Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202217063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217063

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

21 February 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for replacement windows.
2. Concerns about the affordability of the property.
3. Request for the storage heaters and aerial sockets to be relocated.
4. Concerns about access to the water meter.
5. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord. The tenancy commenced 1 July 2022, following a permanent decant from his previous home due to the landlord’s disposal of the building. He moved into the property on 2 September 2022. He has multiple vulnerabilities and health concerns.
In a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 August 2022, the resident stated that he was told the extra bedroom would not be an additional weekly cost, but after repeated messages with Universal Credit (UC), he received a decision letter and was not entitled to the extra room. He could not afford the additional cost and felt “tricked” into moving into the property. He was extremely “stressed and anxious” and said he would be unable to move until this problem, and all other outstanding matters, were resolved.
In stage 1 of its complaints process on 2 September 2022, the landlord stated that the resident had requested a 2-bedroom property. It had checked with him that it would be affordable, and he said it was “ideal” for him. It did not feel it reasonable to move or remove the storage heaters in his new home or relocate the sockets. Windows were due for replacement and the job needed to be completed for the whole block as part of planned works. Access to, and reading of, the water meter was the resident’s responsibility, however, it had asked an operative to attend to ease and open the access hatch.
The resident responded on 6 September 2022 and said it was “not unreasonable” to ask for relocation of fixings the landlord put there. It had “lied” about bedroom tax. What he had said was taken out of context, the only thing that was “ideal” was the ease of access, green area, and parking space. The windows were in “terrible” condition yet nothing was done. He said he had asked for the location of the water meter and already tried to open the cover.
The resident raised a second complaint on 14 October 2022, stating that he had viewed the property on 6 June 2022 and relayed many worries about the standard of the property. He was assured that all points raised would be sorted. He was then advised that the property was ready but denied a second viewing. None of the problems he raised in June 2022 had been resolved. He wanted the properties in the block to be properly insulated. He also wanted compensation for the “grief, anxiety, stress and aggravation” caused. He listed his health issues and said the landlord was making his living standards worse.
In its stage 2 response of 27 October 2022, the landlord repeated that it was not reasonable to relocate storage heaters and sockets. It said the resident’s move and affordability of the property were discussed at the pre-tenancy assessment. It highlighted that he could be impacted by bedroom tax, and he had opportunities to decline the property. It did not have a confirmed date for the replacement windows, however, it had raised a job to get his windows in working order. A job was raised for an operative to visit and ease the water meter cover, but when the operative arrived, he had already gained access.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service on 31 October 2022. He said that the landlord had missed out major points, skipped over its errors, and created more problems than it had solved. He wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve any causes of draughts and loss of heat, resolve flooring issues, replace the heating and water system, and compensate him £500 per week for each week the property remained uninhabitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
As part of his correspondence with this Service the resident stated that his complaint related to 15 points, rather than the 4 listed by the landlord and this Service. The additional points related to:
1. The front door latch was loose and insecure. The intercom was dirty, broken and poorly positioned.
2. There were issues with the flooring.
3. There were issues with both the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
4. The hallway blinds were not secured properly, the carpet was dirty and needed to be removed.
5. The toilet was too high and needed to be lowered. He required a handrail over the bath.
6. The Sky cable was protruding through a window and needed to be removed.
7. The property was cold and poorly insulated.
The above points were not raised as part of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord in August 2022, giving it the opportunity to respond, and have therefore not been considered as part of this investigation. However, it should be noted that:
1. A separate complaint relating to the property being cold was raised with the landlord in 2023 and has been responded to separately.
2. On 25 July 2022, following a meeting with the landlord and prior to the resident moving in, it wrote to him confirming that the carpet in the hallway had been removed, the handrail fitted, the sky cable removed and holes filled in the window frame, the floor had been refitted and front door latch repaired. The blinds were gifted but removed due to being fitted poorly. There was also evidence that the intercom had been replaced and relocated to the resident’s lounge at his request.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As part of his complaint the resident raised concerns about the affordability of his new home. We cannot determine the level of rent or service charge set by the landlord. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident advised that moving to his new home had impacted his health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Request for replacement windows.

