Network Homes Limited (202100811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100811

Network Homes Limited

14 October 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a leak into the property from upstairs.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a shared ownership property. His tenancy began on 12 January 2007, his property is a ground floor flat.
3. The resident suffers from mental health issues, and this is noted in the landlord’s records.  The resident has advised he has experienced heath issues due to the damp in the property.
4. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there is any causal link between the reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be considered in this investigation.
5. The customer raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak on 24 November 2020 which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 4 February 2021. He brought the matter to the Ombudsman in April 2021. It is evident that prior to this the resident had been in communication with the landlord regarding the leak since at least 1 March 2020 when he raised his first complaint with the landlord regarding its failure to address the leak. He said at that time the leak had been ongoing for two years. This investigation will not investigate what happened prior to this however will consider events from 1 March 2020 as this constitutes a reasonable timeframe prior to his formal complaint.

Summary of Events

6. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 March 2020 that the leak coming from his living room ceiling above the rear patio doors had not been addressed. He said he was living in a wet, cold flat because of the issue. He also raised other repairs (not part of this review). 
7. The landlord’s (first) stage one response dated 25 March 2020 did not address the issue of the leak.
8. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 April 2020 complaining that its response had not addressed the water ingress in his flat.
9. In the landlord’s (first) stage two response dated 11 May 2020, it acknowledged it previously failed to take ownership of the leak and that it had put the onus on the resident to repair the leak. It said however that as it was part of an insurance claim, it followed a separate process and it could not address this within its complaint response. The landlord advised it would contact the resident about leak and arrange for a surveyor to attend.
10. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a job on 29 May 2020 for its repair contractor to inspect and trace the leak into the property. The contractor attended on 4 June 2020 and inspected the property and the flat above and found no leak from the flat above. They noted that the fault could be external with the balcony, but water penetration was not obvious. They commented that the patio board decking (on the balcony) was secure in foam and that it could be soaking water into the property so sealing in and around the crevices “would be a start”. The contractor recommended sealing around the crevices, remove decking and for the upstairs balcony to be made watertight by roofers.
11. On 22 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident the report from the inspection indicated it was an external issue with the balcony. It said it had asked its contractors to investigate this matter further and that it would provide him with an update when it had received a quotation.
12. On 23 September 2020, the landlord raised the repairs previously recommended by its contractor.
13. On 13 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord asking for a timeline for the works. The landlord’s internal communications referenced the resident’s wellbeing and that there was a need to resolve the leak. This evidence also references experiencing an issue with access through the upstairs property as the occupants were at work during the week.
14. On 15 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord advising he had received a call from a roofing company who had visited that day and the operative he had spoken to said the balcony “rotten” and “was extremely dangerous”. The resident was upset that he had not been told about the visit and said he hoped the issue would be resolved as soon as possible.
15. The landlord replied and said it would contact its contractors and provide an update. On 21 October 2020 the resident confirmed he had been notified that the roofing company would attend again on 30 October 2020.
16. The landlord’s surveyor attended with the roofing company on 30 October 2020 however the raised works were not completed apart from unblocking an “rpdp”  pipe using rods which was causing water to cascade down building facade. The landlord’s internal communications as the surveyor found that the decking was not defective and the surveyor considered the works requested did not mirror what was required on site.
17. On 24 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord complaining that he had not received any update on the progress of the works since 30 October 2020 when the surveyor had said the issue was not bad. However, there is no evidence to illustrate this is the date the resident sent this correspondence to the landlord as he was also in communication with Citizen’s Advice Bureau, and notes it is possible this was in fact sent there.
