Network Homes Limited (202103084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103084

Network Homes Limited

26 April 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp at her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the drainage system.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder since November 2004.
This Service notes that on 1 May 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a stage two response following an ongoing complaint which included the same matters complained about above. At this time, the landlord noted that upon undertaking an inspection of the resident’s neighbour’s property, and the affected area of the resident’s bedroom, defects had been identified with the neighbour’s balcony and guttering. It was believed that this was likely the cause of water ingress into the resident’s property. An inspection of the resident’s property also found a need to address the ventilation and excessive condensation which was causing cold bridging.
In concluding the complaint, the landlord identified that there had been a number of service issues experienced throughout the period, however confirmed that all outstanding works to address the damp and mould, cold bridging, and the drains had been completed by March 2020. Compensation (£720) was awarded for the period of delay and distress between October 2018 (when it was first brought to the landlord’s attention) to March 2020. The resident was also advised that the landlord’s insurer would accept a claim relating to the cost of redecoration and any deep clean that was required

Summary of events

According to the resident, following a further report of damp, the landlord arranged for an inspection of her property on 28 October 2020. It is unclear what was found at this time.
It also appears that on or around December 2020, the resident also reported to the landlord that water was bubbling through the kitchen sink as a result of a drain blockage outside her property. Records indicate that on 4 December 2020, a work order was raised to clear the blockage and manhole serving the resident’s flat. This job was marked as complete on 22 December 2020.
This Service can see that in an internal email on 4 January 2021, the landlord’s drainage contractor confirmed it had attended the site and with use of high-pressure water jetting works, the blockage was cleared, and normal flow was restored. It was recommended that the landlord arrange for someone to attend the site with a combination tanker unit and a second man to pump out the mass amounts of fat and grease, followed by an extensive descale to ensure the pipework was free flowing and clear of debris.
Due to gaps in the landlord’s records, it is unclear when the resident discussed the damp issue with the landlord. On 9 February 2021, nonetheless, it wrote to the resident apologising that it had not provided her with an update by 8 February 2021 as promised due to IT issues. The landlord explained that the resident’s damp issue had been escalated, and that an update would be provided on the following week on how it proposed to move forward.
The resident responded to the landlord on the following day. She thanked the landlord for the update and advised that as it stood, she had been running a dehumidifier 24 hours a day. The resident highlighted that while an inspection had taken place in October 2020, no further contact or progress was made.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with an update on how it proposed to address the damp issue. It advised “scaffold will need to be erected to allow the contractors… to lower the hoppers so a lead/zinc back could be added to the flashing and also for the hoppers… [at the neighbours’ properties] …to be lowered and refitted to the guttering. There will be an inspection of the balcony area and balcony to ensure that there is no further water ingress from the above property”. These works would be raised later in the day and issued to the contractors who would make the appointments needed to complete the works. The resident was advised to get in touch if she had not heard anything in seven days.
The resident advised on the same day that she was pleased that works would start soon. She advised that the wall with the hopper issue had seen water cascading down it for years and now had damp, moss, and lichen growing on it.
On 1 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had received no contact about the damp issue. She expressed dissatisfaction with this and questioned how she could escalate this further.
This Service can see that on 11 March 2021 the landlord’s drainage contractors had again attended the site following a further report of a drainage issue. The blockage was cleared, and normal flow restored. The drainage contractor recommended a CCTV survey to the drain upstream to identify possible defects / obstruction as the issue was reoccurring. A further blockage was discovered on the following day during a post-work inspection. This too was cleared.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response. It noted that the resident wished to know when the issue causing damp in her property would be addressed and explained:
1. It could confirm that it had addressed the blocked drains at the front of the resident’s property which was resulting in a build-up and a foul smell.
2. A job had been raised for the scaffold and it was awaiting a date from its contractor to confirm when this would be erected. It was hoped that this would be by the end of the week. Works to both hopper heads would be undertaken at this time.
3. An inspection of the neighbour’s balcony had been arranged for the following week to assess whether the balcony was causing the water ingress. Once this had been completed, a further inspection would be undertaken of the resident’s property to produce a specification of works due to the water damage.
The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out works and acknowledged that it should have kept the resident better informed. It hoped to have works completed by the end of the following week.
On 17 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint as she remained dissatisfied. She explained that:
1. The landlord had visited her on 28 October 2020 to inspect the damp which was allegedly fixed in 2019. She stated that 98 days had since passed, and no action had been taken. The landlord’s response as to when things would be done was vague and ambiguous.
2. There had been a lack of communication and she frequently had to chase the landlord before anything was done.
3. The outside drain was continuously blocked. This was supposedly sorted on 31 December 2020. Someone had also been sent to unblock her kitchen sink, however, this was not blocked.
Records suggest that between 19 – 24 March 2021 the landlord’s contractors erected scaffolding in the garden to the roof of the block, in order to inspect the roof and balcony area. Works were scheduled to be carried out on 13 April 2021 however it does not appear that this was done.
An internal email on 7 April 2021 indicates that the landlord’s drainage contractor attempted to undertake a CCTV survey of the drain but was unable to obtain visuals due to the mass fat within the system. It was again recommended that a combination tanker be arranged to pump out and descale the lines. A CCTV survey could then take place.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord provided its final response. It apologised that the issues were still ongoing and stated:
1. It noted that there was a defect with the resident’s neighbour’s balcony which had never been resolved but which was being pursued. It explained that there had been further delays in trying to gain access to the neighbouring property where the leak was presumed to be coming from.
2. On gaining access to the required properties, the Repair team had been able to confirm that the balcony surfaces were in poor conditions and that this was more than likely causing water to enter the properties below. These had been identified as latent defects and could not be resolved with a simple holding repair. A remedial programme would go live at the end of May 2021 at the earliest.
3. There had been some dialogue between the repair team and the resident, mostly by telephone and particularly in relation to the drainage works. It accepted, however, that it should have maintained communication even where there was no update.
4. The resident had not chased the damp matter until 26 January 2021.
5. The drains outside the estate where no longer blocked and the water was not cascading down the road. These were unblocked in March 2021. The only preventative works outstanding was to descale the drains to prevent a repeat issue.
In the landlord’s conclusion, it accepted that the matter had been going on for too long. It assured the resident that while it was not going to be a quick process, rectification works would take place. It accepted that its communication could have been better, nonetheless. The landlord therefore proposed to contact the resident once every two weeks until the works were completed. Noting that an award of compensation had previously been paid for the same issue in May 2020, the landlord explained that it had used the same calculation to offer an award of £600 covering the period 31 March 2020 to 31 May 2021. This was to recognise the distress and delay in failing to resolve the issue.
Following a further reported drain blockage, a work order was raised on 26 May 2021 for a combination tanker to attend, pump out and de-scale the lines with jetting equipment and to carry out a CCTV Survey. This was undertaken on 9 June 2021.
This Service can see that on 2 June 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents providing an update. It explained that as it identified that the problem was systemic and structural, it had appointed a consultant to investigate the issue. This confirmed numerous problems that needed addressing and as such, it had been agreed that a contractor would be appointed to carry out remedial works. Residents would be contacted to assess what works could be undertaken to alleviate any immediate issues in the short term while consideration was given for the level of works required in the medium and long term.
This Service has since spoken to the landlord who has confirmed that the works to the balcony remain outstanding. In September 2021, however, works were completed to address the internal damp issue at the resident’s property. Correspondence from the resident shows that she was satisfied with this repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp at her property.

