We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Incommunities Limited (202341257)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341257

Incommunities Limited

28 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the communal TV aerial.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in July 2006. Her property is a 1-bedroom flat in a 2-storey block. The resident has physical health conditions known to the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 to make a complaint. This related to the communal TV aerial which she asked the landlord to repair.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 February 2024, stating:
    1. It accepted the communal aerial was outdated and needed replacing.
    2. Many of the other residents of the block had informed it that they did not use the communal aerial as they had installed their own streaming services.
    3. It proposed the removal of the communal aerial as well as the associated service charge for it.
    4. It would instead provide the resident with a brand-new TV aerial for her individual property at no cost, although she would be responsible for any future repairs to it.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2024 as she was unhappy with its proposal not to fix the communal aerial but instead to remove it completely.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2024. It said:
    1. The resident had contacted it on 18 December 2023 to report there was no signal to her television via the communal aerial. It arranged for its contractor to attend on that day. However, as there was a lack of electricity supply to the communal aerial, the contractor was unable to repair it.
    2. It had not received any other reports from any other residents of the block about the communal aerial. It believed this demonstrated they were all using other streaming services which did not require the aerial.
    3. It had made the decision to remove the communal aerial based in part on the repairs history and the cost of installing a separate power supply. It would be writing to all residents of the block to inform them of its intentions, and would also be removing the weekly service charge to all residents for the maintenance of the aerial.
    4. Its offer to install a separate aerial for the resident remained available to her.
    5. It had taken from 18 December 2023 to 1 February 2024 to provide the resident with a solution to the issue of the communal aerial. It accepted this was an unreasonable delay, and so it offered £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience and the loss of service she experienced.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord fitted the new TV aerial to the resident’s property on 12 March 2024.
  2. The resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman on 15 March 2024. She said while the landlord had fitted the new aerial, she was still experiencing issues with her TV and was unable to get signal. The landlord’s operative informed it that the issue was with her TV, which she disagreed with.
  3. The landlord made the £100 compensation payment to the resident on 2 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she encountered ongoing issues with her TV signal following the installation of the new aerial in March 2024. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the communal aerial

