Network Homes Limited (202001328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001328

Network Homes Limited

25 August 2021 (Amended on review)

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 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:
1. the resident’s reports concerning the safeguarding of residents in relation to ongoing construction in the neighboring property;
2. the resident’s reports of disrepair to security gates and doors at the property;
3. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour at the property;
4. the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property; and
5. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom flat. The resident was assigned the tenancy in March 1999 and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a Housing Association.
The landlord provided a copy of the assured tenancy agreement. Section 2.3 of the agreement highlights the landlord’s responsibilities during the tenancy to repair and maintain the structure and outside of the property. The agreement states that the landlord will repair and maintain ‘outside walls, outside doors, window-sills, window catches, sash cords, and window frames, glazing, putty and glass’ as well as ‘boundary walls and fences where provided by the landlord’.
Under Section 2.5 of the agreement the landlord agrees to keep the ‘common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts, including their electrical lighting, in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises’.
Under Section 3.16 of the agreement the resident ‘must report to the landlord promptly any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible in the structure of exterior of the premises or in any installation therein or in the common parts’.
The landlord’s repairs policy highlights the timeline that it must follow in order to complete repairs. The landlord has three repairs categories; emergency, routine and planned repairs. The policy states that emergency repairs will be attended and made safe within 24 hours, routine repairs within 14 days and planned repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for dealing with a pest infestation in several connected properties of a flat block or estate, or an infestation in a communal area.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord will formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied under the policy, they can request a stage two review within 30 days and a formal response will be provided by the landlord within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 18 March 2020, the resident made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord. The resident raised the following issues:
1. The landlord’s failure to protect residents rights against a construction company that is performing a large-scale neighborhood development that encloses the resident’s estate on two sides. The resident argued that she had not been updated about the situation; that the landlord had failed to advocate on behalf of the residents.
2. Repairs to the security gates and doors at the property including to the pedestrian ‘swing’ gate, vehicular ‘dual swing’ gates, forecourt ‘boom gate’ barrier, the front access security door, internal security backdoors and other security doors that lead to sensitive parts of the building such as the bin stores, emergency exits and the underground car park.
3. Homelessness and drug use – due to the breakdown of the security gates there had been an increase in rough sleepers and evident traces of drug use and drug paraphernalia found on the estate.
4. Rodent Infestation – due to the building works being performed there had been an increase in sightings in both communal areas and residential properties.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 April 2020 regarding the delay in receiving her stage one complaint.
On 16 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response which was not upheld. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response and stated that it believed the response was sent on 26 March 2020. The landlord stated that it believed the complaint was about the resident being unhappy with the level of noise from the drilling when its contractors were carrying out repair works at the property. The landlord determined that the drilling took place in line with local government guidelines ‘not before 9am and stopped before 5pm’. The landlord briefly addressed the ASB issue stating that it encouraged residents to report any instances to police and that it had been working closely with local police to fix the issue. The landlord also stated that there was regular pest control at the property and this will be expanded to address the vermin issue.
On 17 April 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and highlighted her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the landlord’s stage one response. The resident stated that it failed to address the issues in the stage one complaint and would like the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 18 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two final response. The landlord apologised for the resident not receiving its stage one response until the 16 April 2020 and that it failed to address the issues raised in the stage one complaint. The landlord agreed that the level of response the resident received fell well below its expected standards and explained it had since hired a dedicated Complaints Officer in order to improve service. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaints in the order they were received:
1. The landlord acknowledged the issues that the resident had raised in relation to the development. The landlord apologised that the resident felt unsupported but highlighted that it did not own or manage the development and could not be held responsible for the actions of the developer. The landlord raised that it supported the resident by signposting and raising concerns with the relevant authorities as done on 20 April 2020. The landlord also explained that it had raised the issues anonymously with the development group and asked for a full investigation. The landlord stated that this would be supplied to the resident when completed.
2. The landlord addressed the issues with the ‘swing’ gate, vehicular ‘dual swing’ gates, forecourt ‘boom gate’ barrier and the underground car park ‘roller shutter’ gate. The landlord apologised for delays in repairing and maintaining the gate and stated that the contractors used for maintenance of the gate had gone into liquidation. Following this the landlord used DHF (Door and Hardware Federation) approved contractors to inspect the gates and doors in line with regulatory guidance and best practice.
  1. The landlord recognised a complaint about the carpark gate always being open in November 2019. Following the resident’s reports, it said that a job was raised, and an engineer attended on the 25 November 2019 and reported that both gates had been powered down for a specialist to investigate. This took place in December 2019 and a report was provided, in January 2020 the landlord approved a quotation for the remedial works to the gates at the residence. The landlord apologised that several months had passed before the issue was fixed.
  2. After the resident raised that the issue persisted, an order was raised on the 12 May 2020 to inspect the roller shutter gate as it did not respond to commands.