It appears to this Service that as of March 2020, as set out in the landlord’s final response (in May 2020), the proposed works to address the damp at the resident’s property had been undertaken and considered to be satisfactory.
Evidence suggests that on or around October 2020, however, the resident began experiencing further damp issues, at which time, she alleges the landlord undertook an inspection. This Service has seen no records of this inspection, or of the report of damp that would have prompted this. It is noted, nevertheless, that the landlord did not dispute that it took place. As such, given that the resident had referred to this inspection on several occasions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered her an explanation as to why no follow-up action had been taken.
Similarly, while the landlord has not provided this Service with the appropriate record, it confirmed within its final response that on 26 January 2021 the resident chased an update on how it planned to address the damp in her property. It is therefore apparent to this Service, particularly given that the resident was pursuing an update, that the issue was brought to the landlord before this time.
In any case, in response to the resident, the Ombudsman can see that on 17 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would undertake a series of works and an inspection to ensure that there was no further water ingress. A work order was to be raised on the same day and an appointment scheduled by the landlord’s contractors within the following week. Despite this suggestion, however, this Service can see that no action was taken, and no update was provided to the resident. This was inappropriate.
It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged, following the resident’s subsequent complaint, that it should have kept the resident better informed on why no steps had been taken at this time. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, given the basis of the resident’s dissatisfaction, and that there was still some ambiguity surrounding when the works would be undertaken, the landlord should have made arrangements with its contractor and provided the resident with specific dates in which works would commence. The suggestion that the landlord “hoped” the scaffold would be erected by the end of the week did not provide the resident with much assurance.
The resident was also advised that an inspection of the neighbour’s balcony would take place on the following week to establish whether this was the cause of the water ingress at her property. While it appears that the landlord did this, this Service cannot see that it communicated its findings to the resident until it offered its final complaint response. Despite advising that it would undertake an inspection of the resident’s property to produce a schedule of works to address the damage in her property, it did not do this either. This, at minimum, would have provided the resident with some indication of what works were likely to take place and when.
What’s more, although it seems that the scaffold was erected, the landlord did not undertake the works to the hopper heads, as it said it would, and provided no explanation as to why. Rather, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord again advised the resident that it would look to commence works to address the balconies (and subsequently the damp in the resident’s bedroom) at the end of May 2021 at the earliest. This was unreasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations, to set out a specific plan of action, and to do what the landlord said it was going to do.
In the Ombudsman’s view, while the landlord suggested in its final response that this was not something that could be resolved with a simple holding repair, it could have explored a temporary fix for the resident, given the amount of time that she had been experiencing the issue and the ongoing impact it was having on her property. It is noted that in the landlord’s later correspondence to all residents, it suggested that residents would be contacted to establish what works could be undertaken to alleviate the immediate issues they were facing in the short-term. This should have been an option proposed to the resident within the landlord’s final response in light of the history of issues.
Given that the resident had also advised that she had been using a dehumidifier 24 hours a day, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored ways to assist her in reducing the moisture in her property. The resident should not have been expected to use the dehumidifier indefinitely.
While the above demonstrates a clear failure in the landlord’s service, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord took steps to put things right. It was appropriate that in recognition of the distress and delay in undertaking works, and also with knowledge that the communication had not been up to standard, the landlord made an offer of compensation. It took into consideration the length of time that the resident had been reporting issues of damp, and the resolution offered in its complaint response in May 2020, to arrive at a level of compensation which reflected the resident’s experience. This was fair. Its offer accounted for the total number of months since it had undertaken works to when it next hoped to commence works (March 2020 – May 2021).
It is also noted that the landlord undertook works in September 2021 to address the damp experienced by the resident. While the latent defect causing the issue remained outstanding, at minimum, this restored the resident’s bedroom walls to good condition and enabled her to enjoy her home in the meantime. This was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s view, however, it also would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made an offer of further compensation to account for the months in which the internal works remained outstanding and in which the resident was unable to enjoy her bedroom. The landlord should have applied its compensation calculation to account for the three months between June and September 2021. It does not appear that it done this.
What’s more, the resident remained unaware of when the works would take place to address the balconies, and therefore unaware of how long her property would remain vulnerable to water ingress. The landlord’s later correspondence shows that this remained ambiguous. The Ombudsman has subsequently determined that there was a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the drainage system.

