The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Network Homes (202207035)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207035

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

16 January 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB);
    2. reports of poor communal grounds maintenance;
    3. the resident’s rehousing request;
    4. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of an apartment building.
  2. The resident is autistic. The medical evidence she has provided, both to the Ombudsman and the landlord, states that she is sensitive to noise. This can trigger auditory sensory overload and panic attacks. 
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 February 2022 to request a management move from her property. She advised that she was expecting a child, meaning she needed a 2-bedroom property. She also explained that her upstairs neighbour had been creating noise nuisance. She told the landlord she wanted to be moved into a house, as she found the noise levels in an apartment building stressful and detrimental to her disability. The landlord responded on 7 February 2022, advising the resident that if she wished to move to a larger property, she would need to re-apply to the local housing register, or to arrange a mutual exchange. It also said that if she wished to escalate the issues with her neighbour, she should contact it.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 May 2022. She felt the landlord should be doing more to help her with a move. She said the noise created by her upstairs neighbour was impacting her disability and she was unhappy with the landlord’s assertion this was just ‘living noise’. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman, who wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2022 to inform it of the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident raised an additional complaint about grounds maintenance of the block on 8 July 2022. She felt that this had not been properly maintained since April 2022 and that it was overgrown, full of weeds and reported the growth of a wasp’s nest. In August 2022 the landlord visited the resident on several occasions to discuss her issues. However, it ultimately told the resident her circumstances would not qualify her for a band 1 management move. It also offered to begin mediation with the upstairs neighbour, or to speak to the neighbour on her behalf. The resident rejected both.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022. It stated that it believed, following a discussion with her housing officer, that the noise issue had now ceased. It also offered mediation to her. It again reiterated that she would not qualify for a band 1 move and provided her with alternative ways she could seek a move. It also said that it had been on site to maintain the hedges and that moving forward its operatives would be on site 2 to 2.5 times a week to perform maintenance.
  7. The resident rejected this response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same date. She felt the information the landlord had provided was incorrect and her request for a move was not based on want but need. She also said that mediation would not be successful due to noise nuisance coming from all neighbours which was affecting her disability. She also noted that several jobs had not been completed by the landlord, highlighting that shrubs and plants remained untouched.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 December 2022. It maintained that it believed the noise the resident reported was normal day-to-day living noise. It also concluded that it had treated her request for a move fairly and provided her with the best possibilities of obtaining a move. It added that it believed the issues in relation to grounds maintenance had all been resolved.
  9. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she wanted it to investigate her complaint in February 2023. She felt that she had provided her landlord with medical evidence showing that she needed to be moved and that it had ignored this. She said that the property and the noise had been having a severe impact on her disability, but the landlord had failed to take any action. She also confirmed that the grounds maintenance issues had never been resolved.
  10. The landlord sent an additional response to the resident on 1 September 2023. It offered her £600 compensation for its failings throughout. It offered her £300 for not properly recording information about her disability, £100 for its shortcomings in performing grounds maintenance work and £200 for its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident has now moved from the property.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The resident has previously reported noise issues to the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect that any issues should be brought to the attention of the landlord via a formal complaint within a reasonable period, usually around 6 months after the event. This investigation has therefore only considered the resident’s noise reports from February 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states ‘There are some things we won’t investigate as ASB’. This includes what the landlord calls ‘domestic noise’. The landlord also states that when responding to reports of ASB, it will ‘be clear if it’s ASB or not’, ‘consider the vulnerability of those involved’ and let complainants know if they are ‘closing a case and tell them what to do if the behaviour starts again’. It also says it will respond based on its risk assessment score for the case. This is a 24-hour response for priority 1, 48-hour for priority 2 and 72-hour for priority 3.
  2. The resident first reported the ASB on 4 February 2022 and the landlord responded on the same day requesting the flat number of the neighbour. The resident informed the landlord at this stage that she did not want the landlord to take further action regarding the report and would rather be moved elsewhere as soon as possible. As the resident did not wish for the landlord to take further action regarding this, there was no obligation on it to do so.
  3. After receiving the resident’s complaint (in May 2022), the landlord failed to visit her until the beginning of August 2022. This was significantly outside of the response times specified in the landlord’s ASB policies. The landlord also failed to take any formal steps to consider the vulnerability of the resident. This represented service failure from the landlord.
  4. The landlord did take appropriate action following this delay. It visited the resident on multiple occasions, offered to speak with the upstairs neighbour and offered mediation. These are all steps that the landlord advised it would take in its policy. In doing so, it appears to have gone beyond its obligation considering it classified the resident’s reports as domestic noise.
  5. The landlord, in its letter from 1 September 2023, offered the resident £300 for failing to properly record information about her disability and consider this when dealing with her issues. Whilst the Ombudsman is of the view that this is a reasonable amount for the landlord’s failing, the delay in offering this compensation means that we would not conclude that the landlord offered appropriate redress through its complaints process. The landlord was therefore responsible for maladministration in handling the reports of noise nuisance and ASB. This would also represent a fair offer of compensation for the landlord’s other service failures in handling the resident’s reports such as its initial delay.
  6. The landlord should pay the resident the £300 for this failing, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of reports of poor communal grounds maintenance