18. The resident sent a further an email on 30 November 2020 chasing the repairs.
19. On 2 December 2020 the landlord advised the contractor would attend on 17 December 2020.
20. On 14 December 2020, the resident raised a further complaint advising that effectively, he could not use the property when it rained due to the leak. He had lost his job and was under severe mental strain. He explained he wanted to sell his share in the property but was prevented from doing so because of the leak.
21. On 17 December 2020, the landlord’s surveyor and the roofing company attended the property. The surveyor reported that the hopper and down pipe was unblocked and a water test was carried out to all points of possible entry but no water came through. The landlord’s internal communications dated 22 December 2020 show the surveyor advised that he asked the resident to monitor the leak and that the resident texted him on 21 December 2020 advising it had been leaking over the past few days as it had been raining. They said that the next step was to reattend the flat above.
22. On 31 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would ensure there would be no further unnecessary delays with the works required to resolve the water ingress to his home.
23. The landlord provided a stage one response on the same date in which it referenced that there had been ongoing communications between the resident, its surveyor and its Leasehold Property Manager regarding resolving the leak. It acknowledged that it was nearly always prompted by the resident and that there were still uncertainties as to how the water was entering his home. It acknowledged that the most recent works had failed to stop the water ingress.
24. It said the plan was to further investigate the matter by way of intrusive investigations/ tracing of the upstairs property.  If necessary, it would have to remove some of his ceiling area in order to try to identify how the water was accessing that point of entry as the source had not yet been identified.
25. It explained that leaks could sometimes prove difficult to repair however having reviewed his case, it concluded that the time taken to carry out the necessary repairs to prevent the water ingress had fallen well below its expected timescales. It said delays had occurred as a result of poor management of the job, and poor communication that meant he had to continue chasing it for which it was sorry.
26. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £390 for the time taken to carry out the necessary repairs to prevent water ingress.
27. On 6 January 2021, a building surveyor attended and reported to the landlord that the leak seemed to be: “a down-pipe issue from the rear”. They recommended for the leak to be traced and rectified from near side to the flat two floors above the property. Once resolved, the internal ceiling could be cut open, plasterboard replaced and to apply a plaster skim then paint.
28. On 7 January 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to the next stage as its offer made in its stage one response was not a fair resolution. Within this correspondence the resident provided a copy of his 24 November 2020 complaint correspondence. He additionally requested that the landlord either pay him the current market value of his share of the lease or return the money he paid in 2007 for the property which had been proven to be defective.
29. The landlord’s contractors attended on 1 February 2021 and undertook works to the upstairs flat. It records commented that it removed two paving slabs and foam insulation, added powder drain dye then refitted insulation and slabs and sealed all edges on balcony. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2021 and asked him to monitor the leak and update it.
30. On 4 February 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. Within its response it said it had completed repairs to the upstairs flat which it believed had resolved the issue however it acknowledged that the resident had been asked to monitor the issue himself. It had used a coloured dye in the water and asked that if water went through, for the resident to inform it of the colour, that way it would know if the repairs were effective, and if it came through as no colour then this meant the leak was elsewhere. At that time, it was unable to provide any further update or feedback as the investigations were still ongoing, but said it did recognise the impact this had had on the resident.
31. In conclusion, it was unable to pay him the current market value of his share of the lease or return the money he paid in 2007 as its policy does not look back further than six months. It said the compensation offered at stage one was reasonable and acknowledged the difficulties he had faced and the disruption caused to his enjoyment of the property. However, it said as the compensation only covered up to 31 December 2020, it had awarded a further £65 in compensation for the further five weeks up until 2 February 2021 when further repairs were carried out which it hoped had resolved the leak.
32. The landlord advised that as a leaseholder he needed to claim for decoration works inside his property via its building insurance. It provided the contact details.

