Network Homes Limited (202114444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114444

Network Homes Limited

1 April 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 concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of low water pressure and the condition of the water supply to the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident has experienced ongoing issues with low water pressure and the quality of the booster pump installed to alleviate this issue. The landlord repair records state that the issue was first raised in December 2019 and still remained outstanding in February 2021.
4. On 23 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The landlord had failed to resolve the ongoing issue of poor water pressure and the noisy booster pump.
   2. He felt he had been subjected to discrimination from the landlord during their correspondence over the matter.
   3. There was a health and safety issue with the location of the water tank and booster pump, as their location could be accessed by a third party.
5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord install a safer water system and that he was compensated for the inconvenience the matter had caused him.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 February 2021 and sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 March 2021. It explained that the reason for low water pressure at peak times was due to the resident having switched off the booster pump, and that it would raise his request with its repairs team to establish whether it would be possible to install a new booster pump within his property.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint on the grounds that:
   1. He had switched off the pump due to the loud noise it made. The resident provided a video of the pump in operation to the landlord.
   2. The landlord had not addressed the emergency repair by a plumber when he lost his water supply. Nor did the landlord address the elements of the complaint relating to discrimination and the poor service he had experienced.
   3. The location of the water tank and booster pump was not in a safe place, which could result in an unauthorised third party tampering with the building’s water supply.
8. The landlord confirmed on 16 March 2021 that the complaint had been escalated and arranged for a surveyor to visit the property on 7 April 2021 to test the water pressure. A joint visit by the surveyor and contractor was also arranged by the landlord for 9 April 2021 to inspect the water tank and booster pump.
9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2021 to inform it of his dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the surveyor during their visit and to dispute the method used by the surveyor to measure the water pressure.
10. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 April 2021. It informed him that:
    1. It acknowledged the video sent by the resident showing noise from the booster pump. However, when its operative switched on the pump during the 9 April 2021 visit, no noise was detected.
    2. It apologised for not addressing the plumber’s visit the resident in the stage one complaint response.
    3. It spoke to the surveyor about the resident’s comments of the 7 April 2021. The surveyor disputed the resident’s account and without any corroborating evidence the landlord was unable to take any further action.
    4. It accepted that the resident had received a poor standard of service and apologised. It offered the resident £100 compensation for his time and trouble in pursing the matter.
    5. The contractor would attend the property to undertake a full service of the pump. The landlord had also asked the contractor for a quote to install a new pump in the resident’s property. Due to the costs involved (over £3,000), the landlord did not believe that this work was justifiable if the current pump was found to be in working order.
11. The servicing of the pump was undertaken on 21 April 2021. The contractor informed the landlord that it had found that the pump’s blade had become loose. It had replaced the blade and recommended that the entire pump should be replaced.
12. The landlord sent a stage two follow-on complaint response to the resident on 29 April 2021. It informed him of the contractor’s findings. It apologised that the issue was not found sooner in light of the numerous visits and inspections that had previously occurred.
13. The landlord then informed the resident that it had increased its compensation offer to £580 in light of the contractor’s findings and that it would replace the pump with a model type previously suggested by the resident. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised on 22 April 2021 to replace the pump and was marked as completed on 4 May 2021.
14. The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 25 September 2021. The resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the poor service the resident received from the landlord over a 16 month period, and the adverse effect that this had on his health. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested a 25% rent reduction for the time period when the pump had not been working correctly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The resident has accused the landlord of discrimination in its correspondence with him. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord and its staff members were discriminatory in a legal sense in their correspondence with the resident because matters of discrimination, including racism, are legal issues which are better suited for the court to decide. However, the Ombudsman has assessed whether the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable taking into account the correspondence between the landlord and resident and any comments made in this correspondence.
16. In bringing the case to this Service, the resident described medical issues caused by interruptions in the water supply and having to chase the landlord to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
17. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded to this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

18. Following the surveyor’s visit to the property on 7 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it of the poor conduct and rudeness he had experienced from the surveyor. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord stated that the surveyor disputed the resident’s recollections of events and as there was no independent corroborating evidence to show what happened during the inspection, it would not be taking any further action.
19. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the surveyor’s visit. However, as there are conflicting accounts of what happened with no supporting evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman cannot say with any certainty what happened during the 7 April 2021 inspection. This investigation has focused on how the landlord responded to the concerns that were raised by the resident, with reference to the contemporaneous evidence that is available.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an investigation following the resident’s report that the surveyor had been rude and the landlord acted appropriately by speaking to the surveyor about their conduct. The landlord would not be expected to take any further action in relation to this matter without evidence to support the allegations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of low water pressure and the condition of the water supply to the property

21. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there was an unacceptable delay in identifying the problem with the booster pump. The landlord apologised, replaced the pump with a model type suggested by the resident and offered £580 compensation for its failures.
22. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising, acting on the advice of the resident in what model of pump to install as a replacement and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by raising the matter internally with both its repairs team and the contractor to identify any learning opportunities.
24. The compensation payment offered by the landlord was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
25. In this case, it took several months, and multiple emails and telephone calls by the resident until the issue was resolved. During the complaint process, the landlord accepted that in light of the number of visits and inspections of the pump undertaken, it was not acceptable that it took until March 2021 for the issue of the loose blade to be identified, repaired and the decision made to replace the pump. The landlord also recognised that the resident had received a poor level of service during their correspondence over the matter and the significant delays had caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. A payment of £580 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
26. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to his concerns of low water pressure and the condition of the water supply to the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

28. As the determination of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £580 compensation, this should now be paid to the resident if it has not already been paid.