Sovereign Network Homes (202220507)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220507

Network Homes Limited

19 September 2023

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 concerns how the landlord handled repairs to the entrance doors in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. On 8 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to issues with the entrance doors. The landlord’s notes described the issues as that the front door was dragging on the floor, the handle was lifting and the lock on the rear door was broken. An operative attended on 25 August 2022 who adjusted the hinges on the front door, fitted a temporary lock mechanism to the rear door and ordered a new lock.
4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 September 2022 and requested to raise a complaint into how it had handled the repairs. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. He had had ongoing issues with the condition of the doors since he moved into the property in April 2016.
   2. The operatives who had attended had undertaken a poor job and the lock that was fitted to the rear was the wrong size. The resident also stated that the operative had caused further damage to the door while undertaking repairs.
   3. The front door was still rubbing against the floor and letting in a cold draught.
5. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 October 2022, undertook a survey of the doors on 4 November 2022, then sent a stage two complaint response on 18 November 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
   1. Explained that following the 25 August 2022 appointment, follow-on work was raised to fit draft excluders on 23 September 2022 along with the work to fit the new permanent lock to the rear door. However, this did not go ahead and was incorrectly marked as completed.
   2. Further explained that a new appointment was raised for 12 October 2022 to assess the condition of the door and to determine if draft excluders were required. The operative who attended noted that the front door had dropped since it was adjusted on 25 August 2022 and the lock fitted to the rear door on 23 September 2022 was of the wrong size. The operative recommended that a site visit by a surveyor should be arranged to inspect the doors and confirm what work needed to be undertaken.
   3. Confirmed that a surveyor attended on 4 November 2022, and the work that was recommended to the doors would be completed on 25 November 2022. The landlord also assured the resident that it will ensure that the repairs would be completed to an acceptable standard.
   4. Apologised for the length of time it was taking for the repairs to be completed, the poor communication that the resident had received and for the stress and inconvenience that this had caused to him.
   5. Offered £332 compensation in recognition of the multiple appointments taken to complete repairs to the doors and the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint in order to resolve the issue.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident said the outstanding issues of the complaint were that despite the work done to the doors by the landlord, following its complaint response, he was still experiencing issues with opening the doors and cold draughts entering the property. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord fit new doors.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 2(3) of the tenancy agreement confirms that it is the responsibility of the landlord to keep in good repair the structure of the property, which includes the outside doors.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend and make safe within 4 hours), “Routine” (attend within five working days) and “Complex” (complete within 90 calendar days). The policy defines a routine repair as “repairs which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away. For example, repairs to taps, gutters, doors and windows”.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a complainant financial redress in circumstances where they “have not received a service they’re entitled to, suffered financial loss (not loss of earnings), trouble, upset, inconvenience or an avoidable expense”. The policy states that it will offer compensation at £11 per week for low impact service failure, £23 per week for medium impact service failure, and £45 per week for high impact service failure. Medium impact is defined by the landlord as “the issues have caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve involving much time and effort”.

How the landlord handled repairs to the doors

10. Once the landlord had received a report from the resident about the condition of the entrance doors in the property, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
11. It is not in dispute that the resident received a poor service from the landlord and its contractor. The landlord has accepted that the number of appointments it took to repair the doors was unacceptable, that the work not completed within its published timescales and that the resident received a poor level of communication which resulted in him having to raise a complaint in order to receive updates on the status of the work.
12. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by completing repairs to the doors and offering £332 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication with the resident. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that once it had organised a surveyor’s inspection of the doors on 4 November 2022, the surveyor continued to oversee the work and remained in contact with the resident until the repairs were competed.
14. The landlord’s offer of £332 compensation was calculated in line with the guidance for medium impact service failure detailed in its compensation policy. The offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £32 that recognised the significant length of time and multiple appointments it took the landlord to complete repairs to the doors, and the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint in order to receive updates on the status of the work, was appropriate in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
15. The resident has disputed that the work the landlord has done to the doors has resolved the issue and stated that he is still experiencing cold draughts through the doors into the property. This has been disputed by the landlord, who has stated that it is satisfied with the condition of the doors following the completion of the repairs.
16. The landlord’s repair logs state that following the 25 November 2022 appointment, follow-on work was raised in December 2022 and January 2023 to replace the hinges in both doors. An inspection was then undertaken on 25 January 2023 which stated that the doors had been successfully repaired and that any issues relating to cold temperatures in the property were not caused by the condition of the doors. The surveyor noted that the gaps between the door frame and door were of a standard size to allow their opening and closing and would not cause draughts when properly closed. It is reasonable for the landlord rely on the expert opinions of its appropriately qualified staff member and contractors when making a decision as to whether a repair has been successfully completed.
17. In response to the resident’s comments, the landlord offered to conduct a heat loss survey in the property. This was an appropriate offer for the landlord to make, as while it was satisfied the source of the cold temperatures was not from the repaired doors, it would still be expected to investigate and remedy the issue if the cause was found to be from an outstanding repair.
18. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, contact the resident to arrange a heat loss survey. If the survey identifies the doors as the source of the cold temperatures and recommends their repair or their replacement, it is further recommended that the landlord review its compensation offer and consider offering the resident additional compensation for the ongoing delays in resolving the door repairs.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the repairs to the entrance doors which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

20. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £332 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.
21. It is also recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, contact the resident to arrange a heat loss survey. If the survey identifies the doors as the source of the cold temperatures and recommends their repair or their replacement, it is further recommended that the landlord review its compensation offer and consider offering the resident additional compensation for the ongoing delays in resolving the door repairs.