3. The landlord addressed the homelessness and antisocial behaviour issue at the estate. The landlord explained that it had regularly communicated with residents using letters and posters and encouraged them to report any matters to the police or to the landlord when they became aware of them. The landlord expressed that it was working closely with the police and the Safe Neighborhood Team to move them on and remove their belongings. The landlord provided a number for a charity that the resident could call to report any rough sleepers. The landlord had asked its cleaning contractor to clean and remove the belongings of any rough sleeper. The landlord ensured that it was working with police and the anti-social behaviour teams to tackle ASB issues. The landlord hoped that with the gate repairs the resident would see an improvement and less unsolicited foot traffic.
4. The landlord apologised for the lack of acknowledgement in regard to the rodent infestation at the property in the stage one complaint. The landlord confirmed that it had a contract in place with a pest management service who had established baits around the estate and last attended on 4 May 2020. Pest management were scheduled to visit again on 22 May 2020 and a report would be provided and the landlord would take action on any recommendations.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint for the reasons outlined above. The landlord apologised that the resident never received the stage one response and had to chase it and also that it failed to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord said it would continue to work with the police to eliminate anti-social behaviour, keeping the resident informed of any updates regarding the contractors. The landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for the above failures.
The resident wrote to her local councillor on 19 May 2020 and asked for her case to be referred to the Ombudsman.
On 27 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had met with the developer regarding the issues. The developer advised the landlord that it was happy to meet with any of the residents at any time to discuss any concerns that they may have. The landlord also requested the information on the monitoring system that is used to monitor the level of emissions and dust.
On 15 June 2020, the landlord provided a treatment summary from the pest control contractor. It confirmed that the contractors visited the property six times in the period from 7 February 2020 to 15 June 2020. The summary highlighted that over this period the pest control company set and inspected internal and external baits with minimal takes across all areas and no further action required.
On 16 June 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update on her complaint. The landlord addressed the following:
1. That it was putting together documentation and was attempting to organise a meeting with the Executive Director from the construction company regarding the residents’ complaints.
2. It acknowledged that the main car park gate had been broken for some time and other access routes at the property were defective. This included the metal cage door that led into the car park not locking and the roller shutter not working properly. The landlord advised that its team would soon be able to give the resident an update as to the progress of the repairs.
3. It had worked in conjunction with the local police to remove the rough sleepers from the site. It stated that the police had previously removed rough sleepers on multiple occasions however they had returned.
4. It had been addressing the ongoing ASB with the council’s ASB team, the college principal, young offenders team and local police. It acknowledged that it was an ongoing issue that needed to be monitored. It also suggested calling the police if there were any unauthorised people in the block.
5. It provided a copy of the pest control summary from the 15 June 2020. The summary showed minimum evidence of rodents at the property but stated that it would continue to monitor.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident regarding the neighbouring development and provided the relevant planning permissions that had been granted on the site by the local authority. The landlord conveyed monthly noise and dust monitoring reports provided by the developer from December 2019 to February 2020. The results of the reports were in line with the planning permissions and indicated that there was no exceedance of the prescribed noise or dust levels at the resident’s property. The developer advised that all tests were being performed in line with the planning permission and it was doing everything to minimise any harm to residents.
On 22 June 2020, the landlord had a team remove the mattress and bedding of homeless individuals camping on the estate. The landlord informed the resident that this was the third time it had removed the bedding and would organise for a team to jet clean the carpark a soon as possible.
On 23 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed that the homeless sleepers were back at the estate. The resident highlighted that the rough sleepers were coming in and then obstructing the security gates allowing others to enter.
On 7 July 2020, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update regarding issues at the property. The resident highlighted continued issues with the:
1. neighbouring construction company;
2. faulty security gates at the property;
3. homelessness and ASB issues;
4. the landlord’s complaints handling.
On 10 July 2020, a jet wash team attended the estate in order to address sanitation issues in the car park area. The resident acknowledged that some items were removed but the state that the carpark was left in was still unacceptable.
On 13 July 2020, the landlord attended site and confirmed the car park gate, roller shutter and all communal doors apart from the main pedestrian gate were fully operational.
On 22 July 2020, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update of the situation and asked for the matter to proceed to formal investigation.
On 2 September 2020, the resident provided the Ombudsman with a 28-page update regarding the issues at the estate. The resident raised a number of new issues that were not part of the original complaint that had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, these included:
1. service charge issues;
2. fire safety issues;
3. issues with the general practice surgery;
4. deep cleaning of the estate;
5. issues with CCTV
6. repairs issues.
The landlord provided the repairs logs for security gates at the property, between 1 January 2020 and 4 September 2020 there were 17 logs for repairs to the gates. The repairs included servicing, remedial works and individual adjustments.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with several updates between September 2020 and January 2021.
On 14 January 2021, the resident provided the Ombudsman with a copies of 2 stage two final responses from the landlord, one being for the previous complaint and the other for a new complaint. The responses detailed issues addressed in this report and the new issues highlighted in paragraph 24. These new issues will be dealt with by the Ombudsman under a new complaint and have been forwarded to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Team.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports concerning the safeguarding of residents in relation to ongoing construction in the neighboring property.

