Sovereign Network Homes (202216167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216167

Network Homes Limited

12 October 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 is about the landlord’s handling of reports of two leaks:
   1. A leak from the bathroom, which affected the dining room ceiling.
   2. A leak within the kitchen which affected the kitchen flooring.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association.
3. On 28 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report her kitchen taps were very hard to turn off, and that there was water leaking from the bath and through the dining room ceiling. An appointment was booked for 22 June 2022, but was cancelled at the resident’s request due to illness.
4. On 23 June 2022, the landlord reraised the repair and an appointment was booked for 7 July 2022. An operative attended, who changed the taps and reported that the leak was due to cracks in the grouting of the bathroom tiles. He noted that a further appointment was required for a different tradesperson to attend and regrout.
5. On 16 July 2022, the resident reported that the crack across the ceiling was getting worse and it may be due to a further leak from the bathroom. The landlord attended on the same day and reported that the tiling was in poor condition and the mastic needed to be replaced.
6. On 18 July 2022, the contractor raised a follow on job for an operative to repair the tiling and renew the mastic around the bath in order to prevent the leak.
7. On 23 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak. The resident said that no one had turned up to tile her bathroom on a prearranged date. When the resident called the contractor, she requested a manager call her back as it could not offer another appointment until 19 August 2022, but did not hear back. The resident said that she would like to know when the tiling and dining room ceiling would be fixed.
8. The landlord arranged for the repairs to the bathroom tiling to be completed on 1 August 2022.
9. On 5 August 2022, the resident reported a further leak from the bathroom. The contractor attended on the same day and located a leak under the bath. It was reported that the leak was due to the taps not sitting correctly under the bath, and that he had made a temporary fix and left the bath panel off.
10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2022, which recognised that the contractor could have done more on its visit on 7 July 2022 and that it also failed to report back that a follow on appointment was required for a tiler. The response confirmed that the landlord and contractor have regular performance review meetings to learn from previous complaints and offered the resident £102 compensation.
11. On 8 August 2022, the landlord raised an additional repair for the contractor to attend the resident’s home and ensure the leak had been fixed and to refit the bath panel and skirting board. A further emergency repair was also raised on this day for the contractor to attend and fix an uncontainable leak under the kitchen sink, which had flooded the kitchen floor.
12. On 15 August 2022, the contractor attended and located an additional leak on the wash hand basin. He said that the dining room ceiling required repairing and that it had also located a leak on the mains stopcock under the kitchen unit. In order to resolve the leak in the kitchen, the contractor had to cut part of the kitchen unit to access the stopcock and carry out a temporary repair.
13. On 30 August 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the status of the remedial works that were required following the initial leak. On 3 September 2022 the landlord raised a job for the contractor to attend and provide a quote in reference to the kitchen and dining room floor.
14. Following a further leak on 8 September 2022,  the contractor attended and repaired a leak on the stopcock. The repair log states that a leak from under the kitchen sink was isolated and it would reattend the next day with a dehumidifier, and again on 23 September 2022 to reconnect the appliances. It was also noted that a temporary structure was erected due to the need to cut the kitchen units in order to access the stopcock.
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 September 2022 as she was dissatisfied that the repair to her dining room ceiling was still outstanding, that her flooring may not be replaced like for like and that the leak under her sink had not been fixed, and this left her with no facilities to wash her clothes.
16. Further works were raised in September 2022 to address the issues the resident was experiencing. This included a repair for the dining room ceiling, to repair further leaks on compression joints and to install new kitchen units.
17. On 26 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to escalate her complaint as she remained dissatisfied that a number of repairs remained outstanding. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 18 October 2022, which said:
    1. That it had completed all works within the kitchen by 28 September 2022, but acknowledged that it did not reconnect the washing machine quickly enough and apologised.
    2. It acknowledged and apologised that the damaged ceiling had been outstanding for a number of months, which would have been unpleasant, and that it had booked a repair for 24 October 2022.
    3. As a gesture of goodwill it had agreed to replace both the kitchen and dining room floor with polysafe flooring. An appointment had been booked for 24 and 25 November 2022. If the resident did not want this flooring, then it could potentially look into making a claim through the insurers, although this may have resulted in a further delay.
    4. It would offer an increased offer of £244 compensation, in light of the time, trouble and delay that the resident had experienced. The landlord said that it would add this to the resident’s rent account.
18. On 26 October 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace her flooring like for like and that the ceiling repair remained outstanding. The resident also informed this Service that she had been told that the leak in the kitchen was as a result of the kitchen taps being fitted incorrectly and therefore feels the landlord should replace her dining room floor covering.
19. A repair was booked for 18 November 2022 for the dining room ceiling to be repaired, but when an operative removed a section of the ceiling, it was identified that water was still getting behind the tiles in the bathroom. When the resident contacted the landlord for an update on this repair, it informed her that it was unable to replace the bathroom tiles until February 2023. On 25 November 2022, a temporary fix was made to the tiles. The resident informed this Service that the repair to the ceiling and tiles were then completed in March 2023.

