Network Homes Limited (202013273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013273

Network Homes Limited

31 December 2021

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 regarding:
   1. The landlord’s management of, and communication around, cyclical works and associated maintenance and repair.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 16 November 1992. The property is a four-bedroom maisonette.
3. Paragraph 2.6 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord has a responsibility ‘to keep the exterior of the premises and any common parts in a good state of decoration and normally to decorate these areas once every 5 years.’
4. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 15 working days.
5. The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied and requests escalation of the matter to stage two, it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

6. On 17 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord an enquiry regarding the cyclical works, asking when these would be undertaken and expressed her dissatisfaction that despite her tenancy agreement stating that cyclical works would be undertaken every five years, cyclical works had not been carried out for ten years. In particular, the resident referred to “extensive disrepair” as a result of the absence of cyclical works, including issues with the windows, garden boundaries, fencing, pathways and gates and facias. 
7. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had communicated that cyclical works would be carried out in 2015, then 2018, then 2020, yet had still not been done. Documentation provided to this Service supports correspondence since at least 2018 regarding the cyclical works and when they would be undertaken.
8. On 25 August 2020, the landlord responded to the resident, advising that cyclical works would now be carried out between 2020-2030 and that the situation would be reviewed on a yearly basis.
9. On the same date, the resident asked for the matter to be logged as a stage one complaint; she was of the view that the landlord’s correspondence was “meaningless” and that it had not grasped the seriousness of the situation.
10. On 8 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident apologising for the delay in responding, advising that its complaints team was only copied into the complaint the day prior. It advised it aimed to be able to provide a response by 21 September 2020, but if it needed longer, it would let the resident know.
11. Having not received a response, the resident chased the landlord on 21 September 2020. It responded thereafter with its stage one response to the complaint. In its response, the landlord advised that it was “fully aware of the disrepairs” within [the block], which was the reason for it having instructed consultants to carry out an internal and external survey in January 2020. It said it was awaiting a full specification of works and costings so that it could determine when works can commence, giving an example of window replacements, which would require full planning permission.
12. Later that same day, the resident emailed the landlord, expressing her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint. The resident wanted the landlord to confirm whether it was in breach of contract, which she said she had asked in her initial correspondence two months prior.
13. Two days later, on 23 September 2020, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She reiterated that the tenancy agreement states that cyclical works are to be carried out every five years and were due in 2015 but had not been. The resident also clarified that her windows did not need replacing but needed work to exterior peeling paintwork and exposed timber, which would contribute to deterioration if left. She added that in communication with the landlord previously, via her solicitors, in 2014 and 2015, the landlord had agreed to reinstate the period garden paths, which had also not been done.
14. On 24 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, confirming it would escalate her complaint and said that it expected to be in a position to respond by 22 October 2020, in accordance with its 20-working day deadline.  It confirmed that it would be in touch should it need longer.
15. On 14 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was still awaiting an update from its planned works team and on 20 October 2020, it emailed her again, explaining that it had now received specifications and it would be discussing the matter with its executive leadership team and be back in touch thereafter.
16. On 23 October 2020, the landlord issued what it called a ‘holding response’ to the resident. In its response, it expressed its appreciation of the frustration caused by not having yet issued a response. The landlord explained that following inspection, the condition of the property was deemed to be “relatively good”.
17. It noted that, although the resident’s tenancy agreement states that it has a responsibility to keep the exterior of the premises and any common parts in a good state of decoration and normally to decorate these areas once every 5 years, it had been operating in exceptional circumstances due to covid-19.
18. Additionally, it explained that following the Grenfell tragedy, the Government had issued fire safety advice notes and it was having to reprioritise its expenditure on fire safety over the next five years. The landlord advised that once it had received legal advice on the matter, it would be in a position to response and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
19. On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord, stating that as she had not yet received a meaningful response, she would like her complaint escalated to stage three of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
20. In response, which was on the same day, the landlord advised that there was no stage three of the complaints process and that it would be in touch once it was in a position to respond.
21. On 24 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident, advising that it would be receiving its legal advice by the end of the week and expected to be in a position to respond thereafter, by 4 December 2020.
22. There was continued contact from the resident on 28 and 29 November 2020 and on 4 December 2020, the landlord responded, advising that it would not be undertaking cyclical works at this time and could not say when this would be. It reassured the resident that this did not mean that it would allow the windows to fall into a state of disrepair, however and would like to arrange an inspection, asking the resident when it would be convenient to do this.
23. On 5 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord, stating that she could accommodate an inspection in the next two weeks. She stated that there were more windows than hers to check and an inspection would also require access to the roof. She also asked the landlord to confirm whether it was in breach of contract.
24. On 9 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it considered the matter closed. It said that having sought legal advice, it did not consider itself to be in breach of contract and it would be in contact to arrange an inspection on 14 December 2020 in respect of the windows.