The property is grade 2 listed and has timber single glazed windows with secondary glazing. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.
The landlord also has an obligation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which identifies and categorises various hazards that can be found in a home. The landlord is responsible for avoiding or at least minimising these hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies in the home which may be due to the way the property was designed, built, wear and tear or lack of repairs. The HHSRS assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property, and the best way of dealing with them. These include, but are not limited to:
1. Entry by intruders – This hazard is concerned with keeping a dwelling secure against unauthorised entry and maintaining safety. The health effects include mental harm, stress, and anguish. The worry and fear of being burgled tends to be caused by knowing people who had been burgled and by publicity about crimes. Causes include doors and windows poorly constructed or fitted or in disrepair or with inadequate locks.
2. Fire – This includes the threat from accidental uncontrolled fire or associated smoke. Preventative measures include an effective means of escape from all parts of the dwelling, for example an openable door or window.
The landlord’s empty homes standard refers to doors, windows and balconies. It states that it will make sure that all windows are safe, secure and working properly, and all windows are lockable. In its empty home inspection dated 4 May 2022, it highlighted the following required repairs:
1. The hall window required a new locking handle and needed to be overhauled.
2. Bedroom 1 required a single pane of glass and needed to be overhauled.
3. Bedroom 2 required a new locking window handle.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July, 3 and 8 August 2022, regarding issues with the windows. These included that the windows needed to be cleaned, he wanted a timescale for the replacement windows, the windows were not secure which meant that anyone could enter his flat, and they were a health hazard.
In its response, the landlord stated that it was unable to provide a timescale to replace the windows but had agreed to arrange the repairs to ensure they operated safely. Its records of 17 August 2022 said that a number of windows did not open correctly, some had to be supported when open as they would “shut with force”, and some had been painted shut. It referred to a latch that got “jammed” between frames when open and said that only 2 sash windows were working, and 6 needed to be overhauled.
The landlord’s empty home inspection highlighted a small number of repairs to the windows, however, its records demonstrated that there were more significant issues. In particular, with windows being painted shut, screwed shut and being inoperable. It failed to consider its obligations under HHSRS and any risks associated with the windows such as escape in the event of a fire or from a security perspective. This suggests that its empty homes inspection fell short of identifying these issues and led to the resident persistently chasing repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that there were a number of windows that were not working correctly, and it knew the windows were due for replacement in 2022. The resident had asked why the windows to his flat were not replaced during its empty homes work, prior to him taking the tenancy. It explained that the job needed to be completed for the whole block as part of its planned programme of works, thus it would seek to focus on the issue. He could continue to raise repairs for anything new or which was not noticed during the inspection on 17 August 2022.
The landlord’s explanation that it was unable to replace the windows during the empty homes work was reasonable. It would not have been able to replace the windows at that time without planning consent due to it being a listed building. However, its response acknowledged that the windows were not working properly, again suggesting that the issues should have been resolved during its empty homes work and prior to the resident moving in on 2 September 2022.
During September and October 2022, the resident continued to email the landlord about the condition of his windows. On 17 October 2022, it apologised that the window replacement was taking time. It had enquired about updates and been advised that it was a listed building and the planning application process could take a lot longer than a more modern property. It said it was still going through the planning application process and was unfortunately “out of its hands.”
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 27 October 2022 said that it had advised that the windows were due to be replaced “imminently”. However, as it still did not have a confirmed date for the works, it had asked for a job to be raised to get his windows in working order. The same day the landlord’s repairs records showed a job had been raised to overhaul the windows with new cords and weights. It said to carry out the required work to get as many windows operable as possible. An appointment was booked for 6 December 2022 but the resident refused to allow the work as it was winter and he did not want to let the heat out.
Its response in October 2022 again acknowledged that the windows were not in working order and it had raised repair works. Its repairs records referred to overhauling the windows to get as many windows operable as possible, suggesting that it failed to complete the works highlighted in its inspection in August 2022.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that the windows for the block were scheduled to be replaced and were pending planning application submission and subsequent permission due to it being a listed building. Its external planning consultant had a back log of applications which led to further delays. It anticipated an application to replace “like for like” would be rejected as repair was preferable by the planning authority with buildings of historic significance. Repairing would be time consuming and labour intensive as well as more disruptive to residents, but planning refusal would lead to more delays in preparing a new application. The application was still with the external consultant. A planning application for a mix of repair and replacement was proposed.
It was evident from the evidence that the landlord had stated that the windows were due for replacement in 2022 and also referred to the window replacement being “imminent”. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations and repeated that it was waiting for planning permission. However, following its explanation to this Service, it appears that the application had not been submitted at the time.
For the reasons above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows.

Concerns about the affordability of the property.

