Network Homes Limited (202106191)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106191

Network Homes Limited

1 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 about the landlord’s handling of a back surge of communal drain water into the property and its subsequent response to the complaint and compensation offer.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, at the property.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that “emergency repairs” will be attended to within 4 hours; flooding and major damage to the property constitutes a major repair.
4. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied with the response and requests escalation of the complaint, within 20 working days thereafter.
5. The landlord’s compensation policy states at paragraph 4.1.2 that “Before compensation is awarded officers must clearly identify maladministration and evidence the injustice caused to the customer as a direct result of our actions”.
6. The policy sets out compensation tariffs for delay and distress, with £5, £10, and £20 per week as the guideline for minor, medium and major impact respectively. The landlord may also consider time and trouble, which its tariff sets at £1, £3 or £5 per week.
7. For loss and damaged items, the landlord will normally expect the resident to make an insurance claim on their own home contents insurance except where they do not have insurance or in exceptional circumstances. The landlord may pay for incurred costs, but not loss of earnings. Discretionary payments may also be made.
8. The same document at paragraph 4.2 states that it “will not normally consider financial compensation in any matter settled via an insurance claim” although there may be exceptional circumstances such as to prevent hardship.

Summary of events

9. On 6 January 2021, there was a back surge of communal drain water into the resident’s property, with raw sewage filling up the toilet and bath and overflowing onto the floor.
10. The resident has said that she called the landlord and was told that as she was a leaseholder, she would need to deal with the issue herself and so she contacted a plumber who attended and having cleared the communal drain, identified an issue with the communal pipes.
11. The landlord has said that its records show the resident telephoning it to report this on its repairs line at 13.06 but she did not speak to a member of staff about the issue and that she called again at 13:10 but terminated the call before getting through to repairs.
12. What has been evidenced, however, is the resident emailing the landlord on 6 January 2021, advising that the drains at the property had backed up and that she had arranged for a plumber to attend. Within the email, the resident asked the landlord to “urgently advise” what the process was for making a claim, should the issue be due to the external drains.
13. The following day, on 7 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, advising that she had been trying to call but was unable to get through. She stated that the blockage remained and the property was uninhabitable. The resident said that it had been identified that the blockage was of a pipe beneath the block and therefore, the landlord’s responsibility to repair. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not shown empathy for the situation or enquired as to where she was staying the previous evening.
14. In a telephone call later that day, the landlord said it would arrange emergency repair, however the resident said she would be seeking her own contractor. The landlord advised that it would not reimburse any cost associated with engaging her own plumber. Following the call, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the discussion.
15. In its email, the landlord expressed sympathy for the situation and apologised that it had not enquired as to where the resident would be staying. It reiterated that it would not be liable for the cost of the plumber because as a leaseholder, the resident would be liable for any initial investigation cost and also noted that it had offered a plumber which the resident had declined. It confirmed that its insurance company would cover the cost of any damage but not repair.
16. On the same day, the landlord’s insurer offered the resident alternative accommodation, but this was declined, with a decision to take disturbance payments instead.
17. On 12 January 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and reported there was still a blockage. In response, the landlord’s contractor attended and reported to the resident that the issue was resolved.
