Network Homes Limited (202113931)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113931

Network Homes Limited

8 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of
1. Repairs required to the roof of the property.
2. Repairs required to the window and front door, and the level of compensation awarded in respect of the repairs.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
There is no evidence that the issue of the repair to the resident’s roof were included in the stage one complaint submitted by the resident on 25 January 2021, or any formal complaint to date. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, the resident may wish to raise a new complaint if this issue is still outstanding, which they may then bring to this Service if appropriate.
It is noted, however, that the landlord has stated it is not responsible for the roof of the property. However, a landlord cannot discharge its repairing obligations by referring a tenant to a freeholder that is responsible for the repair. While the landlord would not necessarily be able to carry out the repairs itself, the Ombudsman would expect it to liaise with the freeholder, and it is the landlord and not the tenant that has a contractual relationship with the freeholder.
In light of the above, a recommendation has been included below regarding reasonable action which would be expected by a landlord in these circumstances. Any mention of the roofing issue in the summary of events is for contextual purposes.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement for a three-bedroom house since 2012, and has no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord but states she and her husband are elderly and severely disabled.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 22 April 2020, the resident reported the roof was leaking into the bedroom when it rained and that a contractor advised on 18 August 2020 that specialist work would be required to remove solar panels before they could undertake any repairs. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 September 2020 and said she was upset about the roof leaking. The landlord noted internally on 13 November 2020 that it did not cover repairs to the roof as it was not the freeholder and closed the job down.
Again, on 15 January 2021 the landlord noted that the resident was unhappy about the roof leak. On 24 February 2021, landlord notes show that the resident was advised who was responsible for the roof repair as the landlord was not the freeholder. Further notes show that there were repairs to the roof in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
In respect of the window, the resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2020, to report that a pane of glass had fallen out of the first-floor window, which the resident had boarded up, and other panes were loose. The landlord’s notes show that glass was to be fitted and other windows made safe. The landlord attended that day and measured for a new pane of glass and on 14 September 2020 a job was raised for a new pane for the first-floor window.
On 22 October 2020, the landlord’s notes show a call from the resident, who had been waiting over three months for her first-floor bedroom window to be installed and said that a cushion was blocking the hole. On 24 October 2020 the landlord attended, measured and advised that a double-glazed unit (DGU) and new timber bead was required.
A new job was raised on 12 November 2020 to quote to replace the whole glazing, including framing for the upstairs front bedroom. Notes show that a couple of panes were still moving which was a hazard and the frame cracked.
The resident was advised that the damaged window was to be replaced, but this could take 6-8 weeks to manufacture so they expected the contractor to make contact by end of December, but she should allow until January.
A note dated 17 November 2020 said a contractor had attended but the resident did not allow them to board up the window or make safe. A variation order (VO) was to be raised to replace all the units like for like as requested.
On 21 December 2020 an emergency job was raised as the front door would not shut. Landlord notes indicate the contractor called the resident with his expected arrival time, and she said it was too late so to come in the morning. Notes dated 23 December 2020 show the contractor attended and overhauled the front door and made safe and the door was left locking and secure. Follow on works would be required to replace the multipoint lock. Notes show contractor attended and the door made safe on 24 December 2020.
The resident made a complaint on 25 January 2021, no written evidence of this is provided but landlord records noted the contact. This said the resident had no bedroom windowpane since August 2020 and had called several times each week and again on 22 January 2021 when an emergency repair was raised, but the resident said no operative attended. There were no details of the visit on the contractor’s worksheet, the landlord then tried to reach the contractor nine times but had no response.
The resident had also said that an operative attended the front door lock repair on 24 December 2020 and said they would be back later that day to replace the lock but did not return. The resident had called the operative and was told they would attend the next day (25 December 2020) to replace the lock but did not arrive. The front door was still not secured. The landlord said the last note on its database dated 21 January 2021 said it was awaiting parts. The resident was advised it would be up to ten working days for a response to the complaint. The landlord noted that customer had asked for the outcome in a letter as their health impeded long phone conversations.
No copy of the stage one complaint response has been provided, but the resident later said this was dated 9 February 2021. The text copy provided by the landlord defined the complaint as relating to the repairs outstanding; the missing glass in the bedroom, which was never boarded up, made safe or replaced, and the front door which was never made safe and not fully repaired. The resident felt the inaction of the landlord and contractors had affected her health which she had medical documentation to support this.
