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

Network Homes Limited (202103435)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103435

Network Homes Limited

1 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with her flooring.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The property is a new build which the resident moved into in August 2020.
  2. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported that the laminate flooring in her hall and kitchen dipped slightly, and this was only noticeable when you walked on it. The building developer attended in October 2020. According to the resident they said the flooring needed to be changed. In November 2020, a different contractor attended. According to the resident they said there was no issue. The landlord said it would attend alongside the developer to review both findings. It is understood that when the landlord attended, it agreed that there was an issue. The landlord advised the resident in January 2021 that the developer had rejected the claim that there was a dip in the flooring. It said NHBC would give them an opportunity to carry out the work, and if they rejected it again, they would investigate and decide whether there has been a breach of standards. NHBC attended in April 2021 and reported that no action was required by the developer.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in late 2020 about its handling of her above concerns. In its final response, it said it would attend to investigate further, and closely monitor the work. It also offered £250 compensation for her time and trouble chasing the matter, and for the multiple appointments with no concrete resolution.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence this Service, she referred to her dissatisfaction with NHBC and their investigation. She also mentioned events which took place following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns with NHBC. However, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we can only look at complaints which concern the actions or omissions of member landlords. As such, our assessment will only be based on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, and not those of the NHBC as we do not have jurisdiction over them.
  2. The resident has also referred to matters and correspondence with the landlord which occurred following the completion of its complaints procedure. In line with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme these issues will not be considered in this investigation. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate any new concerns before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise them with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.

Handling of flooring concerns

  1. The landlord’s website explains that new build properties normally come with a guarantee from a building warranty provider (like NHBC). The guarantee covers faulty material and workmanship related to the building’s structure. The building contractor has a responsibility to rectify any defects within the first 12 months of the building being completed. If residents are dissatisfied with the contractor, they can report the matter to the NHBC.
  2. In accordance with the resident’s lease, she is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair. The landlord is responsible for the repair of the structural parts of the building (the roof, foundations, joints, and external walls). The landlord’s repairs policy clarifies that leaseholders are responsible for repairs to floors, including floorboards and floor coverings.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £5 per week for the resident’s time and trouble depending on the level of impact. Factors that the landlord may consider when assessing the level of impact are the time and effort required from the resident, and the length of time it took to deal with an issue.
  4. When the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the floor dipping in two areas it arranged for the building contractor to attend and inspect in October 2020. A different contractor attended in November 2020, and the landlord visited itself in December 2020 as a result of the conflicting reports. The landlord agreed that there was an issue with the flooring, and advised the resident that it had referred the matter to the NHBC. It is unclear when, but it is apparent that the resident also reported that there were small holes in one section of the flooring. NHBC also investigated this matter.
  5. Evidence of the resident’s stage one complaint has not been provided for this investigation. Nevertheless, in her stage two complaint she set out that she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not confirmed whether, or when her flooring would be resolved. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord explained what steps it had taken in response to her concerns. It said it would reattend to inspect, and closely monitor the work.
  6. The landlord also offered the resident £250 compensation for her time and trouble chasing the matter, and for there being multiple appointments with no concrete resolution. There were just over 20 weeks from when the resident first raised her concerns with the dipped floor (In August 2020) until the landlord’s stage two complaint response (In January 2021). As such, its offer exceeded what its compensation policy deemed as suitable for when there had been the highest level of impact on the resident (£5 per week). Its offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (found on our website). The guidance indicates that offers in the region of £50-£250 are suitable when the resident had experienced some impact (including distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved) which has not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  7. Whilst it is understandable that it would have been frustrating for the resident to have multiple appointments, with no final resolution offered, the landlord itself was not responsible for resolving the issue with flooring. This is because the property was a new build still within its defects period, and the landlord is not responsible for repairs to the flooring as explained above. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable when considering it had taken steps to address the issue, liaised with the correct parties, and acknowledged its own involvement in the delays and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, and the inconvenience caused of not being offered a final resolution was reasonable. It exceeded what its compensation policy deemed suitable, and the landlord itself did not have any obligations in terms of carrying out the work. Nonetheless, it informed and liaised with the correct parties.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £250 previously offered as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.