Sovereign Network Homes (202125306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125306

Network Homes Limited

13 June 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 the resident’s reports of issues with condensation affecting her windows and the basement in the property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord in December 2020. The property is a ground floor flat with a basement. The tenancy agreement shows that there is one other occupant of the property. The complaint was raised by the resident and her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as “the resident”.
3. On 9 February 2021, the resident initially reported that the seals to the window in her living room had blown which was causing a lot of condensation. The resident also reported that the flooring in her basement was uneven and that there was a hole in the basement wall on 10 February 2021. She also advised that dirt had been left in the basement following previous jobs.
4. An operative attended on 12 February 2021 and advised that 5 double glazed units needed to be replaced due to condensation between the panes in the resident’s living room. They noted that the resident had also asked for her kitchen window to be looked at as there was no ventilation, and the window was fixed shut with no openers.
5. On 8 March 2021, an operative attended to inspect the basement. The job notes show that the resident had advised that she wanted the basement cleared and the floor levelled. The operative determined that this work would need to be agreed by the landlord as it would be approximately 3 days work for two operatives.
6. The resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 12 April 2021 as the repair issues were yet to be resolved. She said that she had contacted the landlord multiple times about the extreme level of condensation in multiple rooms of the property. She advised that her kitchen window had been painted shut and she was still awaiting a date for 5 windows to be replaced. She advised that work had been undertaken in her basement, but piles of dirt had been left and the basement was unusable. An operative had said that a lot of work was needed but she had not been provided with dates for the work. She advised that both herself and the other occupant of the property suffered with health problems that were exacerbated by the issues within the property.
7. The landlord’s internal records show that it raised an order for the replacement of the 5 window units on 24 April 2021.
8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 April 2021 and explained the following:
   1. In relation to the windows, it noted that an operative had recommended that the double glazed units were replaced on 12 February 2021 as there was condensation between the panes and they had reported the kitchen window was sealed shut. A quote was provided but this was not passed on to be reviewed until 23 April 2021. It admitted that the delay was unacceptable for which it apologised. It confirmed that contractors were now looking to complete the work as soon as possible. It expected to receive the glass for the windows within two weeks and the contractors would contact the resident to arrange the replacement.
   2. In relation to the basement, it advised that an operative attended on 8 March 2021 to clear out the rubbish and level the floor. They advised that further works were needed and had emailed the landlord on 9 March 2021 to survey for additional works. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 28 April 2021. It advised that it had no record of receiving the email from the contractors at an earlier date and the administrative error had caused a delay, for which it apologised.
   3. It acknowledged that the resident had made contact on 6 April 2021 as she believed that the ceiling in the basement was getting lower and would collapse. An emergency repair order was raised, and an operative attended on 7 April 2021. They advised that the ceiling was in a safe condition but that the condition of the basement was inadequate. They observed that there was a hole in the wall and the ceiling had not been skimmed after plasterboard was fixed previously. There was also rubbish and rubble remaining which needed clearing. It acknowledged that the emergency appointment was attended outside of its expected timescales and would be treated as a missed appointment.
   4. It apologised that the outstanding works had been unnecessarily delayed and handled poorly by its contractors. It confirmed it would provide feedback to its contractors to prevent similar instances in the future. it confirmed that its contractor had begun to monitor subcontracted work daily to improve the service provided.
   5. It acknowledged that the resident had said that she suffered from health conditions that could be impacted by the circumstances. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress this caused. It confirmed that it would oversee the works moving forward to ensure they were completed. In view of the time taken to resolve the issues and the inconvenience caused, it offered £263 compensation which it said was in line with its compensation policy.
9. The landlord’s records confirm that the survey took place on 28 April 2021. The resident contacted the landlord to report that water was coming through her bedroom window when it rained on 25 June 2021. On 28 June 2021, the 5 window units to the resident’s living room bay windows were replaced. An operative attended on 12 July 2021 to inspect the bedroom windows. They found no signs of water coming through the window or water damage to the walls around the window. The resident advised that there was condensation between the panes and the operative said that a window contractor would be needed to assess the windowpanes.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 July 2021 to ask that her complaint was escalated. The landlord received the letter on 4 August 2021. She advised that very little had been done since the landlord’s initial response and she had been waiting months for her windows to be replaced and the basement to be made fit for use. She noted that the window in her living room had been replaced but that the operative had asked her to sign for 5 windows. She felt vulnerable at the time as she was on her own and signed. She was dissatisfied that multiple operatives had attended the property but work had not been carried out. She advised that mould had now begun to spread from the basement to other rooms of the property. She asked that the repairs were completed so that she could settle into the property.
11. The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 24 August 2021 to report that water was coming through the wall in the basement and that there was a large crack. A repair order was raised to investigate mould and water ingress. The records show that the resident had also reported that there was still rubbish in the basement.
12. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 27 August 2021 and explained the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident had raised specific concerns that the living room window had been replaced but that she was expecting 5 windows to be replaced, and that works to the basement had not been completed which was causing mould to appear in other rooms of the property.
    2. In relation to the windows, the landlord acknowledged the initial delay in reviewing a quote for the living room windows and they were not fitted until 28 June 2021. It noted that the process took over four months which was outside of its expected timescales. In addition, it could not find evidence to suggest that the resident had been kept updated.
    3. It acknowledged that the kitchen window was reported as needing attention following the initial inspection but that no work orders had been raised and the matter had not progressed. It noted that while it did not form part of her initial complaint, the resident had also reported issues with her bedroom window. The glazing contractor had now submitted a quote for both the kitchen and bedroom window replacements. This quote was being reviewed and it had asked that the resident was kept updated with a timescale for the work to be completed.
    4. It explained that the initial work order for the replacement of the 5 windows specifically related to the living room bay windows and there was no intention to replace other windows in the property as part of the work order. It apologised for the confusion caused and advised that it would not be its or its contractor’s intention to make the resident feel uncomfortable. It acknowledged that the other windows could have been checked while operatives were initially on site. It apologised that the work had not yet been completed and for the inconvenience caused by its failure to keep the resident informed and the extended delay in completing the works and raising the correct work orders.
    5. In relation to the basement, following the inspection on 28 April 2021, an emergency work order was raised and the plasterboard, which was hanging down, was made safe on 30 April 2021. The operative noted that further works were needed to skim the plasterboard and remove rubbish, meaning a further appointment was needed. Before this was completed, the resident had reported on 13 May 2021 that the plasterboard was bubbling. Contractors attended on the same day and established that there was a roof leak which needed to be addressed by roofing contractors. The roofing contractors attended on 10 June 2021 to clear debris from the roof and apply sealant. Its contractor then attended on 9 July 2021 to skim the plasterboard and remove rubbish.
    6. It said that separately, the resident had reported cracks in the external brickwork between the roof and the floor of the extension and a new job was raised on 27 April 2021. The contractors initially attended on 16 June 2021 and 27 July 2021 and carried out some rendering work. The remainder of the work was above the height for safe working and a tower needed to be placed. The plastic being used had come way from the wall and was reattached on 29 July 2021. It confirmed that the remainder of the works had now been booked for 31 August 2021.
    7. It noted that the resident had also reported water coming through a crack in the basement wall and that there was still rubbish in the basement despite this being reported as removed some time previously. It confirmed that it had raised a new job and contractors would be attending on 8 September 2021.
    8. It acknowledged that the work to deal with the rendering and the basement had been ongoing for several months which meant that the resident experienced the inconvenience of needing to wait and chase for updates. It apologised that the repairs were not correctly overseen and that there were unnecessary delays.
    9. It outlined the work orders that remained outstanding. It confirmed that it was awaiting a date for the bedroom and kitchen windows. The external rendering had been booked to be completed on 31 August 2021 and the work to fill the hole in the basement wall and clear rubbish would take place on 8 September 2021. It confirmed that any external works would be weather dependent.
    10. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced ongoing issues with the exterior, windows and basement since moving into the property; each job had continued beyond its expected timescales due to the lead times for works and a lack of oversight on its part. It acknowledged that the repairs could have been completed at an earlier date. In view of the inconvenience caused to the resident, it increased its offer of compensation to £800.
13. The landlord’s records show that work to render the external wall of the kitchen was completed on 31 August 2021.
14. An operative attended on 2 September 2021 to inspect the property. They identified that the kitchen window needed to be replaced and that the bedroom window needed to be removed and reinstated. They also noted that there were no leaks coming from the window but that there was condensation. The landlord has advised this Service that the appointment scheduled for 8 September 2021 to carry out works in the basement did not go ahead due to the contractor being ill.
15. On 1 October 2021, an operative attended to inspect the basement, they reported no cracks but issues with mould and damp. This was coming up from the basement and affecting the carpet and furniture in the bedroom. They reported that no rubbish had been left in the basement.
16. The landlord instructed a damp surveyor to inspect the property on 19 October 2021. The inspection took place on 4 November 2021 and identified high moisture readings on several walls and visual dampness indicating a lack of effective damp proof course. The report also advised that there was mould growth and damp at a high level around windows due to condensation. It noted that some dampness was acceptable in the basement as this was not considered a livable space but recommended works to waterproof the basement due to evident dampness.
17. The landlord’s records note that the windows in the resident’s bedroom and kitchen were replaced on 11 November 2021.
18. The landlord received the report from the damp surveyor on 18 November 2021. It has advised this Service that works recommended within the report were completed by 18 January 2022. This included work to install a vent in the kitchen, wash down surfaces with fungicidal solution, hack off the wall render and plaster, inject a chemical damp proof course into the brickwork, carry out rendering and implementing waterproof barrier protection.
19. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in February 2022. She advised that the property suffered from condensation and that her furniture, clothing, and carpets had been damaged by mould. She advised that she was unable to store items in the basement due to mould and that the issues had affected her lungs. She advised that the basement issues were unresolved and that the window had been replaced but the handles were falling off and the condensation was still an issue. She wanted works completed to a good standard in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