In respect of the window:
1. The resident reported the window on 25 August 2020, it was attended to the same day and measurements taken, but there was no evidence it was made safe.
2. A job was raised on 14 September 2020 to replace the glass and a further visit 24 September 2020, for the assigned contractor to measure up.
3. The work was approved on 15 October 2020 but then removed in error, so the work was halted.
4. On 11 November 2020, a surveyor attended, and a further order was raised on 12 November 2020 to replace the whole window unit. The contractor attended on 17 November 2020 and quoted for the work. It was noted that they attempted to make good during that visit, but that the resident had requested they did not.
5. An emergency job was then raised on 22 January 2021 to make safe and board the window up.
6. The contractor’s quote was rejected on 3 February 2021 as there was insufficient information from the contractor.
7. This job would be monitored, and it may be that a repair would be done instead of the unit being replaced.
8. There was poor communication and the landlord and contractors had failed to address the issue. The resident would be contacted within the next five working days to arrange another appointment to arrange an up-to-date quote.
9. The landlord could not verify that the window was made safe and asked the resident to make contact if work was needed to ensure security.
In respect of the door:
1. The door was reported as broken on 21 December 2020. An emergency call was raised, an out of hours contractor called to advised of a time of arrival but the resident asked them to call the next morning.
2. Another emergency call was raised for 23 December 2020, but incorrectly and the contractor did not attend until 24 December 2020 when the door was overhauled and made safe.
3. A follow up visit was required, but materials were not due to arrive until 11 February 2021 when the resident would be contacted by the contractor to book an appointment.
4. The landlord could not accommodate specific appointment times for emergency repairs and the landlord had fed back to the contractor that they should not have arranged to return the next morning, but instead should have asked the resident to contact the landlord.
5. The service had fallen short and would be raised with the contractors who had not arranged the follow up work promptly.
Apologies were made about the delay in the works being completed due to a lack of communication. The text provided shows the landlord offered £995 compensation, in line with its policy and escalation rights were given.
The quote to replace the window was rejected by the landlord as it felt a repair could be done and there was insufficient evidence a replacement was required. A repair was booked to reglaze the required units and overhaul the window. It was also noted that upon attending the resident did not allow the contractor to carry out the works.
The resident escalated the complaint further on 24 February 2021, stating as follows:
1. The operative did not attend the day the window was reported.
2. The window was weak, and the frame needed replacing, replacing the pane would not solve this. The resident had the cost of running fan heaters. The other panes were not stable and needed replacing.
3. The contractor called the resident to reschedule the appointment for the lock repair for before 9am the next day, not the resident. The resident was unable to sleep with the door being broken.
4. They had a leaking roof since 2012 and workers do not show up. A bedroom was out of use in their house due to the leak from 2012.
5. The offer of £550 was not in line with her suffering as a severely disabled woman. The window frame was cracked, the lock on the door was not working, and the mechanism needed replacing.
The landlord noted that it replaced the multipoint lock to the front door, adjusted the keeps and tested the hinges on 8 March 2021.
The landlord has said that a report from the contractor attending on 10 March 2021 said ‘tenant did not allow us to carry out further works this is the 4th attendance to site tenant is adamant on new windows.’ On 13 March 2021, a quote was received for the window replacement as on further investigation and liaison with a surveyor it was agreed the landlord would replace the window.
On 25 March 2021 a stage two complaint response was issued by the landlord in which it stated that:
1. The resident was not satisfied with the outcome of the stage two complaint and felt the compensation offered was not sufficient.
2. The roof leak had not been raised as part of the stage one complaint so had not been considered, but the resident had been given contact details for the contractors who would resolve this for them.
3. The resident said that no measurements were taken at the first window appointment, but the landlord had seen a photograph of a measuring tape at the window, so it appeared that measurements were taken. However, there was no suggestion that the other windows were checked or that it was made safe, but the resident had refused to let the contractor board up the window as an interim measure.
4. There was an eight-week lead time for the windows and the landlord asked for evidence of additional heating costs due to the broken window so it could look to contributing towards the additional cost. The landlord expected the window to be installed in late May 2021.
5. In respect of the door, the resident had said the first appointment was too late at night. The landlord confirmed that even the attempted appointment was not inside the four-hour timescale for an emergency appointment, and neither was the second on 24 December 2020.
6. The parts arrived at the contractor on 8 March 2021 and there were no reports since this. This was outside the timescale for a repair and the resident had the inconvenience of having to chase progress.
The landlord said there had been extended delay resolving the door issue and debate over whether the window would be repaired or replaced led to further delays. It offered apologies and compensation of £890, in line with its policy. Appeal rights to this Service given.