It is accepted that there is a construction company that is performing a large-scale neighbourhood development that encloses the resident’s estate on two sides. The resident had made several complaints to the landlord in regard to the development, with the main issues being identified as the landlord’s failure to advocate on behalf of the residents and the level of noise and dust pollution from the site. It should be recognised that the landlord is not the responsible party of the neighbouring development and has no say regarding its operation.
The landlord’s policies that have been provided to the Ombudsman do not require the landlord to engage with third parties regarding approved developments. It is at the landlord discretion to engage with a third party on behalf of the resident. It is however clear from the evidence that the landlord had engaged with the construction company on many occasions in an attempt to address the problems that the resident is facing as a result of the developer’s actions. The landlord has continued to update the resident after it issued its stage two final response and continued to contact the developer on the residents behalf. The landlord also referred the resident to the appropriate council department to make a complaint about the development.
The landlord set up meetings with the developer and obtained the relevant documentation regarding the level of noise and dust pollution from the site. The responsibility to engage with the developer was with the resident however the landlord took reasonable action and engaged with the developer to try and resolve the issues between the two parties.

The resident’s reports of disrepair to security gates and doors at the property.

The resident stated that one of the main issues that needed to be addressed is the repairs to the security gates and doors at the property as highlighted above in paragraph 20. The landlord had an obligation under the residential tenancy agreement to repair common entrances at the property. The resident informed the landlord about the barrier to the carpark being stuck open on 10 October 2019, with further complaints about the boom gate on 30 October 2019. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the vehicle swing gate and barrier were inoperative between the period between November 2019 and March 2020. The landlord also stated that the main car park gate was broken for ‘some time’ and other access routes were defective including the metal cage door that leads into the car park and the roller shutter were not working properly.
The landlord had contractors assess the gate and provide a quote of the works that needed to be performed. The contractors attended the property and fixed the gates on 20 March 2020, with compliance checks being provided to this Service. The resident raised further concerns about the forecourt ‘boom gate’ barrier on 22 April 2020 and the roller shutter gate on 12 May 2020. On 13 July 2020 the landlord attended the property and confirmed the car park gate, the roller shutter and all communal doors apart from the main pedestrian gate were fully operational. The resident updated the Ombudsman of reports that several gates were inactive for several months.
Under the repairs policy, major routine repairs should be performed within a three-month period. It is accepted by the Ombudsman that the delays were due to the landlord seeking an appropriate contractor to complete the works to a reasonable standard. The landlord however failed to properly keep the resident informed about the progress of the gate causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The evidence would suggest that the landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach and to escalate the problem as it was directly connected to issues of anti-social behaviour that were being experienced at the property. The landlord should have treated the repair as a priority as it would have directly stopped non-residents from entering the site and thus likely reduced ASB issues at the estate. Overall, the landlord failed to take swift action in order to ensure that the security gates and doors at the property were in proper working order and to complete the repairs within the time frames outlined in its policies.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour at the property.