The landlord’s decant policy states that a permanent decant is where a resident is moved out of their property and there is no intention to return them to it. This may be due to it deciding to demolish, dispose or decommission the property. Where residents are permanently decanted from their home, they may be entitled to compensation payments. Home loss payments compensate for the upset caused by moving home, and disturbance payments for out of pocket costs of moving.
The landlord explained to this Service that the resident, along with 27 other residents, was decanted as the property was being disposed. The resident received £8,600 in home loss and disturbance payments as a result of having to move home.
The landlord contacted the resident in February 2022 to discuss the need to move, arranged an appointment for 23 February 2022, and completed a needs assessment to assess banding. The landlord advised this Service that the resident had requested a 2-bedroom property, due to his medical needs, which was supported by his doctor.
On 29 April 2022 the resident viewed and declined a property. He viewed a further property in June 2022 which he accepted. Between accepting the property in June 2022 and moving on 2 September 2022, the resident raised concerns about the affordability of his new home. He had applied for UC and was advised that he was not eligible for the extra bedroom.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord’s call records stated that during a telephone call, it “asked him outright if this was unaffordable and a barrier to him moving”. He had responded that it was not but wanted it noted that it was another example of its failure but that he would “get it sorted” with UC through appeal.
The following day the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to ensure that it informed everyone about the deduction of the bedroom tax. He would not be using his home loss payment, given as a gift for being forced to move, to cover the shortfall. This was a problem caused by government and the flat was affordable if the benefit system worked properly. He was assured that the extra room would not be a problem and had he known all the extra details he would not have signed for the tenancy.
The landlord responded the same day and said that “for absolute clarity” the resident had advised that these issues were not a barrier to moving. He made it clear that the issue with the reduction in benefits was an issue for UC to sort out, and something that he was actively working on due to his medical needs. He also advised that if the appeal were unsuccessful, he would be able to make the payments and that the new home was affordable. It was sorry for the impact this was having and if he needed assistance, it would ask its tenancy support advisor to offer support with the appeal.
The landlord’s records of 3 August 2022 referred to the resident having signed his new tenancy. It said it would go back to the resident and be “very clear” that if the move was not right for him it would withdraw the tenancy by mutual consent.
In an email from the landlord on 4 August 2022, it said that it remained happy to discuss any aspect of the move with the resident. It could not see that there was any coercion or intention to mislead him about his move, but it appreciated this was how he felt. It did not want him to find himself in a situation where the home was unaffordable. He had asked for a 2-bedroom home and it said it could facilitate this as long as it was affordable. It had tried to find a home that met his needs but appreciated from conversations that it was not his ideal home. He could not remain in his current home but if this was not the right move for him to let it know. It was happy to talk about other options that may be available.
The landlord’s records of 31 August 2022 referred to discussing the move with the resident. It said that if it was not the right move and affordable, it needed to have a conversation about remaining in his current home and revisiting the options. He had felt “backed into a corner” as the move was organised and money had been spent on removals and carpets. It had asked if there was any option of speaking with the companies and asking for a credit note for a future move but he did not feel this was his responsibility. It said its biggest concern was affordability and it had discussed his UC claim. He made it clear that the flat was “ideal” and said he knew this once he saw the property. He confirmed he would be moving in but was very “aggrieved” by the lack of responsibility it had taken for some of the repairs and improvements.
In its stage 1 response the landlord reiterated its communications with the resident. It stated that he advised during a phone call that he would be able to afford to pay the 14% reduction in his UC for the rent. He said that whilst frustrating, this was not a barrier to him moving and he did not want to reconsider and have a conversation about a different move.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the matter had been discussed at length as part of the pre-tenancy assessment and in further conversations. It again reiterated some of its communications with him on the matter. It considered affordability very carefully before making an offer and based on his income it considered the rent and living costs as affordable. If this was no longer the case, it would be able to refer him to its tenancy support service who may be able to offer further support in applying for benefits.
The resident had requested a second bedroom due to his medical needs which was supported by his doctor. The evidence indicates that the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request, and facilitated this following a pre-tenancy assessment, to determine whether it would be affordable. The landlord made several offers for the resident to decline the property and consider alternative options but this was not accepted. The landlord acted appropriately and its responses were reasonable in offering the resident alternative options along with tenancy support. This Service therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to this matter.

