to raise a freedom of information request regarding the level of anti-social behaviour (ASB) relating to the property offered and any damp issues regarding the flat roof of the property. He said he would then be in a position to make a decision about the offer. However, he also questioned why the property could not be offered as a “temporary decant”. 6 August 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said: Following agreement of the resident’s management transfer application, the resident was offered an alternative property and a viewing was arranged.

The resident had refused the offer and the landlord had placed his name back on the management transfer waiting list. The resident had requested a bungalow in areas that were in high demand. Therefore, the landlord was unable to estimate the length of time he would have to wait for another offer. 4 September 2024 The resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 because: He had asked about the level of ASB affecting the property he had been offered and the area in which it was located.

He asked why the property only had one external door as he was concerned about health and safety in the event of a fire. He said in the light of these issues the landlord should not count the offer as a suitable offer. 28 November 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said: Its Neighbourhood Delivery Manager had reviewed the offer made to the resident and agreed that it should not count as an offer. It had confirmed this in the stage 1 response. The resident was still on the management transfer waiting list and had been offered another bungalow during that week.

However, he had refused this offer. The landlord had updated its system to show the resident had now requested just one area. It was unable to say when he would receive an offer as the landlord had limited stock in the resident’s area of choice. The landlord confirmed it had identified learning opportunities as a result of the resident’s complaint. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident contacted us to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and therefore wanted us to investigate his complaint.

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. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a property it offered in relation to his management move Finding No maladministration The landlord’s lettings and allocations procedure says: The landlord will advise applicants that they will need to provide a response to an offer by mid-day the following working day after the viewing.

The procedure says that they may be bypassed for an offer if they do not respond within this timescale. The landlord’s management transfer procedure says: Following approval of a management transfer application, the landlord will add the resident to its management transfer list. In the majority of cases, one reasonable offer of accommodation will be made to the customer. Should the first offer of a property be refused by the resident, it is at the landlord’s discretion to decide whether the individual circumstances of the case would require any further offers to be made.

Additional offers of accommodation should only be made in exceptional circumstances. Following agreement of his management transfer request, the landlord offered the resident an alternative property, which he viewed on 11 July 2024. The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 July 2024 regarding the offer and then wrote to him on the same day to clarify some points, for example, that it would repaint the property throughout as the resident had requested. The landlord advised the resident that he should consider the offer and provide a decision by 12pm on 17 July 2024.

It added that it would offer the property to another resident if he refused the offer or did not contact the landlord by the deadline. The evidence indicates that the resident had requested clarification about the property the landlord had offered to him. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had spoken to him and then written to him to provide clarification about the offer and the property. The landlord gave him a deadline of 12pm the following day to say whether he wanted to accept the property.

This deadline was in line with its lettings and allocations procedure and was therefore appropriate, particularly as it had already been 3 working days since the resident had viewed the property. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day (16 July 2024) and said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the offer and that it was unacceptable to request a response by 12pm the following day. He said he wanted to make a freedom of information request regarding the level of ASB relating to the property he was offered and the area in which it was located.

He also asked whether there had been any dampness issues relating to the property. He asked the landlord to confirm that if the deadline stood, he would be considered for another offer because of his management transfer status. The landlord treated the resident’s email as a stage 1 complaint, which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy as he had expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the offer. The landlord said in its stage 1 reply on 6 August 2024 that the resident had refused the property and therefore it had been offered to someone else.

We have not seen any evidence that the resident had given the landlord a decision on the offer by the stated deadline. Therefore, in our view it was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the property to another resident as it had advised the resident it would do so. We have taken into account that the resident had asked for additional information about the property, such as about ASB and dampness. However, the landlord’s lettings and allocations procedure makes it clear that residents have to make decisions regarding viewings within a short timescale.

Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that it could not leave the offer of the property pending while it was researching the information requested by the resident. As part of his email sent on 16 July 2024, the resident had questioned why the property he had been offered could not be treated as a “temporary decant” to allow the landlord to complete the repairs to his own property. The landlord had advised the resident on the same day that it had offered the property “as a management move… not a decant” and it would not consider moving him temporarily.

