Network Homes Limited (202106729)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106729

Network Homes Limited

15 April 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:
1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s request to replace a fence.
2. Delays in replacing the windows in the property as part of a planned maintenance programme.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
In September 2021, the resident reported a repair required to the side door of the property and enquired on the status of an outstanding repair to the fence. A work order was raised by the landlord to complete the repair to the door, and it informed the resident that it had no record of agreeing to undertake repairs to the fence. The resident provided copy of a letter from the landlord which informed the resident that while fence repairs were normally the responsibility of the tenant that it had added the repair of his dividing fence to its planned maintenance programme and that work was expected to be completed by the end of the year.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 November 2021 and requested to raise a formal complaint into how the landlord had handled his repair reports. A telephone call occurred on 8 December 2021 where the landlord and resident discussed the complaint in detail. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as:
1. Repairs to the fence had remained outstanding for over a year.
2. All windows in landlord’s properties in the local area were replaced as part of a planned maintenance programme, except for those of the resident.
3. A landlord staff member was rude to the resident during a telephone conversation.
4. The completed repair to the door was of poor quality and had left the door in an unsecure state.
5. Repairs to the kitchen flooring were completed to a poor standard.
A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 December 2020. The landlord informed him that:
1. The window replacement programme went ahead in 2017.The landlord apologised that the resident’s property had not been included and advised that and due to the time that had elapsed, for not being able to provide the resident with an explanation for why it did not go ahead.
2. It had agreed to use its discretion to add the resident’s property to an upcoming programme of work to replace fencing. This was expected to be completed by the end of the calendar year. It now hoped to complete the work by the end of the financial year.
3. It had reviewed the recording of the call highlighted by the resident and could find no evidence of rudeness from the staff member concerned.
4. An appointment was arranged to repair the door on 21 October 2020. The bottom section of the door was cut out, replaced and the door repainted. It had arranged for a supervisor to inspect the door.
5. An appointment was arranged to inspect the kitchen flooring on 7 August 2020. The contractor found no evidence of damp or rot but did report that the floor was “in general was bumpy and felt this was down to poor installation”.
6. The landlord could find no evidence that this report was acted on or that any follow-on work was raised. The landlord apologised to the resident and informed him that the supervisor would also inspect the floor at the same time as the door, then it would raise any necessary repairs if required. It also offered the resident £100 compensation for inconvenience the matter had caused.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 and 11 January 2021 requesting an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
1. He first raised issues with the fence over a year ago and the matter still remained outstanding.
2. As the original fence was put up by the landlord and was still under warranty, it should be its responsibility to replace it.
3. The landlord had discriminated against him by leaving his property off the list for replacement windows.
4. His complaint about an infestation of rats in the property for other a year before the landlord responded.
5. Whenever he contacted the landlord to discuss these matters, he had been “met with incompetence and arrogance”.
The landlord and provided a stage two complaint response on 9 February 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. Due to data protection issues, it was unable to discuss the reasons his neighbours’’ windows had been replaced.
2. It expected the planned work to replace the fencing to be completed by 5 April 2021. It noted that fence repairs would normally be the resident’s responsibility.
The resident contacted this Service in June 2021. He described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. His windows were not replaced in 2017 along with other properties.
2. How the landlord had handled repairs to the fence.
3. There was a rat infestation in the property.
4. The landlord had not properly undertaken the replacement of the front and back doors and of a tap.
5. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) he had experienced from a neighbour had not been properly investigated by the landlord.
6. The effect on his health that these outstanding issues had caused.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive compensation for the years of stress and anxiety caused by the landlord’s poor service.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