Assessment and findings

20. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right, and
    3. learn from outcomes.

Landlord obligations

21. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it will carry out its repair obligations within a reasonable time from when it firsts becomes aware of the need for a repair and will take into account all circumstances. It also states that the landlord is responsible for:
    1. Keeping in repair all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation (including baths, basins toilets and sinks provided).
    2. The floor, but not floor covering, ceilings and plasterwork, overhauling leaking or dripping taps, sinks, bath, basin, water pipes and taps, and water stopcock for the property.
22. The landlord’s repair policy, dated November 2016, states that repairs are categorised as either:
    1. Emergency repairs: Will be attended to within 4 hours. It cites a number of emergency scenarios, which includes flooding.
    2. Routine repairs: Are expected to be completed at the next available mutually convenient appointment and in all cases within 15 working days. The landlord expects its contractors to organise its own resources so that the waiting time for repairs is no more than 5 working days. Work where specialist materials or parts have to be sourced or the work is not causing inconvenience may take more than 5 but should be no more than 15 working days.
23. It also states that residents are responsible for:
    1. Renewal of sealant around bath, sink, wash hand basin and showers.
    2. Floor coverings including laminate flooring. Where laminate flooring needs to be removed when access is required to pipework the tenant must arrange for this to be removed, lifted or relayed and do so at their own expense

Leak within the bathroom, which affected the dining room ceiling.

24. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the resident first reported a leak from the bathroom, and issues with her taps on 28 May 2022, by email. The landlord acknowledged the repair and advised that if the leak was uncontainable the resident should call the landlord to raise the repair as an emergency. Following the resident’s request to cancel due to illness, it was raised again on 23 June 2022. There is no indication to show that the resident advised the landlord that the leak was uncontainable, and as such the repair was appropriately treated as a routine appointment and an operative attended on 7 July 2022. A follow on appointment was required, as a different trade was required in order to repair the grouting on the  bathroom tiles, however this information was not acted upon.
25. The resident noticed that the crack in her ceiling was getting larger and reported this to the landlord on 16 July 2022. The operative attended and said that the leak was due to the defective tile grout and sealant. The landlord arranged for the remedial works to be carried out on 20 July. However more time was required and the works were completed on 1 August 2022. The resident has said that that contractor did not turn up to an earlier appointment, but this Service has not been provided with information in which it is able to determine that this occurred.
26. It was reasonable for the resident to expect the leak to be fixed when the tiles had been repaired. However, on 5 August 2022 she reported another leak from her bathroom. The contractor attended on the same day and identified that the leak was due to the taps not sitting correctly under the bath. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it should have done more when it visited on 7 July 2022, but did not acknowledge that the operative who attended on 18 July 2022 could also have done more when it was reported that the damage to her ceiling was getting worse. Had the operative carried out a full inspection of the bathroom it would have identified that the taps were not fitted correctly. This failure meant that the resident was left feeling frustrated and was having to continually report a leak, which she thought had been fixed.
27. As a result of the leaks in the bathroom, the resident’s dining room ceiling needed to be repaired. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction in both her stage 1 and 2 complaint about the time it was taking for the landlord to complete the repair. The landlord acknowledged within its final response that it had been outstanding for a number of months, and booked an appointment for 24 October 2022,
28. The contractor did not attend the resident’s property on 24 October 2022, and it is not clear from the information provided the reason why. It was not until a further three weeks later that an operative attended, on 18 November 2022, and identified that the tiles were still allowing water through behind the tiles. This resulted in a further delay and the need for an additional temporary repair, which was completed on 25 November 2022, and a permanent fix to the tiles and subsequent remedial works needed to fix the ceiling were not completed until March 2023.
29. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days and whilst it is clear it did take some action to try to rectify the cause of the leak, it missed an opportunity to identify a secondary leak from the new taps that were fitted in July.
30. It took the landlord nearly 10 months to fully rectify the defects it had identified within the bathroom, and complete the repairs to the resident’s dining room ceiling. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the repair to be completed and furthermore, is significantly outside of its timescales detailed within its repair policy. The landlord delayed unreasonably in repairing the leak to the property which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While it is acknowledged that the landlord did seek to put things right for the resident in its stage 2 response, but the Ombudsman does not feel that this went far enough.
31. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
32. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
33. In the landlord’s final response, it offered the resident £244, however it is not clear how this was calculated. Whilst the landlord took steps to try to ‘put things right’ for the resident by arranging an appointment to complete the dining room ceiling repair on 24 October 2022, it was not until March 2023 that this was eventually completed, and therefore, the amount offered does not take into account the length of time the repair remained outstanding and the inconvenience that this would have caused the resident. Furthermore, there were missed opportunities for the landlord to identify and remedy the leak at an earlier opportunity which led to the resident experiencing further distress and inconvenience.
34. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident, a payment from £100 recommended. The landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her repairs, and that she had been chasing a response to her repairs for a number of months, and therefore should have taken steps to ensure that the repairs were completed in a reasonable timeframe. It should have also have taken steps to ensure that it did what it said it was going too in its final response. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation, this is in addition to the £244 that it credited to the resident’s account as part of the final response.