Post complaint

25. On 14 December 2020, the landlord surveyed the window and the following month, on 15 January 2021, advised it would be redecorating and making good the windows.
26. On 17 and 27 January 2021, the resident chased the landlord asking about internal decoration works to entrance and stairwell and in response. The landlord did not immediately address this but answered that the windows would be worked on in the “summer months” and said that it would be receiving quotes for the work.
27. On 21 June 2021, the landlord visited the resident and she followed this up two days later in an email, setting out that the landlord had agreed to carry out investigations and works, including to investigate possible damage to chimney flues, to carry out repairs and maintenance work to the flat top roof extension, to inspect and repair a blocked down pipe and to receive quotes for cyclical maintenance and window repairs. In her email, the resident also noted that there were matters which remained long outstanding, including removing asphalt coating, redecorating the entrance hall and stairwell and to repair plaster ceiling.
28. On 25 June 2021, the resident stated to this Service that the landlord agreed to resurface the garden path and restore the Victorian style tiling.
29. On 10 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service advising that she had submitted a further complaint to the landlord, as it had backtracked on its commitment to repair the pathway, the chimney flues and that the window works remained outstanding. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had carried out just a visual inspection of the chimney flues yet had arrived at the determination that there was no structural damage. She also had found correspondence dating back to 2015, where the landlord had agreed to repair the garden pathway.
30. On 11 August 2021, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman, that cyclical works “will be done starting in the year from May 2022”.

