The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today. 

Network Homes Limited (202114258)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114258

Network Homes Limited

1 December 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 is about:

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to his fixtures and fittings while the property was temporarily vacant to allow fireproofing work;

 

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2.     The property is a one-bedroom, second floor flat. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy, which started on 21 March 2016.

3.     On 24 June 2021, the resident moved out of the property at the request of the landlord to allow fireproofing work to be carried out. The landlord and the resident signed an agreement on 24 June 2021 setting out the arrangements that would be in place to allow the work to proceed. The main points within the agreement were:

  1. The resident would be provided with temporary, furnished accommodation, which it was envisaged the resident would occupy for approximately two weeks;
  2. The resident would retain the tenancy of his existing property;
  3. Before the resident moved, the landlord would visit both the resident’s existing property and the temporary accommodation to carry out a schedule of condition, which would involve taking photographs and making a record of the condition of the properties;
  4. The resident did not have to remove his furniture or belongings from the property when moving;
  5. While the resident was absent from the property, the landlord’s contractor would carry out the fireproofing remedial work to the property and once the remedial work was completed, the contractor would refurbish and redecorate the property “so that it is in the same, or better, condition than when (the resident) vacated”;
  6. If it was necessary for the resident to stay in temporary accommodation for longer than two weeks, the resident would receive additional compensation paid at £8.50 per day;
  7. Prior to moving back, the resident’s property would be cleaned by a professional cleaning company;
  8. The landlord would inspect the temporary accommodation when the resident moved out to ensure it was in the same condition as when the resident moved in. The cost of repairing any damage would be recharged to the resident.

4.     On 29 June 2021, a third party company acting on behalf of the landlord carried out a full schedule of condition of the property. They produced a report with descriptions of the condition and photographs.

5.     The landlord has advised this service that the fireproofing work to the property began on 1 July 2021.

6.     The resident contacted the landlord on 26 August 2021 to make a formal complaint. The resident reported the following damage and said he would not move back into the property until the damage had been resolved:

  1. Dents to the fridge;
  2. Dents to the resident’s own oakwood flooring in the hallway and living room;
  3. Paint on the carpet in the bedroom.

7.     The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 September 2021 and attached a copy of the full schedule of condition produced by the third party company. The letter stated that prior to works starting, the contractor would have protected all floors in areas that works are due to take place. The letter included photographs and descriptions from the schedule of condition for the following:

  1. The flooring in the living room, kitchen and hallway;
  2. The bedroom carpet;
  3. The refrigerator.

8.     On 2 September 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to dispute the accuracy of the schedule of condition.

9.     On 3 September 2021, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident instructing him to vacate the temporary accommodation and return to his property (the letter confirmed that the resident had moved out of the property on 24 June 2021).

10. On 10 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for the complaint to be escalated. The email stated that the resident was dissatisfied because he had not been present when the schedule of condition was carried out, and he was not asked to sign the schedule. The resident stated that the condition of the property was not the same as when he had moved out, particularly the flooring and the refrigerator.

11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 September 2021 to say that it was not in a position to replace the items requested by the resident , because the damage was “pre-existing”. The landlord said that “as a gesture of goodwill”, it would be willing to replace the refrigerator doors and ask its contractor to repair the flooring. The landlord also advised the resident that it had arranged for the bedroom carpet to be deep-cleaned and the paint mark on the carpet had been removed.

12. The resident replied to the landlord on 17 September 2021 to say that he did not wish to accept the landlord’s “goodwill gesture” and instead wanted all of the damaged items replaced.

13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 September 2021 with its stage two complaint response, in which it stated:

  1. The resident had signed an agreement on 24 June 2021 for a schedule of condition to be carried out in his property. The landlord pointed out that the agreement did not stipulate that the resident would be asked to sign the schedule of condition to confirm its accuracy;
  2. The resident had been provided with a copy of the schedule (as part of its stage one complaint response);
  3. In relation to the resident’s reported comment that the photographs were not date or time stamped, the landlord stated: “The report was dated 29 June 2021 and there is nothing to suggest any falsification in the details”;
  4. The landlord was satisfied that the damage reported by the resident was already present when the inspection was undertaken and therefore concluded: “there is no fault arising from the works that the contractors carried out…”;
  5. The landlord concluded that it had found no evidence the contractor had caused any of the damage reported by the resident;
  6. The landlord repeated its offer to carry out flooring repairs and renew the refrigerator doors and confirmed that it would not replace the items.

