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

Network Homes Limited (202101388)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101388

Network Homes Limited

7 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair of a leak at the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. The resident lets the property out to tenants.
  2. On 30 November 2020 the resident’s contractor advised the resident that one of the pipes in the wall between the bath and toilet was leaking and two rows of tiles needed to be “redone”. The resident provided the report to the landlord.
  3. On 17 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting that she urgently undertake repair works on tiles in the bathroom. It noted that it could not carry out any more works as it could not access under panels.
  4. On 17 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the landlord needed to repair the pipe work before she undertook other work on the bathroom. She stated that the leak was coming from shared pipework that was the landlord’s responsibility.
  5. On 18 December 2020 the landlord inspected the resident’s flat and told the resident that it had identified repair works that needed to be done to rectify a leak. It stated that the resident should repair the tiles irrespective of other leaks.
  6. On 21 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord comments from her maintenance company (who had been able to access the pipes) stating that the major leaks were from the joints of the stacks between the toilet and the bath. The resident advised the landlord to prepare to pay the costs she had incurred.
  7. On 21 December 2020 the landlord emailed the resident confirming its view that the resident needed to undertake repairs. It referred to issues with the seal on the tiles in the shower and to the problem with the connection of the pipework from the wastes joining into the stack. It stated that the repairs were the resident’s responsibility.
  8. On 28, 29 and 30 December 2020 and 4 January 2021 the resident sent a video to the landlord of the leak and stated that the leak was the landlord’s responsibility. On 4 January 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident its view that the problem was with the connection of the resident’s wastewater pipe to the freeholder stack. It also confirmed its view that there were leaking tiles in the bathroom that needed to be repaired. It stated that the resident would be liable for damage.
  9. On 15 January 2021 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord set out the reasons why it thought that the leak was caused by a problem with the plumbing in the resident’s property which fell within the scope of her obligations as leaseholder to repair. The landlord asked the resident to arrange for repairs to be undertaken urgently. The landlord stated that if the pipe was not repaired by the end of the weekend the landlord would repair and charge the resident. The landlord stated that it had serious concern about the damage being caused by the unrepaired leak.
  10. On 18 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She reiterated that she did not have issues fulfilling her responsibilities, however her issue had been determining the source of the leaks. She advised that she had notified the buildings insurer to begin the required repairs. She requested the complaint be escalated.
  11. On 15 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response. It stated that it considered that the video evidence from the resident’s contractor showed to it that the leak was the resident’s responsibility and upheld its stage one position. It noted it had duties to other tenants to resolve the leak and it therefore had to proceed with the matter while the resident’s complaint was ongoing.
  12. On 5 March 2021 the landlord attended the property and recommended that works be done in the resident’s flat to fix a leak. The works included removing the toilet and reconnecting a pipe in the wall behind it. It estimated that the work would take two days.
  13. On 26 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord stated that it identified in a visit to the flat on 5 March 2021 that the leak was from a pipe that was not its responsibility as freeholder. It stated that the leak was from a pipe that serviced a neighbouring flat exclusively.
  14. On 31 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident stated that she had fully implemented the requirements including investigating the leak and completing the repairs work required by the landlord. The resident made an insurance claim but this did not cover £4,054.13 of the costs which she sought from the landlord. She also sought additional compensation of £10,000 for the impact on her. She noted that there were new tenants in the property who would not be able to stay there for the two days the works required and alternative accommodation would be needed.
  15. On 9 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted its previous advice in its letter of 26 March 2021 that the leaking pipe belonged to the property above and it is the leaseholder of that property who was responsible not the landlord. It stated that the resident was not correct in her letter of 31 March 2021 to state that all work was completed as the pipe was still leaking. It denied any liability for costs not covered by insurance. It noted that the leak was the responsibility of the leaseholder upstairs and the landlord was only involved to avoid further damage to properties below. It offered compensation for a missed appointment on 2 March 2021 and the initial misdiagnosis. It refuted allegations of bullying. It asked the resident to confirm availability for the works to be done and advised if it could not obtain access the next course of action would be to seek an injunction.
  16. Following the intervention of this service the landlord offered the resident compensation of £378 which it stated was for the period 03/12/2020 when the leak was reported to 21/04/2021 when the repair was completed. It stated that this was made up of £210 for distress, £105 for delay, and £63 for time and trouble. The resident rejected this offer. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s position while the complaint was handled through to its second stage response was that the leak was from a pipe that the resident, and not the landlord, was responsible for. However, the landlord has since determined that the leak was in fact from a pipe that was the responsibility of the leaseholder of an adjoining property. The landlord then arranged for the repairs which meant that the toilet in the property was not usable for two days.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that it can sometimes be challenging to identify the cause of a leak. However, in this case it is not clear why the landlord was unable to identify the leak significantly earlier. In its letter to the resident dated 26 March 2021 it recounts that the issue was determined by running the taps, bath and flushing the toilet. Having done this “it was determined that the leak” was not coming from the property. The leak was also identified by asking the neighbour in the adjoining property to flush the toilet and “as soon as she did” water “was gushing out of the broken pipe”. This does not appear to be particularly complex or difficult diagnostics to undertake. It seems to have been quite apparent when the matter was investigated this time that the leaking pipe exclusively served the adjoining property and therefore was the responsibility of the leaseholder of that property. This does not seem to have required extensive investigations.