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that repairs are split into 3 categories depending on the urgency of the work. These are:
    1. Emergency, where the issue will be made safe within 24 hours.
    2. Routine, where the landlord will complete the repair within 20 working days. These are non-emergency repairs which do not pose an immediate risk to health and safety, or to the property. The landlord says it may prioritise repairs dependent on the individual circumstances of the resident.
    3. Unplanned major works, which are complex larger–scale repairs. The landlord will aim to complete these within 40 working days.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will “adjust response times and increase our service offering on a case-by-case basis” for vulnerable residents. It adds that if residents require additional assistance, it will try to ensure reasonable adjustments are made for any work to take place.
  3. The repairs policy confirms that the landlord’s responsibilities include repairing communal areas, external areas, and facilities where it is responsible for them. The resident’s responsibilities include the repair/replacement of individual TV aerials.
  4. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the resident paid a weekly fee as part of her service charge towards the maintenance of the communal aerial. For the financial year beginning April 2023, the maintenance fee was set at 41p per week. Once the communal aerial was removed, this fee was also removed from the weekly service charge by the landlord.
  5. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  6. In her communication to the Ombudsman in February 2024, the resident said the communal aerial had not been working since 9 March 2023. However, there is no evidence in the landlord’s repair records that she contacted it at that time about the matter. Neither is there any evidence that the resident raised a complaint with the landlord at the time. The resident made an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman relating to the communal aerial, which was considered under complaint reference 20113975 in March 2023. The landlord provided evidence of compliance with the orders from this determination in early April 2023. At this time there was again no mention of any new issue with the communal aerial.
  7. The first entry in the landlord’s repair logs relating to the communal aerial from the resident was on 18 December 2023. The landlord contacted its contractor on the same day and asked it to attend. The landlord’s notes show that it also asked the contractor to contact the resident with an estimated time of arrival. The landlord’s response was appropriate. Even though the repair was not an emergency one, but rather a routine repair, it made reasonable adjustments and factored in the resident’s vulnerabilities in trying to arrange an appointment to attempt to resolve the matter on the same day the repair was initially reported to it.
  8. The landlord’s repair records show that while its contractor attended to the property on 18 December 2023, it was unable to attempt to make repairs to the communal aerial. This was because it noted that there was no power supply to the aerial. The contractor’s notes to the landlord on the same day informed the landlord of this and asked it to look into the matter further.
  9. The landlord’s repair records show the matter was not chased by it again until 4 January 2024, which was 2 weeks after the contractor had attended. However, this interval included the Christmas and New Year period when a reduced repairs service would likely have been operating. The landlord noted that there was no communal electrical supply at the location, and that previously the communal aerial had been powered via a satellite service belonging to one of the residents of the block. It identified that the solution to repair the communal aerial would be either to install a separate power unit from the underground network, which would be expensive, or to look into repeating whatever solution had previously resolved the matter over the previous 1 to 2 years.
  10. However, in saying this the landlord was not sure what the exact solution was which was previously used by it. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not always been the case here. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
  11. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to communicate with the resident in early January 2024 to provide her with an update on the issue of the communal aerial. This was a failing by it, and she was left with no explanation or indication when the matter was likely to be resolved. Given the lack of any update or contact since the day the resident initially reported the repair, she then raised the matter as a complaint on 18 January 2024. It is reasonable to conclude that more effective communication may have prevented the complaint from being made.
  12. The landlord’s internal communications show that, following the resident’s complaint, it tried to find a solution for the resident to resolve the matter. In doing this the landlord considered how it had approached similar issues in other communal properties for which it was responsible. This had involved the removal of the communal aerial and the associated service charge, and the installation of a new TV aerial directly onto the affected resident’s property. This was reasonable option. However, in this case the landlord missed an opportunity by not contacting other residents of the block to ask if any of them were reliant on the communal aerial. While the landlord said it did not receive any other responses on the matter, which suggested the resident was the only one using the communal aerial, it could have made contact or arranged a visit to each of the other properties in the block to confirm this was the case. If it did so, this is not apparent from the available evidence.
  13. While the landlord made its offer to install the aerial onto the resident’s property in its stage 1 response, at this time it had not been in touch with the other residents of the communal block. By making this commitment to the resident, it would have been expected to make similar commitments to other residents who fell into the same circumstances as the resident. This could have made the alternative a more expensive solution than simply replacing the communal aerial or by installing a new independent power supply for it.
  14. The landlord has provided evidence to show that on the day it sent the resident the stage 2 response, it also contacted all residents of the block to inform them of its intention to remove the communal aerial and to waive the service charge for it going forwards. This was reasonable, and there is no evidence that any other resident replied back to it challenging or questioning its decision.
  15. Although the resident expressed her concerns over the landlord’s decision not to repair the communal aerial, it was entitled to consider alternative options to resolve the matter. The landlord noted there had been a number of previous repairs to the communal aerial and that given the age of it, it may have not been economically viable for it to repair it in the long run. The solution proposed by it would resolve the resident’s concerns over the TV aerial, and by fitting a new aerial there was the possibility that it would not need as many frequent repairs as the previous communal aerial. The landlord acted reasonably in determining that, should it follow this option, it would need to stop the service charge paid by all residents in the block for the maintenance of the communal aerial.
  16. The resident also expressed concerns about having her own individual TV aerial and being responsible for any future repair to it. However, the landlord’s actions were in accordance with the terms of its repairs policy. This stated that the resident and not the landlord would be responsible for repairs to individual TV aerials.
  17. While the resident requested an escalation to her complaint, which the landlord granted, it confirmed following further internal discussions that the option of removing the communal aerial and fitting a new individual one for the resident was the only viable option available to it. The landlord’s actions in referring the matter to be considered further was appropriate and in keeping with its complaints policy.
  18. The resident informed this Service that the landlord failed to attend scheduled appointments with her to repair the communal aerial, and instead turned up at unscheduled times which were not convenient for her. She was therefore unable to let operatives in on those days. She says this added to the stress and inconvenience she experienced. The resident has not provided any further details of when these unscheduled visits took place. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s recollection, the landlord’s records show that the landlord’s contractor only attended on the same day as the repair was originally reported. There was no further indication of any other visit after this time.
  19. The landlord offered the resident £100 in its stage 2 response. It explained that this payment reflected the inconvenience and loss of service she suffered as a result of its delay in resolving the matter. Together with the installation of an individual aerial for the resident, we consider this resolution sufficient. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress, which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failings but no permanent impact, and that no further compensation is due in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the communal aerial.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so. If the landlord has already paid this, it does not need to make any further payment to the resident.