Assessment and findings

31. Once on notice, a landlord is obliged to carry out the repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
32. In this case, it was not repair issues that the resident first raised, but rather, a question about the cyclical works, which had been delayed for a substantial period. The landlord was also required to carry out the cyclical works, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which it had not done. In the absence of cyclical works and maintenance of this kind, issues of repair can arise, and the resident began to express this, particularly in respect of the windows at the property.
33. The resident refers to communications with the landlord from years including 2015 and 2018. This Service is unable to look at historical matters which date back in time, to more than 6 months preceding the formal complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern matters that 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”.
34. The resident also refers to “breach of contract” and solicitors’ involvement in earlier years including 2014 and 2015. As an alternative dispute resolution service, the Ombudsman is unable to determine breach of contract, as this would be a matter for the courts and the resident has the option of pursuing this matter through the court service if she so wishes. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its 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”.
35. Whilst this Service cannot consider historical or legal disputes, it can assess how the landlord responded to the complaint made and whether the complaint was in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances
36. On receipt of the resident’s enquiry of 17 July 2020, the landlord had an opportunity to demonstrate that it had heard and understood the concerns raised and to seek to address and clarify the situation, which it did not do. The landlord’s response that the cyclical works would be carried out within a ten-year window was inappropriate, as was its failure to acknowledge the resident’s reference to previously unmet expectations around timescale for cyclical repairs and reference too, to disrepair.
37. The landlord’s response was inappropriate because it did not take into account its legal and tenancy obligations.  Further, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations or communicate with any clarity as to what had happened previously with the cyclical works and what the resident could expect in the future. Whilst cyclical works – and major works – cannot always have exact timescales due to the nature of the scale of works and necessity of repair and maintenance at the point of inspection, there was no attempt to respond fully and with transparency and clarity, which in turn, gave rise to a formal complaint.
38. Additionally, the landlord took an unreasonably lengthy time to respond to the resident’s query and there was further delay at the point of recognition of the formal complaint, with an internal delay in passing the complaint between teams.
39. The landlord’s formal response to the complaint on 21 September 2020 also failed to sufficiently address the complaint, instead, acting as an ‘update’, which would have been more appropriate to the resident’s 17 July 2020 query. Responding to a complaint requires investigation of the issues raised and there is no evidence of this having been done. Moreover, to advise the resident that it was awaiting specification of works and costings, while giving more information than previously, did not seek to manage expectations, with no timeframe being given as to when the resident could expect to hear. Importantly, the landlord acknowledged “disrepairs” at the block, which it was obliged to remedy within a reasonable period of time, as set out above.
40. Following the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated through the complaints procedure on 23 September 2020, the landlord ultimately took three months to provide a final response; an inappropriately lengthy period of time and vastly outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord’s final response also did not address the issues, but merely responded to its view that it was not in breach of contract and said it would inspect the windows, remaining silent on all other issues and points.
41. The landlord became caught up in legalities raised of potential alleged “breaches of contract”, which it was entitled to do and indeed sensible to do, but in doing so, lost sight of and failed to address the complaint at a standard complaints procedure level. Having acknowledged “disrepair” in its earlier correspondence, it did not take steps to carry out the repairs it had accepted were needed.
42. It is confusing then, for the landlord to have said in its 23 October “holding” response that the condition of the property was “relatively good”, thus, contradicting the earlier acknowledgement of a need for repairs. There is an absence of clarity or transparency around how the landlord arrived at two opposing findings in relatively close proximity and without any works having taken place.
43. While the extraordinary circumstances of covid-19 have caused unavoidable delays in areas such as cyclical works, this does not cover or account for the period the resident was referring to and did not account for the entirety of the issues raised. Similarly, whilst there may be a need to reprioritise financial commitments in light of the need for urgent fire safety works to take place, this nonetheless, does not negate the landlord’s responsibility to carry out repair.  Nor does it mean that the landlord does not need to effectively manage expectations or put off cyclical works responsibilities for an indefinite period of time.
44. The unsatisfactory and inappropriate handling of the resident’s enquiry and subsequent complaint, undoubtedly contributed to the breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship, with correspondence remaining fraught with dissatisfaction ongoing thereafter. Numerous issues of repair and works were raised by the resident, many of which were not resolved or were not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, such as the visual inspection of the chimney flues. The landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of an independent contractor, who it engages to carry out inspection, surveys or works, however, the situation became messy and chaotic, with misunderstandings or changes of mind around what works will or would not be done and when. There was a lack of management of the issues from the start and this has continued throughout.
45. This Service concludes that there were several significant failings in the landlords handling of the substantive issue of the repairs and cyclical works, as well as in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint. Its complaint decisions should have been the opportunity for addressing the issues and offering redress for the delays and inadequate responses. Compensation is warranted in consideration of the inconvenience to the resident of pursuing the landlord on this issue for several months and, furthermore, in recognition of the landlord’s delays in undertaking its responsibilities.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in respect of its management of, and communication around, the cyclical works and associated maintenance and repair.
    2. There was service failure in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

47. There was maladministration by the landlord as it failed to manage the resident’s enquiry and subsequent complaint about cyclical works and associated maintenance and repair. Specifically, the landlord did not effectively communicate with the resident, nor manage expectations, with its correspondence and messaging being delayed, conflictual and unclear, with a lack of substance and transparency. The landlord failed to effectively manage and respond to the complaint or to investigate it fully and did not acknowledge or act on repair obligations within a reasonable period.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

48. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation comprising:
    1. £250 with respect to its handling of the reported issues on the cyclical works and associated maintenance and repair.
    2. £100 with respect to its handling of the complaint.
49. The landlord to arrange to meet with the resident to identify the outstanding repairs and to differentiate issues of disrepair from cyclical works and maintenance.
50. The landlord to set out precisely what cyclical works are due and when and advise the resident when she should expect works to be carried out.
51. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

52. The landlord to consider carrying out a lessons-learned exercise in respect of the findings of this investigation, particularly regarding its complaint handling and communication.