Onward Homes Limited — case 202419379

Decision Case ID 202419379 Decision type Investigation Landlord Onward Homes Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 13 October 2025 Background The resident lives in a second floor apartment within a block. He has a car parking space in a communal car park as part of his lease. The block has a communal bin area. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about: Management of the car park.

Fly tipping. Window cleaning. Tree maintenance. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was: No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern’s about management of the car park. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern’s about fly tipping. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern’s about window cleaning. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern’s about tree maintenance.

No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons In summary, the Ombudsman found that: Management of the car park The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the car park reasonably and within its limitations. Fly tipping The landlord missed opportunities to demonstrate it had reasonably considered the resident’s reports of fly tipping, and what measures it could put in place to prevent or reduce further issues.

Window cleaning The landlord failed to provide clarity about the frequency of its window cleaning service during the complaints process, which has caused ongoing confusion and frustration. Tree maintenance The landlord arranged for tree maintenance work when the resident reported issues. It subsequently apologised for its communication failures about missing a scheduled appointment, which was appropriate redress for the failing. Complaint handling The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy and the Code.

Positively, it still offered compensation in recognition of the inconvenience endured by the resident when raising a 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 10 November 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 made up as follows: · £50 for the identified failings in its response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping.

· £50 for the frustration and confusion caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about window cleaning. No later than 10 November 2025 3 Contact order The landlord must contact the resident and confirm in writing the exact frequency of the window cleaning schedule to prevent any ongoing confusion. No later than 10 November 2025 4 Inspection order The landlord must inspect the communal waste area that serves the block. It must determine if any repairs are needed to secure the bin enclosure, and consider ways in which it can reduce the disposal of waste outside of the bins.

The outcome of this inspection must be shared with this Service and the resident. No later than 10 November 2025 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should consider writing to all residents of the block to establish if anyone else has concerns regarding car parking and the accessibility of the car park to non-residents. The landlord should review the responses and share the findings with the Freeholder to determine if measures need to be put in place to restrict unauthorised access to the car park.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 27 June 2024 The resident raised his complaint about non-residents parking in the communal car park. He also raised concerns about fly tipping in the communal bin area, the frequency of window cleaning and issues with overgrown trees. 11 July 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had spoken to several households about parking in other resident’s spaces. However, it would not intervene in any parking related disputes.

While the resident had suggested permit parking, it said implementing it was not straightforward and all other residents and the freeholder would need to agree. It visited the block to inspect the communal areas every month. It said it had no concerns about fly tipping. It cleaned the windows on a bi–monthly basis, and they were last cleaned on 4 July. It had arranged to cut the trees on 19 July 2024. 16 August 2024 The resident escalated his complaint as he said the stage 1 response did not resolve his complaint.

He said fly tipping was an issue, and the landlord had not cut the trees as promised. 6 September 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Reiterated its stage 1 response about parking. It explained it had received “very few complaints” about parking, so it did not currently require an enforcement company to monitor the parking. Said there were generally no issues with overflowing waste or fly tipping, albeit there had been occasional incidents when it had removed additional waste.

It said it would contact the council and consult with residents to decide if it needed to change any waste management arrangements. Assured the resident it was monitoring the window cleaning service during its monthly visits to the block. Apologised it had not kept the resident updated about rescheduling the tree maintenance work. It said these could not go ahead on 19 July 2024 due to additional permissions needed from the council. It had rescheduled the work for 5 September 2024.

It offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience he experienced raising his complaint and £50 for his time and trouble. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remains dissatisfied because: Non-residents continue to park in the car park. He said he has suggested using money from the landlord’s “sinking fund” to install a barrier that only residents could access. However, he said the landlord has not taken this suggestion on board. Fly tipping is an issue due to non-residents using the communal bins.

