Sovereign Network Homes (202211480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211480

Network Homes Limited

31 May 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of:

a)     Various interior leaks to the property from the property above and damage to a personal item in the property due to the required repairs.

b)     Several repairs required to the property, including faulty window handles; dripping hot water from the property above to an exterior window; and broken extractor fans.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a flat, owned by the landlord.
3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 March 2022 regarding various issues such as leaks from the neighbour’s property, leaks in the kitchen flooring, broken extractors and faulty locks on uPVC windows. He requested compensation and redress of the outstanding issues within one calendar month of the date of the complaint.
4. In the landlord’s stage one response on 8 April 2022, it apologised for the various issues the resident faced and offered him the total sum of £1,271  in compensation. The issues were not resolved and some works were closed early in error, resulting in further delays.
5. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord’s stage two decision of  15 June 2022 acknowledged that various items were still not resolved from the stage 1 decision letter and offered further compensation, thus increasing the offer to £1,563 in total. The resident, still unhappy with the decision, then referred the case to this Service.

Assessment and findings

6. The landlord’s Repairs Policy provides that it is responsible for ceilings and plasterwork but not painting and decorating. It further provides that it is responsible for repairs to light fittings. The repairs policy also states that as follows with respect to its repairs timescales:
7. Emergency – attend within 4 hours and make safe. This is for situations where there is a risk to health or safety … or damage that is rapidly getting worse.
8. Routine – Repairs that are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if not fixed straight away. Aim to attend within 5 working days of the resident reporting the repair.
9. Complex – Planned repair works which are larger repairs which take longer to arrange. E.g. specialist contractors, surveys etc. Aim to complete these within 90 days.

Interior leaks and resultant damage to item

Leak through ceiling

10. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the resident reported the issue of leaking water dripping through the living room ceiling on 28 October 2021. The landlord’s logs note that there was water in the electrics from the flat above his and the landlord attended on the same day to make it safe. For several days in November 2021, the resident chased the landlord to complete the works as the hole in the ceiling had not been made good, there was often no response and he left a message for an appointment to be made. In his formal complaint, of 24 March 2022, the resident stated that this was the fourth time of the leak occurring and that it in his opinion, it was ‘wastewater’.
11. The landlord stated in its stage one response of April 2022, that it had demonstrated that it took the resident’s reports seriously by the timescales within which it responded to the initial call out. Its contractor had confirmed that a new light would be required when the leak was rectified. It stated that there was a further report of a leak on 22 December 2021, which could not be stemmed on the 4 January 2022 due to the availability of the resident’s neighbour and parts being required. An appointment was made between the parties for 24 January 2022, however, the contractor was given the wrong part and therefore the works were unable to be completed until 4 February 2022.
12. From the foregoing, the landlord was timely in attending to make ensure that the property was made safe, however, it did not adhere to the requisite timescales for the follow up repairs. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the works were considered to be complex, thus, this report is unable to ascertain whether it fell within the routine or complex category. A routine repair should have been completed within 5 days a complex repair within 90 days. In chasing the landlord for the repairs on 4 November 2021, he stated that the leak had been resolved and the ceiling was now dry thus, he was awaiting the reinstatement of the pendant light fitting.
13. The resident should have been informed by the landlord if there were any difficulties to completing the repairs. The landlord’s description of events implies that the further report of leaks in December 2021 was made by the neighbour. This Service is unable to ascertain whether the resident was made aware of these further reports. It must be acknowledged that errors occur and it is impossible to guarantee that a contractor would be given the wrong part. The issue considered by this Service is therefore, whether the landlord fully considered acknowledged the delays in completing, as well as the impact on the resident, in making its offer of compensation.
14. The landlord acknowledged that the duration was unacceptable and made a compensation offer to the resident. As the offer was for all the issues raised in the complaint, this report has considered in paragraphs below whether this sum was commensurate to all issues identified. It was not reasonable for the resident to have to raise an additional report, and the contractor being given the wrong part resulted in further delay.
15. The total compensation for the issues the resident faced, from 17 September 2021 to 21 April 2022 was set out at the stage one decision as follows:

a)     17 September to 21 April 2022

b)     Delay High £20 x 31 weeks = £620

c)     Distress High £20 x 31 weeks = £620

d)     Time and Trouble Low £1 x 31 weeks = £31

e)     Total = £1,271

16. In the letter from the resident to the landlord requesting a stage two escalation, he rejected this offer of compensation, stating that the experience with the landlord fell short of his expectations and was not commensurate to their ordeal. He made a counter request for compensation of £25,000 with £10,000 of this total sum being due to the “aggravated risk to COVID-19 due to exposure to and handling of wastewater from the neighbouring property.”
17. The landlord tried to alleviate the resident’s concerns by explaining that the water coming through the ceiling was in fact clean water from a water tank. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that it was clean water, stating that the water was “dark, smelling and dirty”. Additionally, he advised the landlord that a contractor explained the water was coming from beneath the neighbour’s bathtub.
18. In referring his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that it was irrelevant that the water leaking into their living room was clean or dirty; he outlined the fear he felt regarding the risk of COVID-19 transmission and stated that one of their children was classed as high risk and vulnerable. The resident has provided this Service with government guidance regarding the aggravated risk of catching COVID-19 from infected water. This Service is not an expert in this field and would suggest that the resident may wish to seek legal advice on this aspect of his complaint.
19. The resident stated that each time the leak occurred, the ceiling had to be cut and only on one occasion did the landlord paint the ceiling after the repair, with the resident repairing it himself every other time. On 24 May 2022, a member of the complaints team introduced themselves to the resident and asked the resident for a list of outstanding repairs required to the property. The resident responded the following day, stating that amongst other things, the ceiling light and repair to the cut in the ceiling was still outstanding.
20. On 30 May 2022, the landlord asked the resident to provide a photo of the cut ceiling to ensure the right trades are sent out and to ensure there are no further delays. The resident responded on the same day with photos of the cut ceiling to the landlord.
21. It was not reasonable that the matter took so long to resolve, with the landlord inconveniencing the resident multiple times to provide a list of outstanding repairs and photos of the cut in the ceiling. The landlord should have had records from its contractor detailing the works required. By 29 June 2022, eight months after the resident’s initial report, the ceiling works had not been completed. This is confirmed by an entry on the repairs log on that date stating, “repair ceiling in living room where square has been cut out to investigate leak and small section around white plastic circle near it too.”
22. In the stage two decision dated 15 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs had gone on longer than expected and caused great distress to the resident and his family, as well as being multiple issues that were not their fault. The landlord confirmed that it is unacceptable for the resident to have to raise a repair job more than once.
23. The landlord increased its compensation was offer by £292, for 21 April 2022 to 1 July 2022 as follows:

a)     Delay Medium £10 x 10 weeks = £100

b)     Distress Medium £10 x 10 weeks = £100

c)     Time and Trouble £3 x 10 weeks = £30

d)     Time and Trouble = £62

e)     Grand total: £1,563

24. The resident explained in his complaint that the light fitting in the living room was damaged when the water ingress occurred. The landlord advised in its stage two decision that the resident that should recover the cost through his own contents insurance. As this was a light fitting installed by the resident, he is ordinarily responsible for the replacement.
25. However, this Service finds that the landlord’s response was unreasonable in the circumstances of this case due to the multiple leaks faced by the resident and the length of time before it was resolved. It would have been fair for the landlord to undertake to reimburse the resident for the cost of the light or, it should have assisted him in making a claim to its own insurers instead.

Leak in the kitchen

26. The resident set out in its formal complaint that the floorboard was lifting and the repairs log indicates that he had requested a repair on 17 August 2021. A contractor attended on the 8 September 2021 and stated that the floor felt springy and the lino was damaged. The floorboard works were completed on 1 October 2021 but the flooring was left bare.
27. The ticket to replace the lino was accidentally closed and the resident was required to raise a new ticket. Multiple measuring inspections were undertaken to measure for the lino replacement and the resident confirmed the lino was finally fitted to the kitchen on 13 May 2022.
28. The Ombudsman notes that this repair took nearly 9 months to resolve and exceeds the landlord’s repairing timescales, mentioned above, substantially. While the five-day timescale of the landlord’s routine repairs category may have been too short for the completion of the works, 9 months was unacceptable. As stated above, this report would consider the adequacy of the landlord’s total offer for all the issues identified.

Several repairs required to the property

Hot water dripping into the property if window is left open

29. The resident advised in its correspondence that he first reported hot water from the overflow pipe dripping on his window in 2010, however, this Service will only look at the last 6 months prior to being raised on the 24 March 2022. These earlier events have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which provides thatthe Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
30. The matter was investigated by the landlord at the stage one response stage, as it raised a job to investigate the leak. However the ticket was closed down in error and the resident had to re-raise the issue to enable the job to be investigated. On 2 June 2022, the resident sent the landlord a video and email detailing the issue and explained that it was not a leak per se, rather an issue with the pipe route. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the landlord and contractor corresponded several times regarding the repair/re-routing of the pipework.
31. Whilst the landlord investigated the matter, it was unable to resolve it in a timely fashion and this meant that the resident was unable to have the window open and put any belongings near this window for fear of them getting damaged. It advised that an appointment was due to take place on the week of the stage two decision, but the gate was locked so access was not available. It stated that it was looking to move the overflow pipe away from the resident’s window and would be attending on 22 June 2022 with the gas engineer as it believed it would require scaffolding.
32. However, the resident in its escalation to this Service (dated 25 August 2022) stated that the matter was still not resolved. This Service would, again, consider whether the delays have been factored into the landlord’s total offer to the resident for events up to the date of the stage two decision. The landlord would also be advised to consider whether further reparation is required for any delays beyond that date.