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident provided to the landlord the findings of her contractors, including photographs and a video, that there was a problem with the pipes. The resident expressed a willingness to engage to resolve the issue and the evidence does not demonstrate that she was unreasonably obstructive or hindered the landlord’s ability to investigate the matter. The Ombudsman considers it likely that the landlord had sufficient knowledge and access to the property to determine the true source of the leak as early as December 2020. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there were failings in the landlord’s investigation and diagnosis of the fault.
  4. The Ombudsman also finds that there were failings in the landlord’s communications about the matter. The landlord’s position until 26 March 2021 was to insist that the problem with the pipe was the responsibility of the resident. It was quite blunt and insistent in its communications. In its communication to the resident of 17 December 2020 the landlord stated that the resident was required to fix the problem within 24 hours and indicated that if she did not the water supply may be disconnected. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to take sufficient steps to adequately engage with and consider the information provided by the resident about the source of the leak. At times the landlord was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, unnecessarily combative in tone which was not constructive.
  5. The Ombudsman also considers that in its letters of 26 March 2021 and 9 April 2021 the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings in misdiagnosing the problem and the impact this had on the resident. It referred to its next step being to pursue an injunction due to the need to undertake the repair because of its impact on neighbouring properties. The Ombudsman considers that this was an unhelpful and unconstructive position to take. The delays in the repair were due to the landlord’s misdiagnosis. Further, the resident in her letter of 31 March 2021 clearly stated that she was happy to facilitate access for the repairs but understandably would need to arrange this with her tenants, including arranging for alternative accommodation. That was a reasonable position for the resident to take and there is no indication that injunctive action against the resident would be required.
  6. The landlord has, to an extent, acknowledged that there were failings. It has offered the resident £378 compensation. The key issue for the Ombudsman to determine in this case is whether this is reasonable.
  7. The resident’s position is that the landlord should pay her £4,054.13 for costs incurred that were not covered by her insurance and £10,000 for the impact on her. She has specified in one of her communications to the landlord that the following items were not covered by her insurance claim: The mould that resulted from the leak: £880; Extractor fan transformer: £108.06; Extractor fan: £40; Waterproof membrane £85.98; Anti mould tiles: £18; Agency fee to rent the property: £1740; Council Tax (Period 8th Feb 2021 – 9th March 2021): £99.20; Deposit registration for new tenants: £26.00 • Travel to property to manage leak issue (Period 8th Feb 2021 – 9th March 2021): £106.89; Utilities (Gas, Water, Electric) estimated: £150; Insurance excess: £100; Administration and consultancy fee to collate all documents for the case, complaint and follow-up: 14hrs £700.
  8. 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. 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.
  9. In considering whether the £378 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has also referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £250 and £750 may be appropriate where there has been “considerable” failings by the landlord but no permanent impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has also taken into account the landlord’s Compensation Policy.
  10. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the landlord can reasonably be liable for costs incurred in relation to the tenancy of the property – such as reletting fees. There is no clear evidence that the tenants left as a direct result of the failings of the landlord and the landlord cannot reasonably be held liable for costs relating to the insurance or holding costs of the property. The Ombudsman further notes that the evidence indicates that the bathroom did require works irrespective of the leak and there is a benefit to the resident from the works on the bathroom. The resident has referred to a cost of removing mould that resulted from the leak of £880 that was not covered by insurance. It is not clear why this was not covered by insurance and the Ombudsman notes that no evidence of this cost has been provided. On balance, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that they can reasonably require the landlord to reimburse the resident for this amount.
  11. The Ombudsman is persuaded that the landlord should compensate the resident in recognition of her distress and inconvenience. Whilst the resident was not living in the property herself, it is clear that she has spent considerable time on the matter and has been understandably distressed by the landlord’s failings. This distress occurred over a significant period of time. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s poor communication and sometimes unconstructive tone exacerbated the resident’s distress. Taking that into account, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require that the landlord pay the resident £600 compensation. For the avoidance of doubt this includes, and is not in addition to, the compensation already offered to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the repair of the leak.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman understands that it can sometimes be challenging to identify the cause of a leak. However, in this case it is not clear why the landlord was unable to identify the leak significantly earlier. It does not appear to have required extensive investigation. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to take sufficient steps to adequately engage with and consider the information provided by the resident about the source of the leak. At times the landlord was unnecessarily combative in tone which was not constructive. Whilst the landlord recognised some failings and made an offer of redress, this did not fully recognise the extent and cumulative impact of the failings,

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience within four weeks of the date of this determination. For the avoidance of doubt this includes, and is not in addition to, the compensation already offered to the resident.