Network Homes Limited (202202343)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202343

Network Homes Limited

28 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her floorboards.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since February 2000. The property is a four-bedroom house.
The resident brought this complaint to this service through a representative. Unless otherwise necessary to distinguish, the report will refer to correspondence as coming from the resident.
In June 2021, the resident contacted her landlord and reported that her floorboards were making a loud squeaking sound. The landlord’s contractor visited in June 2021 and advised the resident that the noise would stop if she removed the laminate flooring. The Ombudsman understands the resident is responsible for the flooring in the property.
This Service has not received any evidence of correspondence between the resident and landlord between June 2021 and November 2021.
On 1 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that, although she had removed the laminate flooring in the back bedroom as advised, the noise continued. The resident made a second call to the landlord to confirm there were additional squeaking floorboards in the living room and stairs, which the landlord added to its existing repair order.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord’s repair logs state that its contractor attended and confirmed ‘to correct the floor that was creaking…the whole floor would need to be removed and re-done’.
The resident asked for an update on the reported repairs on several occasions between 5 November 2021 and 29 November 2021. The landlord responded to these requests, stating that it would update the resident once it had information from its relevant internal teams and its contractors.
On 19 November 2021, according to the landlord’s internal repair logs, the landlord decided to not go ahead with the works to the floorboards. The landlord stated it tried to call the resident to inform her, but was unable to reach her.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s floorboards, and raised an order for the floorboards stating ‘lift boards, inspect beneath for failings and refit or replace’.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor inspected the floorboards and found that the flooring laid was “over sailing the joist which then results in the board moving slightly causing the floor to squeak” and stated that to stop the noise, all of the floorboards would need to be lifted and relayed.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor confirmed in internal communication with the landlord that the resident’s report of the squeaky noise of the floorboards was not a repair issue, which was confirmed in a senior management meeting and should have not been raised as such. The landlord confirmed that it would not be carrying work to the floorboards to rectify the noise.
Subsequently, the landlord informed the resident that it would not be carrying out the work to the floorboards. Dissatisfied by the landlord’s response, the resident made a formal complaint.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response which detailed the repair visits and outcomes, stating:
1. Its surveyor and contractor completed inspections of the flooring, and stated that the squeaking noise was not excessive. But, to stop the noise, the contractor “recommended that the whole flooring be removed and renewed.”
2. It was decided and relayed to the resident that after the contractor visit on 5 November 2021 the landlord would not be “proceeding with the works” recommended by its contractor “as it was deemed that although there was some noise generated by walking on the floorboards, this was not sufficient enough to justify a replacement of all flooring being completed as there were no defects with the floorboards and the sound could be mitigated via the use of floor coverings, carpet or floorings.” The landlord however agreed that a visit would be arranged for its surveyor to “attend and assess for any further defects.”
3. “The attending surveyor advised the only way to address [the squeaking sound] would be to lift the affected floorboards and inspect for failings underneath, followed by a refit or replacement if necessary.”
4. Another visit was carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 6 December 2021, which reported “the tongue and groove chip board that had been laid was oversailing the joist which then results in the board moving slightly which is causing the squeaking sound.” And therefore “advised that the lifting of the flooring would be required to enable extra noggins to be added and to relay this afterwards.” The landlord made a decision “not to proceed with the recommendations” of its contractor.
The landlord concluded that, from the reports it had received, the floorboards were not defective and there were no “health and safety concerns and no repair to the flooring is required and the sole reason this would be carried out would be for the removal of the squeaking sound.”
The landlord stated that it should have set the resident’s expectations “better” from when the resident first contacted its service, stating “ We wouldn’t expect works orders to be raised to address squeaking floorboards, as this does not form part of the repairs service that we are responsible for delivering.” It confirmed that it fed back this information to its relevant department.
The landlord confirmed in its conclusion that now it had “thoroughly investigated” the matter, it established that “there were no defects to the floor itself” and “there are no repairs required.”
On 10 January 2022 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response and requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure, stating:
1. She did not agree that the floorboard noise was not excessive nor that the floorboards were not defective, stating she believed “the noise is extremely excessive,” and the reports the landlord received from its contractors and surveyor contradicted what they had told her, which was that “the floor noise was excessive and that the floorboards are defective and was put down incorrectly and therefore needed to be re-laid.” Therefore the landlord was going against the professional recommendations of its contractor and surveyor.
2. “The excessive noise of the squeaking floorboards” was “a mental health and safety issue” which caused “extreme stress” and her and family did not have “peace and quiet enjoyment of the property.”
3. The resident removed the laminate flooring because of the wrongly advised recommendations of the landlord’s contractor and therefore should be reimbursed her incurred costs if the landlord chose “not to carry out the repairs.”
On 13 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaint procedure.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response stating:
1. It confirmed that it stood by its original stance provided in previous correspondence with the resident, and its stage one complaint response to the resident.
2. It added that “the functionality of the floorboards from its understanding were “in a full working order.” and “the recommendations being made are solely for the purpose to remove the squeak, not recommendations to repair or rectify issues with the structure of the flooring.” And “for the floorboards to make a squeaking sound there will be slight movement. This does not mean that there is a defect with the floorboards.”
3. The landlord however stated, as its contractor gave the resident wrong advice which resulted in her incurring unnecessary costs, it would reimburse her accordingly and awarded the resident £500 compensation for the resident’s ‘time and trouble, the distress, and delays in coming to a decision on this matter’.
In February 2022, the landlord and resident agreed that the reimbursement total would be £2,240, which comprised of £500 compensation and £1,740 reimbursement costs. The resident accepted this award on the confirmation from the landlord that accepting the award would not affect her rights to escalate her complaint to this Service.
On 12 May 2022, the resident dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response, escalated her complaint to this Service, stating:
1. As the landlord refused to carry out the work to the floorboards to stop the squeaking sound, the resident instructed their own contractor to complete the work, therefore, the resident is seeking “a larger amount of compensation that more adequately reflects the experience of the situation.”
2. The level of compensation “does not reflect” the landlord’s poor service delivery of the resident’s repair reports, therefore seeking an increase in compensation because the landlord “gave the impression that they would have carried out repairs and did not, they were completely irresponsible and failed to manage the tenant’s expectations. The inconvenience and stress were far greater than the compensation that was offered.”
3. “The tenants stressed that this was a mental health issue because of the continuous disturbance of sleep and having to use buckets in the bedroom to go toilet.” The Ombudsman understands that the use of the buckets in the bedroom was to minimise walking on the squeaky floorboards to use the toilet at night, to not disturb the sleep of other household members.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident stated that ‘because of the continuous disturbance of sleep and having to use buckets in the bedroom to go toilet’ as a result of the squeaking floorboards, the resident and/or the household members suffered from mental health issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Policy and Procedures