Since the final response was issued

The landlord has noted that due to internal delays with the contractor, the quote for the window expired. A new quote was requested on 16 June 2021 but felt to be too high and in October 2021 another contractor was sourced. The landlord had difficulty contacting the resident in December 2021 and January 2022 as the second contractor wanted to attend in person to quote. The visit took place on 28 January 2022 when the contractor boarded up the window and ordered the double-glazed unit which was fitted on 28 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

The assured tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. Section 2.2 says that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.

The repairs policy

The landlord’s repairs policy section 3 says that the structure of a resident’s home is the landlord’s responsibility. Section 5.3.1 says emergency repairs, to include where a home is not secure, should be attended to and made safe within four hours. Routine repairs, to include doors and windows, should be attended within five working days. Complex repairs, for example work to the roof and windows, should be completed within 90 days.
Appendix one lists that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of a tenant’s home. The landlord is also responsible for external doors.

The compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy section 4.4.1 says that where the landlord cannot restore the complainant to the position they would have been before the fault occurred, it will consider compensation. 4.6.4.3 says that major impact is where a serious failure in service standards has occurred, for example over a protracted time or unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint. 4.6.2 says a number of tariffs could be added together to build a significant award.
Section 4.6.5 says that the landlord will need to consider the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating compensation, for example where someone is elderly or disabled. Tariffs shown include delay: major impact £20 per week, distress: major impact £20 per week. 4.7.4 relates to ‘time and trouble’ and could include the length of time taken to deal with a problem when there has been major impact of distress, including an inadequacy of the landlord’s responses to letters and phone calls, and has a tariff of £5 per week. 4.7.9 covers discretionary awards which may be considered where the above circumstances do not fit.

Scope of this investigation

This Service cannot investigate issues after the final response letter as the landlord would not have had the opportunity to respond to any further concerns. However, it would seem from the information provided by the landlord that due to further delays and a change of contractor, the window was not replaced until February 2022, some nine months later than the predicted date of the end of May 2021 given in the final response. Therefore, this additional delay has been considered when calculating the compensation for this case.
It is noted that the resident advised the landlord that the repair work had affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repairs at the property and her health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, this investigation does consider the particular and aggravating effect that the delay in the repairs will have, given the ongoing health issues the resident made the landlord aware of in February 2021.

Assessment and findings

There is a lack of contemporaneous records relating to the repairs from the landlord but rather it has provided its own chronology. The Ombudsman would ideally seek to base the assessment on evidence rather than notes which appear to have been collated after the event. In this instance, there are some differences of opinion relating to the re-scheduling of the first visit by the locksmith and whether the resident had refused a repair to the window, and it would have been helpful had comprehensive records been available. Although the landlord does not dispute its responsibility for the overall delay, it has suggested these were mitigating circumstances. Given the absence of any other evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding about what may have been discussed on these occasions.
There is no evidence that the loose panes which were identified as a hazard by the landlord on 12 November 2020 were repaired. It may be that this was attended to in good time but without any records relating to this, it is not possible for this investigation to conclude that the matter was resolved.
There is no detail on if the first complaint was made by phone, in person or by letter/email and no original copy of the stage one response, which the resident had stated was dated 9 February 2021. The text version that was provided to this Service shows a compensation offer of £995, but the resident’s response quotes the compensation offer as £550. This would appear correct given the stage two response offered £890 compensation, but there is no breakdown of how the sum was calculated. This shows poor record keeping and processes by the landlord.
It should be clarified that when this Service awards compensation, it is not to punish or make an example of the landlord, nor is it to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court or insurance claim may. The purpose of compensation is to recognise the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures and award an amount that is proportionate to this.
In this instance, the delay between the window being reported in August 2020 and all issues being responded to and the landlord attempting to access the property on 20 December 2021 was a period of 69 weeks.
Using the compensation tariff provided by the landlord and given the vulnerability of the resident and the particular nature of the repairs, which resulted in the house being less secure and watertight, the effect of the delay would reasonably fall under the ‘major impact’ tariff. The major impact of delay tariff at £20 per week for this period would equal £1,380.
It is also noted that that the resident had initially advised the landlord that the hole in the window was being filled with cushions and blankets rather than board etc, which reasonably should have alerted the landlord that this family needed more support. The landlord had presumably seen the leak from the roof/photographs of the leak, and there is no evidence the family were supported by their housing officer during the complaint period, regardless of action taken to address the reported repairs.
The landlord’s stage two response did not resolve the issues for the resident as the window repair was not yet completed, and then took a further 11 months. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s actions sought to put things right, was fair, and whether it has learnt from outcomes, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s ‘dispute resolution principles.’ There is no evidence that the landlord’s process before and after the final complaint response, would resolve the resident’s issues. There is also no evidence that the landlord has learned from the complaint. For this and the above reasons, the landlord’s offer of £890 is not adequate in all of the circumstances of this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the roof repair is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the window and door repairs.

Reasons

The matter of the roof repairs has not been assessed in this report for the reasons provided in the jurisdiction section.
The landlord has acknowledged the service failure in respect of the door and the window repairs but failed to adequately compensate the resident for the extensive and additional delay in the repair being completed. This was aggravated by the particular consequences of having an insecure front door and the lack of a window given the health problems declared by the residents.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £1,380 in compensation for its handling of the door and window repairs. Evidence of this payment to be provided to this Service.
2. Provide evidence that it has inspected and, if appropriate, taken action to facilitate the repair of the additional windows identified as being loose and a hazard on 12 November 2020.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Respond to the complaint about the roof and consider its obligations towards the resident in relation to this matter, including liaising with the freeholder directly on the resident’s behalf.
2. Remind salient staff about the importance of complete record keeping around repairs and complaints to better facilitate its own investigations and to be fair to residents.