Post Final Response

33. The resident updated the landlord on 16 February 2021 informing them that the leak had stopped however he subsequently informed the landlord in early March 2021 that the leak had returned in the same place.
34. The parties were in communication about the cause of the issue and the resident’s Member of Parliament wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 9 March 2021 complaining about the need to repair the communal leak and the damage caused to the resident’s property.
35. The landlord’s internal communications dated 25 March 2021 show that its surveyor proposed to waterproof the hole in the upstairs balcony and that they were in the process of obtaining a quote. They referred to the need to engage a leak detection company if that did not address the leak as it had tested all areas and could not identify the source of the leak.
36. The resident called the Ombudsman on 5 May 2021 stating that he was unhappy with the response received from the landlord and in particular its explanation for the length of time taken to identify the source of the leak. He stated that the insurers had made an offer in relation to the cost to repair internal damage however he had not yet accepted this offer.
37. On 2 July 2021, in response to this Service’s information request, the landlord advised the leak had not yet been resolved. It said the leaseholder occupying the upstairs flat was refusing access for works to fully water proof the balcony  as it needed to install scaffolding, the costs may mean it would have to follow the Section 20 leaseholder process which would cause further delays.
38. Regarding compensation it said it would increase its offer once all works had been completed.
39. In response to our recent request for an update, on 24 June 2022, the landlord advised this Service that the leak had been resolved following further repairs which commenced on 3 November 2021 and lasted up to seven days (without pursuing a section 20 leasehold process). This Service has not been provided with any further details of the nature of the works.
40. It also advised it had proposed a package of compensation for the resident going back six years and that the resident was currently considering its offer.

Assessment and findings

Leak

41. The lease states that the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, renew the roof foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts including all external and load-bearing walls, the windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the building and all parts which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder.
42. It is evident that when it rains, water drips through the resident’s dining room ceiling. The point of entry is near to the external wall above the rear patio doors. It is clear from the landlord’s (first) stage two complaint response dated 11 May 2020 that by this time it had accepted responsibility for investigating the leak to establish whose responsibility it was to repair. By committing to undertake investigations into the cause of the leak, the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations under the lease.
43. However, a resolution to the leak was not progressed in a timely manner. During an inspection on 4 June 2020, the landlord’s contractor identified that the source of the leak was likely to be from the upstairs’ balcony indicating that it was the landlord’s responsibility to address. However, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in raising the follow-on works recommended by its contractor. These were not raised until 23 September 2020. The reason for the delay is unclear from the available evidence. There was a further delay when the repair to the balcony decking booked in for 30 October 2020 was not completed on this date. Its internal communications indicate this was because the landlord’s surveyor did not agree that the decking on the balcony was defective. 
44. Following several communications from the resident, a further visit was booked in for 17 December 2020 to progress investigations. The landlord’s records show the hopper and down pipe was unblocked during this visit. A water/dye test was also carried out, but the surveyor reported that no water came through. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 21 December 2020 that the issues had not been resolved and the leaking was ongoing. In its stage one response of 31 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the recent works had not addressed the issue and it promised to carry out the works necessary to resolve the water ingress. The landlord’s contractor and surveyor attended the upstairs property again on 1 February 2021 with a plumber. Works were carried out involving removing slabs and insulation, adding dye and refitting slabs and insulation as well as sealing the edges of the balcony.
45. In its final response of 4 February 2021, the landlord stated that the resident was to monitor the issue to see if the latest repairs had addressed the issue. It is noted from the subsequent communications between the parties and updates provided to this Service, that these repairs did not resolve the leak.
46. Whilst this review will not investigate the landlord’s actions after the date of its final complaint response as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, the landlord told this Service that the resident’s leak was addressed following further repairs it carried out which commenced on 3 November 2021 and lasted up to seven days. 
47. In summary, after the landlord committed to investigating the cause of the leak in May 2020, it was quickly identified that the cause was most likely to relate to an external/structural issue for which it was responsible for. However, despite multiple visits to the property/upstairs flat by various contractors and the landlord’s surveyor, this did not lead to a resolution of the issue as the repairs provided on 17 December 2020 and on 1 February 2021, did not resolve the leak which was ongoing. The lack of an effective resolution over approximately eleven months from when the resident first complained on 1 March 2020 until the landlord’s final response of 4 February 2021, is evidence of a failure in the service provided by the landlord.
48. As previously mentioned, the landlord has advised that more extensive repairs carried out in November 2021 addressed the leak. Nonetheless, the landlord’s failure to identify the need for these more extensive repairs earlier has prolonged the period taken to provide a permanent fix to the issue.
49. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the time taken to carry out the necessary repairs to prevent the water ingress had fallen well below its expected timescales. It said these delays occurred as a result of poor management of the job. It also acknowledged and apologised for poor communication on its part which had meant the resident had to continue chasing.
50. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £390 in compensation for the delay in resolving water ingress. In its final response, it increased this amount by £65.00 for the further delay experienced from 31 December 2020 up to 2 February 2021 when further repairs were provided. Bearing in mind the damp and mould and serious damage caused to the ceiling by the unresolved leak as well as the unsatisfactory level of communication from the landlord, on balance, the amount offered is not sufficient to reflect the extent of the stress and inconvenience caused. The resident explained to the landlord during the complaints process that the issue had caused him to have to stay away from the property when it rains. He said that it had prevented him from selling his share in property which he wanted to so he could “move on”. It is also clear that delay with addressing the source of the leak has prolonged the resident’s insurance claim in respect to internal damage.
51. Whilst the landlord has said the figure offered in its accordance with its compensation policy, it is noted its policy provides for between £5 and £20 per week for delay (depending on the level of impact) and for between £5 and £20 per week for distress. It is unclear from the evidence how the amount offered by the landlord was calculated.
52. Based on the issues identified in this review and the landlord’s compensation policy, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £875.00 for stress and inconvenience caused from 4 June 2020 until the date of the final response on 2 February 2021. It is reasonable to use these dates when assessing compensation as it was identified during the landlord’s inspection on 4 June 2020 that the cause of the water ingress was its responsibility to address and because the scope of this investigation includes up to date of the landlord’s final response of 2 February 2021.  The award of £875 for stress and inconvenience is based on approximately £25 per week during this timeframe.  Bearing in mind the level of delay and impact, this amount is reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. Therefore, an order has been included below for the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £420 (in addition to the £455 offered in the complaint process).
53. On 2 July 2021 after it became apparent further works were required to resolve the issue, the landlord told this Service that it would increase the amount of compensation offered to the resident to cover the period up to the date a fix was provided. Further, on 24 June 2022, the landlord advised us that it had offered a package of compensation for the resident and that the resident was currently considering its offer. It is noted that this has been offered as a result of ongoing negotiations between the parties since the landlord’s final response which takes into account aspects not considered in this review, including further delay in providing a fix.