The landlord’s compensation policy stated “If the complainant has incurred costs solely as a result of the fault it will usually be appropriate to reimburse the complainant.”
It states it will award compensation for distress,” including stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry or outrage. Managers should take into account the severity, length of time suffered, number of people affected (one person or whole family) and vulnerability of the complainant.”
It will award compensation for time and trouble, stating “we consider the extent of inconvenience a complainant has experienced to get a resolution to their complaint.”
The landlord’s repair policy states it is obligated to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of our property and its fixtures.”

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman recognises that in June 2021, the landlord’s contractor wrongly advised the resident that the squeaky sound of the floorboards would stop by removing the laminate flooring, which resulted in incurred costs for the resident. The landlord later acknowledged that its contractors were at fault and reimbursed the resident accordingly in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s repair logs state that on 19 November 2021, it confirmed it would not be carrying out the work to the floorboards. However it agreed to a further two visits, one from the landlord’s surveyor on 30 November 2021 and its contractor on 5 December 2021. This demonstrated that the landlord took additional steps to ensure there were no disrepair issues with the floorboards before making a final decision, although it could have concluded that the squeaking floorboards were not a disrepair issue sooner, to ensure it did not set unrealistic expectations for the resident.
It is evident, and by the landlord’s own admission, that it did not clearly set realistic expectations for the resident when she first contacted its service, which ultimately caused unreasonable inconvenience for the resident.
Whilst there is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building which includes the floorboards, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s explanation, that the floorboards were not in a state of disrepair. The landlord based its explanation on the inspection reports and advice it received from its surveyor, which was reasonable for it to do. However, this was not conveyed to the resident in a timely manner, which caused avoidable expense, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. It is however, evidenced by the landlord’s contractor that the floorboards were ‘over sailing the joist’ which resulted “in the board moving slightly causing the floor to squeak.” This may suggest poor workmanship, and a combination of general wear and tear of the property, which may have contributed to the squeaking sound of the floorboards.
Subsequently the resident rectified the issue on her own accord. This Service acknowledges the negative impact the squeaking floorboards had on the resident, and takes into consideration that poor workmanship of the floorboards may have played a part in the issue. However, the landlord after its inspection of the floorboards established it was not a disrepair issue. Therefore, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is no obligation for the landlord to reimburse the resident for works she carried out on the floorboards which it is not responsible for.
The landlord acknowledged its service failure and compensated the resident £500 and reimbursed her costs incurred for removing and subsequently replacing her flooring. Both the compensation and the reimbursement of incurred costs are in line with its compensation policy. In the view of the Ombudsman, the level of compensation of £500 was appropriate redress for “time and trouble, the distress, and delays in coming to a decision on this matter” and is line with the Housing Ombudsman’s awards of compensation in such circumstances.
The Ombudsman considers the redress offered by the landlord is reasonable. If the landlord failed to compensate the resident, the Ombudsman may have determined there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reported repairs to her floorboards.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s reported repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its poor handling of its resident’s reported issues with her floorboards. In the view of the Ombudsman, it offered the resident compensation that is proportionate to the service failure.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The Housing Ombudsman recommends that the landlord examines its training for its staff around its repair responsibilities to ensure residents are receiving accurate information about their reported repairs at first contact.