Broken extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom

33. The resident raised this matter of faulty extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 12 January 2022. The landlord complied with its policy by trying to make contact with the resident to resolve this within 5 working days, however, it did not get a response. It found during an inspection, on 22 March 2022, that parts were needed, but then the job was closed down prematurely. The landlord raised a new job in light of the stage one complaint.
34. The landlord’s complaints team asked the resident to confirm the outstanding repairs on the 24 May 2022. The landlord should have been able to rely on its own records to confirm whether repairs had been undertaken.  However, based on the residents response, it advised in the stage two decision that repairs to the fans would be undertaken on 28 June 2022. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this job has now been resolved.

Faulty window handles

35. The resident reported the issue of his dissatisfaction with the three faulty window locking mechanisms on 12 January 2022. The landlord advised that, due to staffing levels, an appointment could not be made until 25 March 2022. At this appointment, the contractor advised that they did not have the necessary experience with this type of mechanism and a new appointment had to be made.
36. Looking at the records provided, the locks were repaired on 21 April 2022. The works fell outside of the expected repairs timeline (which, according to the landlord’s repairs policy is within 5 working days).
37. This Service concludes that, whilst the landlord took longer than its advertised timeline for the repair, it recognised this within its compensation offering. This is mainly because the landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the delay to initially undertaking the repair.

Conclusion on all complaint elements

38. The landlord’s Compensation Policy provides that it will offer compensation for failings as follows:

39. The landlord’s total offer of compensation from 17 September to 1 July 2022 is as follows:

a)     17 September to 1 July 2022

b)     Delay High/medium – 41 weeks = £720

c)     Distress High/medium – 41 weeks = £720

d)     Time and Trouble = £61

e)     Time and Trouble = £62

f)       Grand total: £1,563

40. If the landlord had not downgraded the severity of the impact of the issues on the resident, from high to medium, the total amount offered would have been higher. It is not clear why it decided to downgrade the impact level when the issues had lingered for longer. It would have been more reasonable for the landlord to have considered that the further delays to completing the works meant an increase of the distress and inconvenience to the family. Thus, it should, at least, have maintained the rate of compensation calculation. It is also unclear why the landlord assessed the time and trouble to the resident as being ‘low’ for the first 31 weeks. The later offer indicates that it increased this for the entire to medium for the entire 41 weeks.
41. From the foregoing, this Service finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not commensurate to the events in this case. It should have maintained the high impact category of the issues and offered to replace the ceiling pendant light in acknowledgement of the repeated failings to complete the works which spanned a period of 8 months. Thus, the total amount of compensation to the resident should have been £1863 for all the complaint elements. This is broken down as follows:

a)     17 September to 1 July 2022

b)     Delay High £20 x 41 weeks = £820

c)     Distress High £20 x 41 weeks = £820

d)     Time and Trouble medium £3 x 41 weeks = £123

e)     Replacement of ceiling pendant light – £100

f)       Total = £1,863

42. This Service would, however, increase the total offer to £1900 in recognition of the information that the overflow pipe works were not completed by 1 July, the end date used in calculating the total compensation due, above.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the various interior leaks to the property and damage to a personal item in the property due to the required repairs.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure with regards to its handling of the several repairs required to the property, including faulty window handles; dripping hot water from the property above to an exterior window; and broken extractor fans.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the following orders to the Ombudsman:

a)     Arrange to inspect the property to ascertain any outstanding repairs, and agree an appointment with the resident for completion of the works, if any is identified.

b)     Pay the resident the total sum of £1,900 compensation (including the sum of £1,563 previously offered), for the significant inconvenience and multiple attempts to resolve the issues, involving much time and effort.

c)     Apologise in writing to the resident for the inconvenience he has faced over the period.

Recommendations

46. The landlord is to review the job raising process in its entirety, ensuring that tickets raised by residents are not closed down prematurely. The landlord should work with their contractors to provide a more robust service to their residents.