Complaint handling

54. The landlord operated a two stage process at the time of the resident’s complaint. This states it will log a complaint within five working days of receipt, provide a stage one response within ten working days and a stage two response within 20 working days. Its policy also defines a complaint as: ‘a communication expressing dissatisfaction with the service provided by us and/or our service partners’.
55. The resident’s 24 November 2020 communication to the landlord meets the definition of a complaint however there is no evidence to illustrate this was the date the landlord had in fact received this correspondence, with the landlord illustrating via email correspondence dated 7 January 2021 that this was when the communication was first received. It is unreasonable to expect the landlord to have logged this as a complaint as it was unaware of the resident’s wish to do so and had focussed on resolving the leak, albeit delayed. Without any proof that this was in fact received on the date of the communication, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord failed to follow its policy. The landlord did in fact provide responses in line with the timescales stipulated and as such there was no failure on its part.

Determination (decision)

56. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports of a leak through the ceiling at the property coming from upstairs.
57. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’ related complaint.

Reasons

58. The landlord took steps to investigate the cause of the leak however, it unreasonably delayed with providing repairs and those that it did provide during the complaints process did not address the water ingress into the resident’s flat.

Orders and Recommendations

59. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation of £420 (in addition to the £455 offered during the complaints process) for stress and inconvenience caused by the lack of an effective repair provided up to the date of the final response of 4 February 2021.
    2. Comply with the above order within four weeks.