The landlord had therefore acted reasonably by being clear with the resident that he was being transferred due to his request for a management transfer and it was unable to transfer himto the property temporarily. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply that the resident would be returned to the waiting list for a further management transfer offer. The landlord’s management transfer procedure says that in the majority of cases it will only make one reasonable offer of accommodation.

Therefore, in our view, the landlord acted fairly by agreeing to his request for him to receive a further management transfer offer. As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident asked the landlord to confirm that the property offered to him would not count as an offer because the landlord had not responded to his concerns about ASB in the area. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that the offer would not count as the resident’s one offer of accommodation. Given the resident’s vulnerability, it was reasonable, in our view, for the landlord to confirm that the property offered would not count as his one offer of alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s records state that during the conversation with the resident on 16 July 2024, it explained to him that the area as a whole had issues with ASB and crime but it was not aware of any specific problems with the property itself. The landlord signposted the resident to one of the apps that provide ASB information and to the local council’s Safer Neighbourhoods team. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to sources where he might be able to obtain the information he was seeking.

In particular, it was helpful to signpost him to the local council as it is part of a community safety partnership which shares intelligence about crime and ASB with other agencies, such as the police. The landlord later wrote to the resident in January 2025 and explained that at the time of the offer it had signposted the resident to use one of the available apps or contact the council to find out about ASB in the area. However, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not reiterated this advice in its stage 1 and 2 responses.

This would have reminded the resident about these options. As part of his stage 2 complaint, the resident asked why the property he had been offered only had one external door. He questioned whether this was a fire and health and safety risk. The landlord did not address this question as part of its stage 1 or 2 replies. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part, however, we have not identified this as a service failure because: It was not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

By the time he raised it in his stage 2 complaint, the landlord had already decided to offer the property to someone else. It had also agreed not to count the offer in relation to the resident and to return him to the waiting list. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to respond to this point did not cause the resident significant adverse effect. The evidence shows that the landlord offered further alternative properties to the resident after he had made his stage 1 and 2 complaints.

We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of these offers because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. Therefore, it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. The resident may wish to consider making a separate complaint to the landlord about these offers if he is dissatisfied with its handling of them. Overall, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord because: In line with its policy, the landlord gave the resident an appropriate deadline for deciding whether to accept the offer.

Although the resident did not advise the landlord of his decision by the deadline, it agreed that he could remain on the management transfer waiting list and receive a further offer. The landlord made it clear the offer was in connection with his management transfer request rather than as a “decant”. The landlord signposted the resident to contact the council for information about ASB in the area or said he could use one of the apps available. The resident advised us on 3 February 2025 that he wanted us to investigate the leaks into his property.

However, based on the content of his stage 1 and 2 complaints, the landlord focussed its stage 1 and 2 responses on the offer of alternative accommodation it made as part of the management transfer process. Therefore, taking into account the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s responses and all the other evidence, we consider it fair and reasonable not to investigate the landlord’s handling of the roof leaks. We are also aware that the resident experienced leaks from the flat above his property.

However, we have not investigated the landlord’s response to these leaks as they were not part of the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. As stated earlier, a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore, it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process.

At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding but it will explain the reason to the resident and agree how it will provide further updates to the resident. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 July 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 6 working days later on 24 July 2024, which was slightly longer than the timescale set out in its policy.

The delay in acknowledging the complaint was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part. It sent its stage 1 response on 6 August 2024, which was 9 working days after acknowledging the complaint and was therefore sent within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 4 September 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 November 2024, which was 56 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. This was inappropriate as it was significantly longer than the timescale in the landlord’s policy.

The landlord responded to the complaint on 28 November 2024, which was an appropriate timescale after acknowledging the complaint. The delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint prompted the resident to chase the landlord for a response in September 2024 and on 17 October 2024. He then contacted us on 5 November 2024 to ask for assistance in pursuing his complaint and it was only after our intervention that the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. The delay in acknowledging his complaint meant there was an overall delay in the resident receiving his final complaint response and he experienced additional time and trouble in pursing his complaint.

We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to put things right in terms of the additional time and trouble experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for findings of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) According to the landlord’s case notes, it had logged receipt of the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 4 September 2024.

It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint within an appropriate timescale. This may indicate a problem with the landlord’s case management system. Communication Generally, we found that the landlord’s communication in relation to the offer of accommodation was reasonable and clear.