18. On 13 January 2021, in a discussion with the landlord, the resident asked for the root cause of the problem to be provided to her because her insurance company had advised she could not undertake any work until this had been established and confirmed as resolved. The landlord advised that it would contact its contractor and come back to the resident but did not do so.
19. On 3 February 2021, the resident chased the landlord as she had not heard back from her contact with it on 13 January 2021. The landlord apologised for this on 4 and 9 February 2021 and advised that the matter was being investigated.
20. On 10 February 2021, the issue re-occurred, and sewage spilled up into the resident’s property again. The landlord’s contractor attended and cleared the blockage and carried out a camera survey which identified that the communal drain under the building and internal communal soil stack had collapsed.
21. In order to rectify the issue, the landlord also needed access to a neighbouring property, which was scheduled for 25 February 2021.
22. On the same day, the landlord’s insurer again offered the resident alternative accommodation, but this was declined, with a decision to take disturbance payments.
23. On 16 February 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about “a serious lack of care and service” from it, which had rendered her unable to live at the property from 6 January 2021 and had detrimentally impacted her mental health. She posed a number of questions she wanted answers to and in resolution of her complaint, she wanted compensation, including for damaged items at the property, damaged flooring and plasterwork and a new bathroom suite installed.
24. The following day, on 17 February 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint, advised that it aimed to provide a response by 3 March 2021 and said that if it needed to take longer, it would let her know.
25. On the day the works which required access to the neighbouring property were due to take place, these were cancelled by the neighbour on 25 February 2021, who advised that access was not possible on the same day that works were due to be carried out. These were then rescheduled for 4 March 2021.
26. On 26 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint. It explained that in investigating the complaint, it had reviewed telephone logs, emails and chat records and spoken with staff.
27. In terms of the back surge, it advised that on 12 January 2021, the issue was reported by its contractor as resolved, with the plumber leaving once the water was running clear. It explained that the issue was awaiting resolution and had been re-booked for 4 March 2021, following cancellation on 25 February 2021.
28. Regarding compensation, the landlord advised that a claim to the buildings insurance could be made in respect of the plumber the resident contracted for 6 and 7 January 2021. This would also cover cost of works, reinstatement costs, storage costs, making good works costs, plasterwork and the cost of flooring.  Personal items, however, would need to be claimed for through the resident’s own home contents insurance.
29. The landlord did not agree to install a new bathroom suite, advising that the suite was functional and had been decontaminated but advised the resident that she could enquire with the insurer.
30. It noted that its insurer had offered the resident alternative accommodation on both 7 January 2021 and 10 February 2021 which had been declined, with her choosing to take disturbance payments instead. It advised the offer of alternative accommodation remained open, but the resident could not have both this and the payments.
31. The landlord did accept that its communication could have been more frequent and apologised too for the inconvenience of having arranged to attend the property on 11 February 2021 and then not needing to. In recognition of this, and as a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation.
32. On 10 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, setting out her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint and requested escalation of the matter to stage two of its complaints procedure, reiterating a number of points she had made previously.
33. On 7 April 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints process, within which it reiterated its offer of £100 compensation at stage one. It also offered to reimburse the cost spent on a plumber on 6 and 7 January 2021, on receipt of invoices, as well as to increase its disturbance payment on receipt of evidence of costs incurred.