He said the landlord ignores the issue, and the bin area is not fit for purpose. The frequency of window cleaning is inconsistent and the landlord’s explanation of it being “bi-monthly” was unclear and confusing. Tree maintenance continues to be an issue. Trees block street lighting and the landlord has not cut them back. The resident wants the landlord to consider his suggestions and implement enforcement for unauthorised parking. 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 Management of the car park Finding No maladministration The landlord’s guide for leaseholders states it would not intervene in any parking related disputes. However, it assured the resident it had spoken to several households about inconsiderate parking. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that the freeholder and other residents would need to agree on implementing measures such as permits or enforcement, given the cost implications.

This was an appropriate explanation. The resident suggested using money from the landlord’s “sinking funds” to install a barrier. We cannot dictate how a landlord uses its available funds, nor can we order it to install a barrier. However, we appreciate the resident’s frustrations with encountering parking issues due to it being freely accessible to all vehicles, including non-residents. As such, the landlord may wish to write to all residents in the block to determine the extent of the parking issues.

Consulting with all residents will give them the opportunity to share their experiences and issues with parking. It will also give the landlord the opportunity to explain any limitations and potential solutions available to address unauthorised access to the car park. This will demonstrate it is willing to listen to residents and present any issues to the freeholder to reach a positive resolution. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately and responded to the resident’s complaint proportionately.

Complaint Fly tipping Finding Service failure There is no dispute that the responsibility to address and prevent fly tipping is shared amongst various agencies, including local authorities, environmental agencies and landowners. As the managing agent, the landlord is responsible for the disposal of any waste left outside the bin area. The landlord said it conducts monthly visits to the block, and it had not identified any issues with waste management or fly tipping. While this Service does not dispute the landlord’s response to the resident, this does not mean that issues with waste and fly tipping had not been an issue altogether.

The landlord’s stage 1 response appears dismissive of the resident’s reported lived experience, which is inappropriate. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to contact the council and consult with resident’s to review the current waste management arrangements. While this was reasonable, the landlord could have gone further in reassuring the resident about potential ways it could address the reported fly tipping. As above, the landlord knew about the resident’s concerns about the car park being accessible to non-resident’s.

He was explicitly clear that he believed this contributed to the fly tipping issue. The landlord did not demonstrate it had considered ways in which it could restrict access to the bin area. It also did not demonstrate that it had considered security measures such as signage and CCTV. Providing secure bin enclosures can prevent waste being left in unauthorised areas. However, the resident had expressed concerns with the size and security of the bin area. The landlord did not demonstrate it had considered the resident’s concerns or investigated his reports that the bin enclosure was no longer fit for purpose.

This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman appreciates the challenges of eliminating reported fly tipping issues completely. However, the landlord did not do enough to reassure the resident it had taken his reports seriously, nor did it demonstrate it had considered ways it could improve the reported issues. Complaint Window cleaning. Finding Service failure The resident complained about the frequency of the window cleaning. The landlord confirmed that it cleaned the windows on a “bi-monthly” basis, and it checked the standard of cleaning during its monthly visits to the block.

The resident did not specifically raise concerns about the standard of cleaning. The term “bi-monthly” is ambiguous and can be interpreted as either twice a month, or once every 2 months. Given the resident’s frustration and subsequent complaint about the frequency of the window cleaning, the landlord could have been clearer and confirmed the exact cleaning schedule in its complaint responses. That it did not was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide clarity during the complaints process, which caused avoidable frustration and confusion.

Complaint Tree maintenance. Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s guide for leaseholders outlines that it encourages the growth of trees; therefore, it would only cut them back in certain circumstances. The resident reported that the trees were blocking street lighting. The landlord arranged to have them cut back, which was appropriate. It did not tell the resident it needed to reschedule the work due to needing additional permissions over a protected tree. This was a communication failure.

However, it apologised for this which was reasonable. The resident told this Service overgrown trees are still a problem. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns, and take appropriate action where needed. Complaint Complaint handling. Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint responses were in accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. They addressed all points of the resident’s complaint, were sufficiently detailed and provided accurate details about how the resident could escalate his complaint.

Both responses were also issued in a timely manner. The landlord offered £50 compensation for time and trouble and £50 for the resident’s inconvenience. Given the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, this was positive and evidenced that despite finding no specific service failures, it recognised the inconvenience that raising a complaint can cause.