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

Network Homes Limited (202127020)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127020

Network Homes Limited

15 July 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 request for the communal intercom camera to be repaired.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 13 November 2000. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is a ground floor sheltered housing flat in a block of similar properties. The block has a camera at the front of the building, which in conjunction with the intercom system, allows a resident to see who is at the front door via their television.
  3. On 30 August 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the camera was not working. The landlord sent its contractor (Contractor A) to investigate the issue on 21 September 2021. Contractor A reported that the camera required a “dedicated PSU and cannot be fed off of the current panel supply.” On 6 October 2021, it provided a quote to “supply and install…a new camera, PSU, cabling, and containment.” The landlord had also arranged for another contractor (Contractor B) to upgrade the landlord’s warden call system. On 19 October 2021, the landlord asked Contractor B to also provide a for the new door camera system. Contractor B provided a new quote and gave a revised start date of 22 November 2021 for both works to commence. It advised the landlord of a two to three week timeframe to complete the works and that it would need to install the warden call system prior to the camera system.
  4. On 26 October 2021 the resident reported that the front door of the building had been stuck open for some time and had the camera been working this would have been identified sooner. He also queried why the landlord had not informed the residents how to reset the door. The landlord replied on 1 November 2021 and advised that the door was now working, and that it was happy to put up a notice advising residents of how to reset the door in case it happened again. The landlord also advised that its contractor was awaiting parts from overseas and would begin work on the camera as soon as these were received.
  5. The resident replied on 2 November 2021 and advised that her considered that the camera should have been repaired within two to three days, given that this was the only way for residents to see who was at the front door. The landlord registered the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint on 4 November 2021.
  6. In its stage one complaint response on 22 November 2021, the landlord provided the timeline for the works. It acknowledged there had been a delay in “providing a resolution to these works” and a communication failure. It advised that its senior management had been made aware of the issues and that it would learn from them. It apologised for any distress this had caused the resident. It also confirmed that the front door of the building had been inspected by contractors on 6 November 2021 and found to be working OK.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint as he considered that having no camera was a security issue. He advised that the landlord should have completed interim works to ensure the camera was working such as installing an adapter to connect the old camera, instead of, or in addition to, replacing the camera.
  8. In its stage two complaint response on 9 December 2021, the landlord said that it was not “persuaded that not being able to view people wishing to enter the property on your television is a specific security risk as this fault did not automatically allow people into the building or into individual properties.” It again acknowledged there had been a delay in the works commencing, but advised the works had now been completed.
  9. The resident contacted this service as he was unhappy with the timeframe for completing the work and felt the landlord should provide a written apology for not having completed the work within two to three days. The resident also considered that the landlord should write to all its sheltered housing residents to confirm that, in future, any repairs related to video intercoms and security systems would be actioned urgently.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as either emergency repairs or routine repairs. It’s repairs policy states that “emergency repairs are broadly defined as: where there is an immediate danger to life or limb, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, heating or hot water failure in winter, or the property is not secure. Depending on the time of day that the emergency is reported and the scale and disruption of the fault the starting position is that the repair will be made safe if attendance is necessary today and a full repair carried out the following working day (wherever practical) with an agreed appointment time”.
  2. It defines routine repairs as “all repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility which are not emergencies. All routine repairs are expected to be completed at the next available mutually convenient appointment and in all cases within 15 working days.” It says it expects its contractors to “organise their 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.”
  3. The landlord has not provided this service with its repairs records, however, it is not disputed that the resident initially reported that the camera was now working on 30 August 2021. Based on the evidence provided to this service, there is no indication that the intercom function was affected. As noted in the landlord’s formal responses, there is also no indication that the issue with the camera allowed unauthorised access to the building. The building therefore remained secure. In the Ombudsman’s experience, while there is utility in having an intercom system with a camera, there are many properties which do not have access to this functionality, and these would not be considered unsafe. While it was inconvenient that the resident was unable to view persons pushing the intercom button, it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider this an urgent repair.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that a landlord also has a responsibility to manage its funds effectively and obtain the best value for money when it is reasonable to do so. Given that Contractor B was already completing works at the site, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek a quote from Contractor B in order to save costs over the stand alone quote from Contractor A. Given that the loss of the camera, while frustrating, did not have a significant impact on residents, it was also reasonable that the landlord did not incur additional costs by installing an “adaptor” as an interim solution, as suggested by the resident.
  5. While the landlord’s repairs policy notes that routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days, the Ombudsman notes that reasonable delays can extend works beyond this timeframe. In such instances, however, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide updates to residents to explain why works are delayed, and to give a new indicative timeframe for completion. While it was reasonable for the landlord to have chosen the most cost effective quote, this had the effect of delaying the works to the camera beyond the 15 day time period. It is not evident, however, that the landlord communicated this delay to the residents at this time. The landlord did communicate this delay in its stage one response, however, this was after the resident had expended time and trouble in pursuing a complaint.
  6. Additionally, while a further reasonable delay was caused by the contractor needing to order in special parts, once again, it is not evident that the landlord communicated this to residents and this information was not included in the landlords stage one response. This would have caused frustration for the resident.
  7. Regarding the resident’s reports of the door being stuck open, following the reports, the landlord acted appropriately by checking if the door was working, arranging for its contractor to inspect the door, all within an appropriate timeframe. It also agreed to put up a notice advising residents how to reset the door if the problem recurred.
  8. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay was frustrating for the resident and offered an apology. It also provided an indicative timeframe for the works to be completed. It appropriately repeated this apology in its stage two response and its explanation regarding its position on the lack of the camera not posing a security threat was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. In summary, while the landlord’s response to the reports of the stuck door were reasonable, and its delays to the works beyond the targeted timeframes of the landlord’s repair policy were reasonable in the circumstances, prior to its formal complaint response, the landlord failed to provide reasonable communication regarding the delay to residents. This would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and led to his time and trouble in chasing up the repairs. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances. Given that the loss of the camera function did not have a significant impact on the resident, and that the landlord subsequently apologised and provided an updated timeframe in its stage one response, an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect this service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the communal intercom camera to be repaired.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide reasonable updates regarding delays to the replacement of the intercom camera.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.