Sovereign Network Homes (202216523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216523

Network Homes Limited

10 July 2023

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 repairs to the resident’s driveway.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. The resident has stated that both she and her daughter have mobility issues. The landlord was aware of her daughter’s vulnerabilities at the time of the complaint.
4. The resident reported that her driveway was badly damaged on 25 May 2022. The landlord’s contractors attended on 30 May 2022, to assess the driveway. It recommended that 42sqm of the concrete needed to be renewed.
5. The contractor attended on 30 August 2022, and began to rip out the old concrete. The works were paused on 2 September 2022, as the contractors were contacted by the landlord’s surveyor. The surveyor stated that the works had not been approved, and that the landlord was not responsible for maintaining the driveway. The surveyor attended on 5 September 2022, to assess the half-finished works. It concluded that the driveway needed to be repaired, as it could not be left in the current condition.
6. The resident made a complaint on 9 September 2022. She stated that the landlord had agreed to undertake repairs to her driveway, and explained that she had contacted it several times throughout June 2022 and August 2022, to confirm the works would proceed. She was unhappy that the works had been stopped halfway through and that there were now delays in getting them completed.
7. The resident also stated that both herself and her daughter had mobility issues, and were struggling without a functioning driveway. The contractors re-attended on 20 and 22 September 2022, to carry out repairs and to make the area safe. However, during these visits, the resident declined the repair works as she wanted the driveway to be renewed instead.
8. The landlord provided its formal response on 22 September 2022. It explained that the driveway was the resident’s responsibility to maintain, and that works should not have been raised. It acknowledged that this was not made clear to the resident at the start of her tenancy, and recognised that it needed to repair and make good the works that it had started. The landlord stated that it would repair the driveway in the interim, and source quotes on a full renewal. However, it explained that it was only obligated to put the drive back to how it was, and that a full renewal was dependent on costs. The landlord assured the resident that it would learn from this situation, and inform future resident’s of their repair obligations at the start of their tenancies. It offered £457 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the delay to resolve the issue, and the inconvenience caused.
9. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 September 2022. She stated that she wanted confirmation that the driveway would be replaced, and would not allow any repairs to be completed in the interim. The resident also stated that the landlord had failed to consider the impact on both her mental and physical health by this issue, and requested to be further compensated.
10. The landlord responded on 27 October 2022. It explained that it was gathering quotes and apologised that the repair was progressing slowly. It stated that it would continue to manage the repair, with an aim to get the works authorised by 4 November 2022. The landlord offered a further £225 (total of £682) in compensation, in acknowledgement of the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It promised to review the resident’s compensation amount once the works were completed.
11. The landlord attended the property on 18 November 2022, and began the works to renew the driveway. These were delayed by poor weather, but were completed on 28 November 2022. The landlord sent a review of its compensation amount to the resident on 15 November 2022, offering a further £200 (total £882).
12. In her complaint to this service, the resident has stated that the landlord has not fully acknowledged the impact of this case on her health and wellbeing. She would like to be further compensated.

Assessment

13. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, it states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, which includes fittings and fixtures that have been provided by the landlord. Any items not provided by the landlord are the resident’s responsibility. The repairs policy also states that the landlord is responsible for pathways, steps and other means of access to the property.
14. The agreement does not explicitly list the driveway as the resident’s responsibility, yet according to the landlord’s repairs policy, items left by the previous tenants are gifted to the next residents. The resident would then be responsible for repairing any items gifted, or not provided by the landlord. The landlord has explained that the driveway was gifted to the resident on her acceptance of her tenancy, and therefore it was not responsible for maintaining or replacing it.
15. It is not disputed that the landlord did not inform the resident about its position regarding the driveway upon the resident moving into the property. The issue of the ongoing repair responsibility for the driveway is, however, outside of the scope of this investigation.
16. Having commenced with works, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that they would be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has noted its contractors commenced with the works without approval from the landlord itself; however, as the contractors were acting on behalf of the landlord, the landlord is still expected to ensure any expectations raised were met.
17. Given that there was confusion over the approval of the works and who was responsible, it was reasonable for the landlord to pause the works and clarify the situation.
18. Given that it concluded the works were left in a state that was not safe, it was appropriate that it determined it should carry out necessary repairs to ensure the driveway was safe. The Ombudsman notes that the resident declined some of these works as she wished for a full renewal to take place. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord initially sought to carry out works to make the driveway safe, especially in consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household, while it continued to consider its obligations and any further works.
19. Given the uncertainty around the information provided to the resident about the repair obligations for the driveway, it was appropriate that the landlord sought to obtain quotes for the renewal of the driveway. It began sourcing quotes in September 2022, and eventually found a sub-contractor to undertake the works in November 2022. It commenced works on 18 November 2022. The landlord has explained that as it does not typically replace driveways, it did not have a system already in place and needed to source a new sub-contractor to undertake the works. As a social housing provider, the landlord needs to source costs responsibly, to balance the needs of its residents. It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake research to find the most cost-effective quote for the works. While these works took a length of time that would have caused frustration for the resident, it is not evident that the landlord unduly delayed these works, and so in the circumstances this timeframe was reasonable.
20. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it aims to complete planned repair works within 90 days. It defines such works as larger repairs which take longer to arrange, or where the landlord needs to use specialist contractors, carry out surveys or do more investigation. The landlord took responsibility for maintaining the drive in September 2022, completing the works two and a half months later in November 2022, this was within the timescales stated above.
21. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses by acknowledging that it should not have commenced the works, as well as the inconvenience caused when it ceased them halfway through. It also acknowledged that it should have informed the resident that she was responsible for the driveway at the start of her tenancy. The landlord demonstrated it had learnt from this case and stated that it would explain this to future residents at the commencement of their tenancies. It also stated that it would endeavour to consider repair obligations, before raising repairs.
22. The landlord consulted its compensation policy, taking into account the length of time the works were initially outstanding. It then assessed the delays in replacing the driveway, after the works had commenced. It considered the resident’s mobility issues and raised the daily compensation amount to correspond with its high impact compensation rates. At the end of its complaint procedure, it offered the resident a total of £682 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the half finished works, as the resident could not use her drive while the works were half completed.
23. As the complaint procedure was completed before the works were finished, the landlord appropriately assured the resident that it would review its compensation offer once the works had been arranged. It offered another £200 (in total £882) to the resident on 15 November 2022, for the distress caused by the delay in having a functioning driveway.
24. In summary, the landlord has acknowledged its initial errors and apologised to the resident. Its compensation offer fully considered the impact on the resident, and it has worked to find a solution to the issue. As the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations that it would carry out these works, it was reasonable that it sought to complete them having commenced them. It also offered to undertake interim works which would have allowed the resident to use her driveway while waiting for the full works to be completed.
25. Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered suitable redress in this matter.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should reiterate its offer of compensation if this is yet to be accepted.