Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Network Homes Limited (202119908)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119908

Network Homes Limited

29 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of compensation offered for a missed appointment.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident first reported a missed appointment to the landlord on 12 August 2021. She explained that she had an appointment for 12 August for a contractor to repaint her kitchen ceiling following the renewal of an extractor fan. However, she said that when she phoned the landlord that day, it informed her that no one could attend as the contractor called in sick and there were no other available operatives. The resident said that the landlord offered her an appointment for 16 August, but the date was not suitable and so it was scheduled for 22 September. The resident stated that she had wasted a day and she believed that the missed appointment without prior notice qualified for compensation.
  3. In response to the resident’s report, the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2021 to inform her that it brought forward the appointment to 26 August. It apologised that its operative was unable to attend the appointment but said that the correct process was followed as she was made aware. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £10 for the missed appointment. However, she rejected its offer. She questioned the suitability of its offer and disagreed that the standard procedure was followed, because she was not informed in advance.
  4. The landlord issued its complaint response in late August 2021. It recalled the events leading up to the repair and the rescheduling of the missed appointment. It said that when the resident raised her complaint, it expedited her appointment to 26 August 2021. It confirmed that an operative had attended that day and completed the decorative works (repainting) to the resident’s kitchen ceiling. The landlord said that the level of service had “fallen short” of the standard it expected contractors acting on its behalf to deliver. It apologised for the inconvenience caused for the missed appointment and maintained its previous offer of £10. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had rejected its offer and that she felt it should be more. However, it advised that it was unable to see that a delay had occurred in a repair being carried out considering that it endeavoured to try and offer an earlier date of attendance.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated, as she disputed the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said that the compensation should be “at least £75 for the loss of earnings having taken one day of [her] holidays to stay at home for the operative who never turned up”. The landlord issued its final complaint response in September 2021 and explained that it did not compensate for the loss or potential loss of earnings. It advised that it had reviewed its offer of £10 and confirmed that it was in line with its compensation policy for a missed appointment; it did not believe it was appropriate to increase the offer. The landlord explained how the resident could raise her complaint with this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that a remedy for a justified complaint is action taken that aims to put the resident back in the position they would have been in. The policy aims to take a fair and consistent approach and to offer similar remedies for similar complaints. It advises that each case would be considered on its own merits and in light of the particular circumstances. The compensation policy determines the levels of compensation by the particular facts of the case, including the amount of time the resident had to wait for a decision and the nature of the injustice. The policy states that where it has booked an appointment with the resident and failed to turn up without providing adequate notice of the cancellation, it would consider awarding £10 in compensation.   

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of compensation offered for a missed appointment

  1. The resident raised concern over the level of compensation the landlord offered following a missed appointment on 12 August 2021. She believed that the missed appointment without prior notice qualified for more than £10 and requested £75 for the inconvenience. The landlord said that it had missed the appointment to repaint her kitchen ceiling due to (unexpected) operative sickness. It acknowledged that its level of service had “fallen short” of the standard it expected contractors acting on its behalf to deliver. It said that it was unable to see that a delay had occurred in a repair being carried out, as it endeavoured to offer an alternative date of attendance. Email correspondence between the resident and the landlord showed that alternative dates were offered and the works were scheduled and completed on 26 August 2021.
  2. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have informed the resident in advance of the missed appointment. However, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused and by providing a clear explanation for the missed appointment. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an alternative appointment date, and to expedite the date with an earlier option when the resident raised her concern. The landlord offered £10 for the missed appointment. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  3. The resident said that she believed the compensation should be at least £75 for loss of earnings. The landlord explained that it dd not compensate for loss of earnings and therefore it did not believe it was appropriate to increase the offer. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable because its compensation policy advises that it “will not pay for loss of earnings”. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance supports that position, because while works would inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their tenancy agreements require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and on occasion appointments will be missed for reasons outside a landlord’s control, such as in this case. Furthermore, a request for actual lost earnings would require an assessment of liability and a claim to the courts, and therefore it would be outside the complaint procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the missed appointment caused inconvenience to the resident as she was not notified in advance. Nonetheless, the landlord apologised and rescheduled the appointment within a reasonable timeframe and the works were completed on 26 August 2021. Ultimately, the compensation awarded for the missed appointment was in line with the landlord’s policy, and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

Determination

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