Generally, this Service expects landlords to ensure that appropriate fixes are explored and put in place in order to avoid an issue reoccurring. Particularly where there can be an adverse impact on a resident, the Ombudsman would expect fixes to be thorough and for any recommendations made by professionals to be implemented.
In this case, however, the Ombudsman can see that there was a repeat issue with the drainage system and while the landlord did make arrangements to address this following each of the resident’s reports, the recurring issue may have been avoided had the landlord acted sooner on the recommendations.
It is noted that following the resident’s report of a drainage issue in December 2020, the landlord cleared the blockage within the same month and restored the system to working order. This Service has not seen that the resident made any reports of drainage issues prior to December 2020 (and following the landlord’s final response in May 2020).
Within the internal correspondence between the landlord and the drainage contractor in January 2021, however, a recommendation was made for the landlord to take further steps. This Service can see that it was encouraged to arrange for someone to attend the site with a combination tanker unit and a second man to pump out the mass amounts of fat and grease, followed by an extensive descale to ensure the pipework was free flowing and clear of debris.
Despite this recommendation in January 2021, however, this Service cannot see that the landlord arranged this until 9 June 2021. As a result, where the landlord sought to arrange a CCTV survey to establish why there was a continuous obstruction, the landlord was unable to obtain a visual due to the “mass fat in the system”. A further recommendation subsequently had to be made to pump out and descale the lines before the CCTV could take place. This Service notes that before this was done, the issue reoccurred in May 2021.
As the resident complained that the drains were continuously blocked, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have exhausted all possible avenues to ensure that the issue was properly resolved. This would have included undertaking the recommended actions to prevent any future blockages. It is clear that it did not do this, however. Although the landlord highlighted in its final response that there was no longer a blockage and that only the preventative work remained outstanding to descale and prevent repeat issues, its failure to promptly complete this outstanding work meant that there was yet another issue in May 2021. The Ombudsman is therefore not satisfied that the landlord did enough to promptly resolve the issue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp at her property.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the drainage system.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While the landlord made an offer of compensation to account for matters up until May 2021 and recognised that the matter had been “going on for too long”, it failed to resolve the damp issue until September 2021 and no compensation offer was made to recognise the delay and distress over these additional months. This, coupled with the landlord’s failure to adequately keep the resident updated, to manage her expectations, and to do what it said it would, meant that the compensation offer fell short in putting things right.

Clarity was also sought on when the balcony works would likely take place and while the landlord advised that this would not be until May 2021 at the earliest and agreed to provide the resident with an update every two weeks, this remained ambiguous and offered the resident no assurance that the issue was coming to an end. This Service notes that the works did not commence on or around May 2021, but in fact still remain outstanding.

The landlord failed to act on the recommendations made by the drainage contractor, and this resulted in repeat issues being experienced. The landlord should have been more proactive to ensure that the issue was resolved once and for all, particularly given the history.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the additional time taken to address the damp at her property. This has been calculated using the same calculation previously adopted by the landlord to arrive at its compensation – 17 weeks x £10 per week = £170, and an additional £30 has been included to account for the absence of information confirming the start date for the balcony works.
This landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of this determination to set out when the works to the balconies are likely to be undertaken and should honour the date proposed.
The landlord should also award the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its failure to resolve the drainage issue sooner.
The above payments should all be made within four weeks of receiving this determination and evidence of these payments provided to this Service. Any outstanding compensation payments should also be made at this time.