Post complaint

34. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and on 7 May 2021, the landlord sent a follow-up letter to her in which it communicated the following:
    1. That on receipt of invoices for 6 and 7 January 2021, it would process a refund to the resident’s service charge account.
    2. Its insurance provider had arranged for the resident to be contacted regarding disturbance payment and reimbursement of additional cost incurred and advised her to also speak to the insurer about travel costs.
    3. It apologised for not having contacted the resident when it said it would on 13 January 2021 but noted that there had been several contacts in the two weeks that followed. 
    4. It agreed to refund an additional insurance excess payment of £100 on proof of payment.
    5. It offered £270, which was the equivalent of two months service charges, for what it referred to as an “extended length of time” that there had been no contact from it. This was in addition to the £100 previously offered.
    6. It noted the delay in reimbursing the cost of the plumber, which it explained was due in part to the payment details not matching up and it offered an additional £30 in recognition of this.
35. On 30 July 2021, the landlord issued a cheque in respect of the plumber who attended on 6 and 7 January 2021, for £2268.

Assessment and findings

36. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with her email to the landlord, of 6 January 2021, advising that she had organised her own plumber and asking about the process of making an insurance claim, should the issue be communal. The landlord disputes her assertions that she telephoned it prior to this and was told that as a leaseholder she would need to address the issue herself.
37. As an evidence-based Service, the Ombudsman can only make a finding based on what it has before it and cannot make a judgement on whether something was more likely than not to have happened, in the same way as a court. The evidence shows the resident advised the landlord that she was arranging her own plumber and not that she asked it to send a plumber on 6 January 2021.
38. Nevertheless, as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for plumbing issues at the property; this is with the caveat that the issues did not originate from a communal or building issue, for which the landlord would be responsible. When the back surge occurred, there was no indication that this was a communal issue, and it would have been an appropriate and reasonable course of action that the resident initially sought to address it herself as her responsibility as leaseholder.
39. When the resident notified the landlord on 7 January 2021 that the matter had been assessed as being contained within the communal block, its responsibility to attend and resolve it was established. The evidence suggests that it appropriately offered assistance, but this was declined by the resident.
40. On 12 January 2021 when the resident reported to the landlord that the issue remained, it had a responsibility to attend and treat this as an emergency repair in accordance with its repairs policy, which it did, with the contractor leaving when the water ran clear.  However, there is no indication of the contractor on 12 January 2021 taking heed of the previous assessment that the blockage was more complex, although this assessment was made by the resident’s own plumber and not the landlord’s contractor.
41. Although the property was left with the water running clear, the landlord did not undertake a thorough investigation at this point, given the history and information from the previous plumber. It missed an opportunity to go beyond a superficial repair and carry out a sufficient investigation of the issue at this stage, with the issue reoccurring one month later, causing further damage, distress and inconvenience.
42. The landlord’s actions to carry out a camera survey on 10 February 2021 was appropriate and confirmed that the issue was indeed a communal one, with parts of the building’s internal sewage system having collapsed. The landlord took steps to repair this, although this was complicated by the need for access to a neighbouring property, which added delay to works being undertaken.
43. While the landlord appropriately apologised for some issues in communication, it missed an opportunity to show understanding and empathy from the start; a situation which was clearly very stressful and upsetting.
44. Compensation is only way one to resolve a complaint; often an apology, an explanation of what went wrong and why and assurances of changes that the landlord has put in place to help prevent a recurrence, are equally, if not more important and help to preserve the landlord-resident relationship.
45. The landlord did not find maladministration on its part, which would give rise to an offer of compensation, in accordance with its compensation policy. Compensation can be discretionary, however and the policy accounts for this, in addition to stating that “exceptional circumstances” may apply.
46. The landlord exercised its discretion in offering £100 compensation to the resident on two separate occasions, as well as the £270, which equated to two months service charge reimbursement and the reimbursement of the plumber who attended on 6 and 7 January 2021, which was more than £2000; a charge the insurer declined to reimburse. The landlord was not obliged to do this and in doing so, demonstrated its commitment to satisfactorily resolving the complaint.
47. While the landlord missed an opportunity to carry out a more extensive investigation into the issues on 12 February 2021, it reimbursed the resident and offered compensation which it was not obliged to do and to an amount that goes above and beyond the monetary resolution that would be expected both in terms of the landlord’s compensation policy and by the Ombudsman.
48. The landlord has also apologised for communication issues and for delay in issuing reimbursement of plumber charges; charges it was not obliged to reimburse and for which it offered a further £30 for the delay in providing. Considering all the circumstances of the complaint, the landlord has made reasonable redress in respect of the complaint. 

Determination (decision)

49. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has taken steps to reasonably redress the complaint.

Reasons

50. Whilst the landlord could have been more empathic as to the stressful situation the resident was confronted with, there was reasonable redress in respect of the complaint, insofar as the landlord apologised for issues with communication (and later delay in issuing the refund for plumber charges) and paid compensation and reimbursement costs which it was not obliged to do.

Recommendation

51. The landlord should consider undertaking a lessons-learned exercise in respect of the complaint, specifically in terms of the expressions of empathy for the situation, the early communication issues and the missed opportunity for a more thorough investigation when it initially attended on 12 February 2021.