Leak within the kitchen, which affected the kitchen flooring.

35. As part of the resident’s complaint escalation on 8 September 2022, it was explained that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the uncontainable leak within her kitchen. The resident said that the leak had occurred twice and that she had been left with no facilities to wash her clothes.
36. The resident says that when an operative attended her property regarding the leak in her bathroom, she asked him to take a look in her kitchen as the flooring felt ‘spongy’. Based on the information provided there is some discrepancy on the exact date, however a repair record does show that on 15 August 2022 an operative attended the property and identified a bad leak on the mains stopcock. The landlord’s final response stated that a second leak was reported on 8 September 2022, which the landlord appropriately treated as an emergency and the contractor attended on the same day. The repair records confirm that a repair was raised and the contractor identified the cause of the leak. In order to access the pipework, the contractor needed to remove a base unit with the kitchen and a follow on appointment was booked for 28 September 2022.
37. As part of the resident’s stage 2 escalation, the resident said that she wanted the landlord to replace her kitchen floor covering on a like for like basis, as she had been told that the leak from the mains stop cock was as a result of the kitchen taps being replaced incorrectly. As part of the landlord’s effort to put things right for the resident, the landlord offered to replace the kitchen and dining room floor covering with polysafe flooring.
38. The landlord’s repair policy states that the floor base is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the kitchen floor was appropriately repaired, however this did not include the floor coverings. This was also in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
39. This is normal practice for most landlord’s, and why it is recommended that residents have some form of contents insurance. When the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord about its decision not to replace her floor covering with like for like, it was not unreasonable for it to signpost the resident to her own contents insurance, or to make a claim through the landlord’s own insurance provider. However, the landlord’s offer to replace the floor covering, as a gesture of good will, shows that it was trying to resolve the resident’s complaint.
40. These actions do indicate that the landlord was trying to ‘put things right’ for the resident and it is for the Ombudsman to determine whether this was fair and reasonable in light of all the circumstances. This Service also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
41. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns that had the kitchen taps been fitted correctly, the damage would not have occurred. However, based on the evidence provided, this Service does not determine whether the leak on the mains stopcock was as a direct result of the new taps being fitted, but how the landlord responded when it was first put on notice. The landlord attended to the leak within its service level agreement and resolved the leak, it also took steps to try and resolve the resident’s complaint by agreeing to replacing the floor covering, therefore a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the bathroom, which affected the dining room ceiling.
43. In accordance with paragraph 53b, of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in respect of its handling of a leak within the kitchen, which affected the kitchen flooring

Orders

44. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble, within four weeks of the date of this report, this is in addition to the £244 compensation applied to the resident’s rent account.

Recommendations

45. The landlord should carry out training with its repairs contractors to ensure all relevant information is recorded accurately to reflect the work that has been completed following a repairs visit.
46. The landlord should contact the resident to support her with what steps she would like to take regarding her kitchen flooring.
47. It is also recommended that the landlord should also refer to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, specifically where it is recommended that compensation payments are not applied to a resident’s rent account and update its compensation policy accordingly.