Post completion of the internal complaints process

14. During January 2022, there was various correspondence between the landlord and the resident about payments relating to the decant process and a potential sum to be recharged to the resident in relation to reported damage to the temporary accommodation. The landlord has advised this service that in January 2022, it replaced the resident’s refrigerator.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to his fixtures and fittings

15. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 August 2021 to report damage to his refrigerator, oakwood flooring and carpet. The landlord responded on 3 September 2021 and enclosed a copy of the schedule of condition taken on 29 June 2021. The landlord included within its letter the relevant extracts from the report that related to the items the resident had reported as damaged. In doing so, the landlord sought to provide evidence as to why it believed it was not liable for the damage reported by the resident. The level of detail provided by the landlord in its response to the resident was appropriate because the extracts included photographs and descriptions of the refrigerator, flooring and carpet that the resident stated had been damaged.

16. In responding to the resident’s concerns about the damaged items, the landlord relied on its schedule of condition. The resident disputed the accuracy of the schedule in his phone calls to the landlord on 2 September 2021 and in his email to the landlord on 10 September 2021, as he was not present when the schedule was taken.

17. As part of this investigation, this service has considered whether it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the schedule of condition and therefore whether its response to the resident’s concerns was appropriate. According to the agreement signed by the resident and the landlord on 24 September 2021, the schedule of condition should have been done before the resident moved out. However, according to the evidence provided to this service, it was done five days after the resident moved. This investigation has taken into account the timing of the schedule of condition, and has concluded that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the schedule of condition when responding to the resident’s concerns because:

  1. The schedule contained photographs and text to describe the condition of the fixtures and fittings within the property, and they show that the damage reported by the resident already existed;
  2. Although the schedule was not done prior to the resident moving out, it was done a short time after the resident moved out, i.e. five days after he moved;
  3. The schedule was taken prior to the start of the fireproofing works, which started on 1 July 2021;
  4. The schedule of condition was produced by an independent company;
  5. The landlord has been transparent in providing the resident with a full copy of the schedule of condition.

18. Although the landlord did not accept liability for the reported damage, it confirmed in its stage one complaint letter that the contractor had deep cleaned the resident’s carpet “as a gesture of goodwill” and in its stage two response it offered to repair the flooring and replace the refrigerator door. The evidence also shows that the landlord contacted the resident on various occasions following the resident’s initial complaint on 26 August 2021 and therefore maintained contact with the resident.

19. The view of this service is that the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s report of damage to his fixtures and fittings, because:

  1. The landlord provided evidence in the form of the schedule of condition that the damage was already in existence;
  2. Although the landlord did not accept liability for the damage, it took practical steps to resolve the complaint by deep cleaning the carpet and offering to repair the flooring and replace the refrigerator door.

The landlord’s complaint handling

20. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process, and its complaints policy states that the response time for stage one complaints is 10 working days and for stage two complaints it is 20 working days. At both stages of the complaints process the landlord responded within its target timescales. The stage one response took six working days and the stage two response took 13 working days. The landlord therefore responded to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner.

21. As previously stated, the landlord’s stage one response provided information from the schedule of condition to explain why it did not believe it was liable for the reported damage, and therefore why it did not agree to compensate the resident. It also informed the resident of how he could ask for the complaint to be escalated if he remained dissatisfied. The view of this service is that the landlord’s stage one response was appropriate, because it provided the resident with its decisions on the complaint, the reasons for its decisions and details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident was dissatisfied.

22. The resident submitted his stage two complaint on 10 September 2021, in which he said the schedule was not correct because he had not been present to “witness” the photos being taken, nor had he been asked to sign the inventory. The landlord’s stage two response sent on 28 September 2021 stated that the agreement signed by the resident did not mention a requirement for the resident to sign the schedule of condition. However, the landlord’s letter did not address the resident’s complaint that he was not present when the schedule was produced. The landlord could have addressed this by acknowledging that the schedule was done after the resident had moved out, and explaining why this occurred. This omission was therefore a service failure.

23. Although there was a service failure in its complaint handling, this service considers that the efforts made by the landlord to resolve the complaint were reasonable, given that it cleaned the carpet and offered to repair the flooring and replace the refrigerator door. Therefore, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to his fixtures and fittings while the property was temporarily vacant to allow fireproofing work.

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its complaint handling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should remind its staff to address all of the points within a complaint.