Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Network Homes Limited (202004188)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004188

Network Homes Limited

16 April 2021


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:

a)     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the windows of her property.

b)     The impact of window repair delays on the resident and her children’s health.

c)     Historic window repair issues.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Health impact

  1. The resident has complained about the impact that the delay in the landlord carrying out window repairs had on her and her children’s health.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.
  3. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a legal matter, and the resident should consider seeking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, this investigation has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Historic repairs

  1. Additionally, the resident has complained that she first reported problems with the windows in 2018.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  3. There is no evidence of the resident asking to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her window until October 2019. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the resident’s more recent reports in 2019.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 20 August 2019, the landlord raised a repair for the windows of the property. It was reported that the window in the resident’s child’s bedroom, and four other windows in three of the bedrooms were not closing. The repair was marked as completed on 20 August 2019. However, a repair note by the landlord’s contractors, dated 17 October 2019, says that the job was closed as ‘inspection only’, because the necessary parts for the windows were no longer available. Because of that, the contractor recommended to the landlord that all the windows be replaced.
  2. In the landlord’s internal correspondence of 21 October 2019, it confirmed that, “if the window could not be shut”, it could raise a repair to get them closed temporarily. It is not apparent from the evidence whether this was acted on.
  3. On 30 October 2019, the landlord internally asked for an update on the repair, noting that the resident had raised a complaint. The landlord’s (undated) note of the telephone complaint states that the resident said she felt like she was being ignored, and that “it feels as if the windows are open”. The resident said that she had been ill for three weeks, which she attributed to the problems with the windows.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response, dated 12 November 2019, it said that its contractor attended the property on 30 August 2019 and identified that several repairs were required to the windows; however, the contractor was unable to obtain the parts needed. The contractor gave a quote on 30 September 2019 for the windows to be replaced. The landlord rejected the quote (because of the high cost) and sought a second opinion from its suppliers, in the hope that the replacement might not be necessary. The landlord said that its contractor would attend on 27 November 2019 to carry out a repair which it hoped would resolve the problem but, if this proved to not be successful, it would review the replacement quote.
  5. The landlord concluded that the time taken to carry out repairs to the windows fell below its recommended and expected time scales. It said that delays were caused by a lack of communication, and internal discussions, meaning the resident had to “chase” for updates. The landlord apologised, and offered to compensate the resident with £130 for the inconvenience she had experienced.
  6. On 22 November 2019 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that the landlord had not acknowledged how unsafe the issue was and how long she had been waiting for a resolution. She was unhappy that she was often calling for an update after the contractors had measured for new windows, and had been promised calls which then were not received. The resident said that the landlord’s contractors told her the windows did need replacing, as the mechanism did not work and the parts were not available, and she had already had an unsuccessful repair in her child’s bedroom. She said that she felt that the landlord repairing them would be a waste of time and resources. The resident said that she was not consulted about the appointment for 27 November 2019, which would not be convenient.
  7. The landlord asked the resident, on 11 December 2019, what date would be convenient for its contractors to attempt to “work on/inspect the windows”. It explained that it was not yet sure of the result of its enquiries, which were made to ascertain whether replacement parts could be obtained to enable the window tilt/turn mechanism to work.
  8. On 11 December 2019 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s proposal to fix the tilt mechanism, which she described as a temporary solution, instead of replacing the windows. She said that she was unable to close her bedroom windows, and that this was particularly important because she had children. The landlord replied on 12 December 2019 that it would update the resident by the next week.
  9. On 20 December 2019, the landlord apologised for its delay in updating the resident, and said that it was arranging for one of its own surveyors to assess whether the windows needed replacing.
  10. The landlord sent an interim complaint response to the resident on 24 December 2019. It confirmed that its senior surveyor would inspect the windows on 2 January 2020.
  11. On 3 January 2020, following the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that it had been able to identify a supplier for the parts required for the windows to work once again. The landlord advised that it had raised a repair for the bedroom windows, and it would contact the resident to make the necessary appointments.
  12. On 6 January 2020 the resident asked the landlord to send her its final complaint response because there had been no progress in the repairs since September 2019.
  13. On 9 January 2020 the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It reiterated that it found a supplier who could supply the parts required to enable the tilt and turn aspects of the windows to work once again. The landlord said that it would progress the repair as a priority, and reiterated its compensation offer of £130. It explained that the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  14. The landlord continued to experience issues obtaining the necessary parts and, on 9 and 25 February 2020, the resident requested an update.
  15. The landlord has advised this Service that it completed the window repairs on 10 March 2020. 

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the windows in the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults with her windows, and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs urgency under the following:

a)     Emergency repairs (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) are to be attended to and made safe within four hours.

b)     Routine repairs (not emergencies) are expected to be completed at the next available mutually convenient appointment, where possible within five working days, and in all cases within 15 working days.

  1. The resident reported the problem with her windows on 20 August 2019. Generally, in line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have completed the repair within 15 days. On occasions there will be circumstances that may mean a repair may not be able to be completed within the designated timeframe. This is often where repairs are complex and further investigation or work is required. It is also appropriate for a landlord to take steps to make the most of its assets and avoid unnecessary costs, such as in this case where it sought to repair instead of replacing the windows. In such cases, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, provide new timeframes for the repair, and keep them updated. However, in this case, there is no meaningful evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated, specifically between August and November 2020.
  2. There is also no evidence of any specific action taken to address the window problem between August and October 2019, even on a temporary basis, despite the landlord’s internal correspondence raising that as a possibility. Given that winter was approaching, and the nature of the problem was one that would potentially exacerbate the impact of any inclement weather on the resident and her family, this apparent lack of urgency was not reasonable.
  3. The evidence shows that once the resident raised her complaint in October 2019 the landlord took reasonable actions to arrange the repairs and resolve the repairs. It still took a significant amount of time, but that was more reflective of the scale and nature of the problem rather than poor service. Nonetheless, there was service failure in its communication with the resident and lack of repair action between August and October/November 2019.
  4. In identifying that there has been a failure in service, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  5. In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that the resident had had to chase information and updates, and that the time taken to resolve the window problem had been too long. It apologised, and offered £130 compensation. However, the landlord did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of malfunctioning windows in winter, or consider whether it could have provided temporary solutions while it continued to seek a cost-effective outcome. This is despite the resident explaining on several occasions the impact the window problem was having on her family and home. This omission means that the landlord did not satisfactorily remedy the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the service failure found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £200.
  2. This payment is in addition to the £130 the landlord offered during its complaints process, which it should also now pay, if it has not already done so. This payment should be made within four weeks of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s repair actions in the first half of the period considered in this investigation failed to address the window problem, and it failed to communicate with and update the resident. The landlord acknowledged and remedied some of its failings, but not all of them.