Clause 3.16 of the tenancy agreement relates to repairs and maintenance. This sets of what type repairs are a tenant’s responsibility and, in part, states that a tenant is responsible for “fencing repairs to individual properties, unless the fencing is installed by [the landlord] or where it is a health and safety hazard”.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises and describes its repair types as follows:
1. Emergency (attend and make safe within four hours). Situations where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that is rapidly getting worse. An example of an emergency repair would be no power in a home or an uncontrollable flood.
2. Routine (attend within five working days, or at a mutually convenient appointment). Repairs which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away. For example, repairs to taps, gutters, doors and windows.
3. Complex (complete within 90 days). Larger repairs which take longer to arrange. For example, a repair where we need to use a specialist contractor, carry out surveys or do more investigation. These repairs could include things like work to paths, roof, windows and major problems with water supply and drainage.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaints policy also states that the landlord does not consider complaints relating to matters which occurred six months prior to the complaint being raised.
The landlord’s compensation policy describes the circumstances where it will consider offering financial redress to a complaint. These include:
1. Taking too long to do something
2. Not following its own policies or the law
3. Giving the wrong information
4. Treating someone unfairly

Scope of investigation

When bringing the case to this Service, the resident described several outstanding issues which were not included in the formal complaint raised with the landlord. Namely:
1. Replacement of the front and back door, and a tap
2. ASB he had experienced from a neighbour
3. Issues relating to pest control.
Before these elements can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond through its complaints process. If he wants to pursue these matters further, the resident would need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. The is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme; which states that “the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaint procedure”.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation which included recognition of the effect on his health the issues had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or liability insurance. This is line with Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. However, the Ombudsman has considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the fence

As stated in the tenancy agreement, a resident would normally be responsible for repairs to a dividing fence. However, in this case the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that it would add his property to the list of planned maintenance for fence repairs. This work was agreed to as a goodwill gesture, and the letter noted that it would normally be the resident’s responsibility to undertake this work.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2020 and informed him that due to restrictions placed on its services as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the work to the fence would be delayed. The landlord had regularly posted news updates on its website relating to Covid-19 and changes in its services.
There is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it handled this aspect of the complaint. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was under no obligation to agree to replace the fence. While there was clearly confusion on the part on the landlord when the resident raised the matter in September 2021, this ultimately had no effect on the issue as the work had been postponed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was reasonable for the landlord to delay this work during the pandemic as many landlords were only carrying out emergency and urgent repairs during this time in an effort to reduce face to face contact between staff members and residents in line with government guidance on reducing contact with others. There was also increased pressure on landlords’ services during this time due to increased staff absence due to sickness and the need to self-isolate. As the reason for the delay in starting the work was outside of the control of the landlord, it would not be expected to compensate the resident for the delay.

Delays in replacing the windows in the property as part of a planned maintenance programme

The landlord apologised for the resident’s property not being added to the planned maintenance list to have its windows replaced in 2017. It added the property to the list for the current year and explained that due to the time that it had elapsed, it was unable to provide a reason to the resident for why the property was not added in 2017.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Landlords are not required to keep detailed repair records indefinitely and the landlord would not be expected to keep records of the need for replacement windows for the resident’s property dating back to 2017.
This is also in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which suggests that the landlord will not consider complaints about issues which occurred more than six months ago. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord was unable directly address specific matters which had occurred in 2017.
The resident also enquired as to the circumstances where the landlord agreed to replace his neighbours’ windows but not his and accused the landlord of discriminating against him. The landlord explained that due to data protection issues it was unable to discuss work on his neighbours’ properties and that it had found no evidence of discrimination. The landlord could not discuss the work carried out on another tenant’s property, without the written permission of that tenant. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to decline to provide this information to the resident.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord and its staff members were discriminatory in a legal sense in their decision not to replace the property’s windows in 2017 and in its correspondence with the resident because matters of discrimination are legal issues which are better suited for the court to decide. However, the Ombudsman has assessed whether the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable taking into account the correspondence between the landlord and resident and any comments made in this correspondence.
Moreover, as explained above, due to the time that had passed since the decisions were made relating to the 2017 window replacement programme, the landlord was not obliged to consider this aspect in its complaint process. It was limited in the extent to which it could investigate the resident’s allegations of discrimination as it did not have details of why the windows were not replaced in 2017.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it added the resident’s property to its planned maintenance programme to replace the windows. When informed by the resident in its complaint process about the matter, it added the property to its upcoming programme. This was appropriate action for it to take.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. How it responded to the resident’s request to replace the fence.
2. Delays in replacing the windows in the property as part of a planned maintenance programme.