Request for the storage heaters and aerial socket to be relocated.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 July 2022 following a conversation on 11 July 2022. It said it had considered his concerns and was not able to relocate the internet or aerial sockets. It said it was sorry that this contradicted what it had said previously as it had assumed this would be something with which it could assist. The reason it could not relocate these was due to the internal cables needing to remain in their current location. He may need to use external cables that were of sufficient length to relocate the sockets to his desired location. These could be run in a conduit along the top of the skirting board and was something that was suggested as a solution when discussing his initial thoughts on the property.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it did not think it was reasonable to move or remove the storage heaters in his home or change the location of the sockets. It knew this was not the answer the resident was looking for and apologised. The resident responded and said that it was “not unreasonable” to ask for relocation of fixings the landlord had put there. He would resolve to moving the locations himself.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had been clearly explained following a visit to the property, and in its stage 1 response, that it would not be removing or moving the storage heaters or aerial points. It was required to provide adequate heaters and electric socket points, which it had done. He could arrange to relocate them himself at his own expense but should seek permission first.
The landlord’s officer initially led the resident to believe that it may be able to assist with the relocation of sockets, however, later explained the reasons why they could not be moved. While it should have managed the resident’s expectations from the outset, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it was not obligated to move the installations or socket points. It was sufficient that it acknowledged that its previous response was made in error and apologised. This Service finds no basis for the landlord to be required to make the changes requested by the resident, and it has also not prevented him from making the changes to suit his preferences if he seeks permission. This Service therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response and handling of this matter.

Concerns about access to the water meter.

The resident emailed the landlord on 25 August 2022 about obtaining access to the water meter before he moved in. He said that the “manhole cover was shut tight.” It had replied that it was the responsibility of the water board and he asked if anyone had contacted them to get the problem solved. He needed to read the meter before moving in.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that access and reading of the water meter was something the resident was responsible for. It provided details of the water supplier and a link to its website, should he be unable to find or access the meter. However, due to his frustration, it had asked an operative to attend and attempt to ease the access hatch, which was located on the left hand side in the front pavement.
The landlord’s repairs records of 5 September 2022 referred to a job for the external water meter cover which needed easing and adjusting so the resident could gain access. The resident responded the following day and said that he had asked for the location of the meter and had already attempted to open the cover.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said a job was raised for an operative to visit and ensure he could access the water meter. When the operative arrived on 14 September 2022, he advised that he had already gained access and eased the entry point himself.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in that it was not responsible for utility providers installations. It sent details of the location of the water meter, along with contact details for the utility provider, and also sent an operative to assist the resident in gaining access to the meter. Its response was appropriate and we find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord responded within its policy timescales to the resident’s complaint. However, the resident raised a second complaint on 14 October 2022. On 17 October 2022 the landlord responded and acknowledged the resident’s second complaint stating it would respond within 10 working days. Its internal records for the same date referred to the complaint being similar to the complaint raised 26 August 2022, which had already been responded to at stage 1. It debated whether to respond or escalate to stage 2.
The landlord’s internal records of 20 October 2022 referred to both complaints being the same and its decision to escalate to stage 2. It wrote to the resident confirming that it would respond within 20 working days.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident stated that he was expecting to be asked for more information during the complaint process and would have supplied more emails relevant to his complaint. He wanted to arrange for a further complaint relating to other repairs. The landlord responded on 2 November 2022 that its stage 2 response had focussed on the 4 specific areas as in its stage 1 response. It believed it had enough information to complete its stage 2 investigation to determine that it had responded adequately to his complaint and to identify if there had been any service failure.
While the landlord incorporated both complaints into its stage 2 response, it failed to respond to all of the points raised by the resident, such as being denied a second viewing and his request for the property to be insulated. It would have been helpful if the landlord had contacted the resident when he submitted his second complaint to discuss the issues and include these in its response. Alternatively, it should have considered raising a separate complaint.
The landlord’s email response at stage 1, dated 2 September 2022, was not clearly marked that it was its stage 1 response. It also failed to explain how the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
For the reasons set out above, this service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme) there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the affordability of the property.
2. Request for the storage heaters and aerial sockets to be relocated.
3. Concerns about access to the water meter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400, which should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, broken down as follows:
1. £300 for the failings in its response to the resident’s request for replacement windows.
2. £100 for its service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider how it sends complaint responses ensuring that:
1. It clearly defines the stage of the complaint in its correspondence.
2. It provides information on how a resident can escalate a complaint.
3. If combining complaints all points are fully addressed.