It is acknowledged that there were a number of reports of ASB at the property raised in the resident’s stage one complaint. There was an issue with rough sleepers around the estate due to broken security gates and evidence of drug use, drug paraphernalia and human excrement. It is acknowledged that the perpetrators are non-residents of the estate.
The evidence provided demonstrations that the landlord had made several attempts to address the issue of rough sleepers at the estate and was working with the local police, as the Safe Neighbour Team (SNT), to remove rough sleepers and their belonging from the site. The landlord had also informed all residents to report rough sleepers and any non-residents to the local police. It had also demonstrated its referral of rough sleepers to external homeless charities and outreach teams who have been supportive of its aims but was unable to solve the issues.
The evidence further indicates that the landlord and the SNT disagreed on the matter of the level of its cooperation with the SNT in dealing with the presence of the homeless people. In an email of 2 July 2020, the SNT officer who patrolled the areas had mentioned that he had requested a fob from the landlord in April 2020 to enable him access to the car park areas to remove the rough sleepers, but this was not provided. An email by the officer, of 3 August 2020 shows that he requested for banning orders to be made by the landlord, which would assist in the removal of the rough sleepers. He also stated that the previously requested fob had not been provided.
The problem of rough sleepers in this situation is made more complex as the landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy is not applicable to non-residents such as rough sleepers. This factor limits the enforcement action that the landlord can take as there is no agreement between the two parties. The landlord took reasonable steps and engaged with the council’s ASB team, the college principal, young offenders team and local police and charity services in an attempt stop rough sleepers using the estate. The landlord had also regularly communicated with residents using letters and posters about reporting rough sleepers.
However, the landlord failed to take advantage of the SNT officer’s offer of assistance which could have reduced the occurrences. It engaged contract cleaners to remove items left in the car park and clean the estate, but the officer’s emails of May 2020 indicate that this was rendered less effective by the re-entry of rough sleepers. As mentioned above, the issue with rough sleepers could have been significantly reduced with the repair of security gates and doors at the estate. The landlord should work more collaboratively with the SNT and other organisations to minimize the effect of rough sleepers on residents.
This Service concludes that the evidence does not support the landlord’s conclusions that it had taken sufficient action to deal with the ASB reports. This, consequently, impacted negatively on the cleanliness of the communal areas and resulted on further distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property

The resident has reported an increase in sightings of rodents since the beginning of construction works around the estate. The landlord acknowledged that it was its responsibility to deal with rodent problems in the common areas of the estate in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
The landlord engaged the services of a pest control company in order to deal with the rodent infestation at the estate. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with six treatment summary reports from 7 February 2020 to 15 June 2020, the summary’s highlighted that over this period the pest control company set and inspected internal and external baits with minimal takes across all areas.
The landlord advised the resident to report any further issues with rodents and it will continue to monitor the situation. Without further information it is concluded that the landlord has taken the appropriate action in dealing with the rodent issue at the estate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 18 March 2020 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 16 April 2020. This represents a 11 working day delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord failed to provide any explanation for the delay and the resident had to chase up the response. The landlord acknowledged that the level of response the resident received fell well below its expected standards and has since hired a dedicated Complaints Officer in order to improve service. The length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policies and evidently caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on the 17 April 2020. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two final response on 18 May 2020 representing a one working day delay in providing the final response. The one-day delay is accepted by the Ombudsman due to the large amount of documentation that had to be reviewed in order to provide an appropriate response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
1. The complaint about the resident’s reports of disrepair to security gates and doors at the property.
2. The complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The complaint about the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
1. The complaint about the resident’s reports concerning the safeguarding of residents in relation to ongoing construction in the neighboring property.
2. The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property.

Reasons

It is evident that the landlord had an obligation to repair the security gates and doors at the property. The landlord was made aware of the issue and failed to have it properly rectified within a reasonable timeframe as per its repairs policy. The landlord’s failure to repair caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience and exacerbated the issues with rough sleepers at the estate. The landlord failed to offer the resident any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one of the complaint’s procedure within the correct 10-day time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay.
The landlord’s policies do not require it to engage with third parties regarding issues outside of its control such as an external development. The landlord however chose to engage with the construction company on many occasions in an attempt to address the problems that its residents were facing. The landlord was successful in securing dust and noise pollution reports on behalf of its residents and also signposted and provided information regarding the appropriate bodies to which the residents could take their complaints.
The issues of ASB at the property were complex as the perpetrators were not residents of the landlord. The landlord took reasonable steps and engaged with the council’s ASB team, the college principal, young offenders team and local police and charity services in an attempt stop rough sleepers using the estate. It also engaged contract cleaners to remove the rough sleepers belongings and clean up the remaining mess. However, it failed to fully utilise the assistance offered by the SNT to keep the rough sleepers away and ensure that the area remained clean.
The landlord had engaged a professional pest control service in order to resolve the issue with rodents at the property. The company attended the estate six times over a five-month period providing reports that suggested minimal rodent activity. The landlord agreed to monitor the situation going forward.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident, within four weeks of this report, compensation of £300 comprising:

£150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the complaint about disrepair to security gates and doors at the property
£50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling delay.
£100 in respect of its handling of the ASB reports.

The landlord to inspect all security gates and doors at the property for damage and inform the resident when any and all required repairs will be completed. This should be in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
.

The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the above orders to this Service within the targets set out above.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendations:
1. The landlord to take steps to ensure that its repair staff and contractors are maintaining detailed records of the results of inspections and repair appointments.
2. The landlord should review its complaints policy – last year, the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf
3. The landlord should consider the installation of surveillance equipment to enable the comprehensive investigation of the gate issues and whether this is due to vandalism or inappropriate use by people with access.
4. The landlord should consider making a community trigger application to the local authority for a formal joint agency investigation of the ASB issues.