  1. The landlord has not clearly outlined or provided evidence of its grounds maintenance programme for the resident’s block. It has mentioned throughout the complaints process that during the period relevant to this complaint, it was changing service providers and that moving forward contractors would be on site between 2 and 2.5 days each week to perform maintenance.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that since April 2022, she felt that the grounds maintenance had not been properly completed, leaving the block overgrown and full of weeds. She highlighted a specific issue with the hedges outside of her window. She also mentioned that she felt various elements of grounds maintenance had not been completed properly since moving into the block.
  3. In response to this, the landlord spoke with the relevant department and performed remedial work, trimming the hedge. It also undertook a follow up inspection. However, the landlord does not appear to have reviewed any previous reports or provided the resident with an adequate explanation for its failure to properly provide the grounds maintenance service. A solitary visit to perform a specific type of maintenance work, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was not a sufficient resolution or investigation into the cause of the resident’s issues.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord indicated that the problem had been resolved. However, it failed to demonstrate what it had done to resolve the reports of poor grounds maintenance or highlight any steps it had taken to prevent the situation reoccurring in the future. It also did not initially offer the resident any form of compensation for its failings. It had mentioned in internal correspondence the change between contractors, staff shortages and undertaking a large hedge trimming project as possible reasons for the decline in its standard of work.
  5. In the letter sent to the resident on 1 September 2023, the landlord provided the resident with £100 compensation as there had been shortcomings in the performance of grounds maintenance. Given the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failure caused, this was a reasonable amount for the landlord to offer. Nevertheless, given the landlord did not offer appropriate redress through its complaint process, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of the matter to represent maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

  1. The landlord’s transfer policy has several bands: band 1, band 2, and band 3. The landlord stated that unless a resident qualified for a band 1 move, it would result in a significant wait for a move. To qualify for a band 1, there are several conditions:
    1. A household member is unable to occupy – or return to – their home due to acute medical needs
    2. The home cannot be adapted to meet a household member’s medical or disability related needs, and the home is unsuitable for them to live in.
    3. In the current property, there is a high risk of serious harm or a severe detrimental effect to a household member’s health.
    4. There is a risk to the safety of others living in the vicinity, resulting from the mental illness of a household member.
    5. Police or other involved agencies recommend and support a move to another property, because of a serious risk to life due to safeguarding, anti-social behaviour, or domestic abuse.
  2. The resident’s request to be rehoused was based on several reasons. She was concerned about the potential overcrowding caused by having a child, as well as the stresses of living in an apartment building and the affect on her disability.
  3. The landlord’s decision to not put the resident forward for a band 1 management move appears to be fair. It visited the resident, considered her circumstances, and provided a clear reasoning behind its decision. The resident provided medical evidence and the landlord’s contact notes indicate that it did take her circumstances into account when reviewing her banding for a move.
  4. The landlord also provided the resident with advice on the best potential options for obtaining a move. These included registering with the local authority, as well as considering a mutual exchange. It was fair of the landlord to provide this advice to the resident.
  5. Although in its letter of 1 September 2023, the landlord has apologised for failing to record information about her disability and mental health, this does not appear to have impacted its decision not to provide her with a management move.
  6. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move. It appears to have considered all the evidence and come to an evidence-based decision in line with its transfers policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will provide its complaint response within 20 working days. It outlines that there may be occasions when it will require extensions but that it will inform residents of this beforehand.
  2. The landlord first received the resident’s complaint on 29 May 2022, and failed to provide a stage 1 response until 4 November 2022. This was 111 working days later and significantly outside of the timescales set out in its complaints handling policy. The landlord did not inform the resident of any delays in providing this response.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord received a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 4 November 2022. It provided its stage 2 response on 6 December 2022. This was 22 working days later. Whilst this was outside of the timescales prescribed in the landlord’s policy, this was only by a small margin. This short delay did not appear to exacerbate the time and trouble caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s responses to the resident were broadly fair in tone.
  5. The landlord has offered the resident £200 for complaint handling failures in its letter from 1 September 2023. It has said that its responses did not provide enough detail about why the resident did not meet the criteria for a band 1 move, or why there had been a failure in grounds maintenance. This Service believes that the £200 is a reasonable figure for the landlord’s complaint handling failures, including the delays in providing its responses. As detailed previously, the landlord’s delay in providing this redress through its complaints process was a missed opportunity to offer a resolution and a finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance (antisocial behaviour).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor communal grounds maintenance.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 compensation as per its letter from 1 September 2023, if it has not already done so.
    2. Provide evidence to this service that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider providing a schedule and full list of the jobs it undertakes in relation to grounds maintenance programmes to residents at all the blocks which it currently performs such works.