Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Network Homes Limited (202206710)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206710

Network Homes Limited

20 December 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a neighbouring property being sub-let.

Background

  1. On 19 November 2021, the resident, who is a shared owner leaseholder, wrote to the landlord to advise that there had been ongoing leaks originating from the flat above. In following correspondence with the landlord, she advised that she had been reporting leaks since May 2018, but had received no response. She also highlighted that she had advised the landlord in January 2019 that the property above her was being sub-let.
  2. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 3 January 2022, in which she raised several issues including: subletting of the above property, the leak from the above property, fly tipping, guttering issues, and issues with one of her windows. In the complaint, the resident reiterated that the above property was being sub-let, and that the occupants had caused leaks. She advised that the leaks had been ongoing, and that from 14 November 2021, there had been four separate ones within two weeks. The resident also highlighted concerns that the water was entering electrical sockets. She wanted to know who was responsible for the property above in order for repairs to be made so that leaks into her property would stop.
  3. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 10 March 2022. It acknowledged its poor communication with the resident, and the frustration that had caused. It advised that an operative had attended the property with an independent investigator who specialised in locating tenants and landlords. However, due to having no valid contact details for either party, and no response when it attended the property, the landlord advised that it would need to seek an injunction to force entry. It also asked the resident to send photos of the damage so that this could be presented to the court in order to highlight the urgency of the matter. Additionally, the landlord offered £600 compensation. This offer of compensation was in consideration of all issues raised by the resident, including its poor communication.
  4. Following the final response, the resident reported that the leak had continued. The landlord told the resident that it had been unable to contact the leaseholder. It also said that it had spoken to its legal team, who had advised that she should seek legal action, as, due to the intermittent nature of the leak it no longer believed that it could seek the necessary injunction.

Assessment and findings

  1. Appendix 2 of the landlord’s Repairs Policy states that “The leaseholder is responsible for all repairs, maintenance and replacements to the inside of their home”. The resident’s lease confirms the same, and also states that leases for other properties should contain the same provisions.
  2. Section 5(6) of the lease indicates that, if requested by the resident, the landlord will enforce the covenants of the lease in regard to other tenants – provided that the resident commits to indemnify the landlord for all of its costs and expenses of enforcement.
  3. In the absence of information to the contrary, the landlord is assumed to be the freeholder of the property.

Leaks into the property

  1. In determining the outcome of this complaint, it is important to first outline what obligations the resident and the landlord were subject to, and whether or not these obligations were fulfilled. In this circumstance, the obligations of the leaseholders regarding internal leaks are clearly stated within the landlord’s policies and procedures, and the lease. This was not disputed by the resident.
  2. The lease makes clear that the leak into the resident’s home is the responsibility of the neighbour leaseholder, and there is no suggestion that the landlord has an obligation to resolve the leak itself.
  3. Enforcing the terms of a lease, ultimately, is a legal matter. The resident’s lease states that if asked by the resident, the landlord should undertake legal action to force compliance from the neighbour. This is the only apparent term in the lease relevant to the resident’s situation, and it is complicated by the additional requirement in the lease that the landlord’s actions must be reimbursed by the resident.
  4. It is for the resident and landlord to consider the relevant provision in the lease, as a possible course of action if the matter remains unresolved by more straight-forward means.
  5. While the landlord had no clear obligation to resolve the leaks into the resident’s home itself, it does have a basic and standard obligation to communicate effectively and explain its decisions and positions.
  6. In its final complaint response, in March 2022, the landlord said it would seek an injunction to gain entry to the neighbouring property. It said it would keep the resident updated, and asked her for photos to help support its action. Despite further leak reports and requests for updates from the resident, there is no evidence that it updated her until June 2022, after further chasing. It explained that as the leaks “had stopped or appeared to be intermittent, we were unable to proceed with an injunction application.” It provided no other explanation, but said it would consult further with its legal team. The evidence does not show any clear difference in the leaks between the landlord’s original decision to seek an injunction, and its eventual change of mind.
  7. There is no further evidence of action by the landlord. The explanation in the landlord’s final complaint response (that it would seek an injunction) would undoubtedly have been a relief to the resident. It was the primary element of the response and an important step forward. Its progress and fulfilment should have been treated with the same sense of importance. It is not for this Service to second guess the landlord’s eventual change of mind about legal action, and it is possible that the situation evolved to the extent that the original intention was no longer tenable. However, the landlord provided no such explanation to the resident, and failed to further update her until she chased it. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged how frustrating it would have been for the resident to feel ignored by the landlord, but it demonstrated a similar lack of communication and attention in its subsequent handling. The landlord’s actions following its final complaint response were therefore unreasonable, and a failing, which has not been remedied by its earlier complaint handling or compensation.

Sub-letting

  1. Section 1.1 of the landlord’s Subletting Policy states that “Less than 100% leaseholders (shared owners) are not allowed to sublet as the property is intended to be their principle home in accordance with the public sector funding used to build it”. The resident was within her right to report this to the landlord if she believed this to be happening.
  2. However, following the resident’s report of the issue, the landlord would not be required to divulge any of the information to the resident regarding its investigation into the possible sub-letting issue. As the landlord noted in its stage one response, it was unable to go into detail about the investigation as it involved personal information.
  3. The landlord did confirm in its final response that it had conducted a door knocking exercise to enquire about the occupancy of the property, and that it had received conflicting reports during this. However, as stated, it was not required to go into detail with the resident.
  4. From the evidence provided, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about sub-letting were reasonable. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and assured that it was looking into the issue. However, due to the nature of the particular issue, it was not required to provide any further information, whether it found that the property was or was not being sub-let.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a neighbouring property being sub-let.

Orders

  1. In light of the further frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates, it is ordered to pay compensation of £250. This amount is in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord.
  2. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.
  3. The landlord is also ordered to prepare an action plan demonstrating how it intends to learn from the complaint and improve its services after the poor communication demonstrated both before and after its complaint process. This plan must be provided to the resident and this Service within six weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The evidence does not show any specific discussion between the resident and landlord about the lease provision (5(6)) requiring it to take action if asked and indemnified by the resident. While the cost implications to the resident may make such action impractical, the landlord is recommended to consider and discuss with her any potential options or suggestions it may be able to offer to make such action more achievable.