20. The resident has advised that the issues within the property have had a negative impact on her health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as these matters are best suited to be dealt with under a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
21. In her communication with this Service, the resident also raised concerns about her window handles falling off following the window replacement and damage to her personal belongings because of ongoing damp and mould. As these are separate issues to the matters raised within the resident’s complaint to the landlord, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with condensation affecting her windows and the basement in the property.

22. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that this includes windows, internal walls, ceilings, flooring, and plasterwork. The policy confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within four hours and made safe. Routine repairs should be completed within 15 working days. Planned repairs are larger repairs which may take additional time to complete, this would involve works to windows. The landlord aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days.
23. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident experienced significant delays in relation to repairs for both her windows and basement. The landlord has acknowledged that the level of service the resident experienced was below its standards and apologised to the resident, offering £800 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
24. The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with the seal to her lounge window and significant condensation on 9 February 2021. Following an appointment on 12 February 2021, she also reported that her kitchen window was sealed shut and needed looking into. The lounge bay window was replaced on 28 June 2021, approximately four and a half months following the appointment and outside the landlord’s 90 day timescale. In addition, despite the resident first raising concerns about her kitchen window in February 2021, there is no evidence to suggest that the kitchen window was fully assessed until 2 September 2021, approximately seven months later in response to her stage two complaint. The window was then replaced on 11 November 2021, which was within the landlord’s planned repair timescales following the assessment.
25. Within its complaint responses, the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It also acknowledged that it had not kept the resident satisfactorily updated on the progress of work, meaning that she needed to spend time chasing the work. It acted reasonably by apologising for any miscommunication about which windows were due to be replaced and confirmed that the work associated with the 5 glazed window units related specifically to the lounge window. It satisfactorily acknowledged that the other windows in the property could have been checked and assessed at an earlier date and apologised for the inconvenience caused by its failure to keep the resident informed and the extended delay in completing the works and raising the correct work orders. It is noted that the resident also raised concerns about her bedroom windows during this period. While her concerns did not form part of her initial complaint to the landlord, the landlord addressed this in its complaint response and apologised for the overall delay in completing works which was reasonable.
26. In relation to the resident’s basement, it is not disputed that the resident experienced several delays following her initial report about its condition on 10 February 2021. The landlord has acknowledged that while an operative had reported that a further assessment of the works required to the basement was needed on 9 March 2021, due to an administrative error, this was not progressed. It has also acknowledged that following the resident’s report that she felt the basement ceiling may collapse on 6 April 2021, an operative did not attend until 7 April 2021, which was outside of its policy timescales for emergency repairs.
27. The evidence shows that the operative who attended on 7 April 2021 had reported that the condition of the basement was inadequate, there was rubble and rubbish remaining, a hole in the wall and the ceiling had not been skimmed after plastering. This suggests that the work to remove rubbish was not successfully completed on 8 March 2021 which was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident as she needed to continue to pursue the works.
28. In addition, following the survey of the basement on 28 April 2021, there was a delay in completing works to skim the plasterboard and remove rubbish until 9 July 2021. The plasterboard on the ceiling was made safe on 30 April 2021 which was reasonable. However, it is noted that additional works, following the identification of a roof leak on 13 May 2021, were needed. This delayed the progression of the original work. Ultimately, it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the works required to the roof to stop any ongoing water ingress and damage to the property. The delay at this stage was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control and it is noted that once the roofing contractors had attended to seal the roof on 10 June 2021, the remaining works to skim the plasterboard were completed on 9 July 2021. While this was outside of the landlord’s routine timescales, overall, the timeframe of 21 working days is not considered unreasonable given the need to allow the area to dry before completing works.
29. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about cracks in the external brickwork of the property and the time taken to complete works within its complaint response. While this was a separate issue to those raised in her formal complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the timeframes involved and apologise for any inconvenience caused.
30. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould spreading from the basement to other areas of her property within her escalation request on 30 July 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the resident had reported issues of damp and mould affecting the basement at an earlier date or that the landlord had the opportunity to investigate her concerns sooner. The landlord acted fairly within its stage two complaint response by arranging an inspection of the basement. The records show that it subsequently arranged an independent damp survey and completed works recommended by the damp surveyor by 18 January 2022. In her communication with this Service, the resident has advised that the resulting works have not resolved the damp issues within the property. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
31. 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 reviews 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.
32. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delays and its poor communication with the resident. It sought to put matters right by apologising to the resident, completing works, and offering £800 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate in instances of maladministration which had a significant impact on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £800 compensation is considered proportionate in recognition of the impact on the resident because of the delays and poor communication. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has offered sufficient redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with condensation affecting her windows and the basement in the property, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

34. The landlord satisfactorily acknowledged the delays in completing work to both the resident’s windows and basement and the inconvenience this may have caused the resident. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident and the landlord’s offer of £800 compensation is considered reasonable in view of the inconvenience caused.

Recommendations

35. It Is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £800 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.
    2. Contacts the resident to ask whether she is experiencing continuing issues with damp and mould and takes steps to resolve any outstanding repair issues.
36. The landlord should confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations to the Ombudsman within four weeks from the date of this report.