Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202314764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314764

Sovereign Network Homes

15 July 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 a leak.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held a fixed term tenancy at the property since 26 March 2018. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted building. The rent charged up until April 2023 was £271.69 per week. It then rose to £290.71 per week. The resident is vulnerable due to an historic leg injury that affects his mobility. The landlord has told this Service that it recently learned that the resident has reduced mobility.
Reference to events that occurred after the stage 2 complaints response are included for reference only and are not otherwise considered.
On 12 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to tell it that water was leaking from the flat above into his kitchen and living room. He said that he was living in “desperate conditions.”
On 13 February 2023 the landlord asked the resident which flat the leak was coming from. The resident told the landlord that it was coming from flat B above him and sent photographs showing the damage caused.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 February 2023 attaching more photographs. The landlord raised 2 emergency repairs jobs and a contractor attended the resident’s property twice on 14 February 2023 but reported that they could not gain access.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 February 2023, it asked him to call it to re-arrange the repairs appointment. A contractor attended the property later that day and made the ceiling safe, however could not gain access to flat B to resolve the leak.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord logged a repairs job to rectify the leak in flat B. An operative attended that day and reported that the lino around the shower drain needed repair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2023 to ask it when the leak would be resolved. He said that he did not feel safe because he thought the ceiling might collapse. The landlord replied on 20 February 2023. It said that it was sorry that the leak had not yet been rectified. It said that it had “made contact with the relevant teams who are working hard to get this resolved”.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 February 2023. He said that water was still leaking into his property. He said that he had spoken to the neighbour above who said there was a hole in the floor which water was leaking through. The resident explained that the leak was causing him to wake in the night and that the water was “smelly.” He asked the landlord to escalate the matter to a manager.
The landlord replied on 23 February 2023. It raised an emergency repairs job, as a follow up to the visit carried out on 17 February 2023, to resolve the leak in flat B and then to check the flat below (the residents’ property). A contractor attended on 24 February 2023 but could not gain access to flat B.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord raised a repairs job for a locksmith and drainage operative to meet the neighbourhood officer at flat B at 9am on Friday 3 March 2023. This was to force entry to unblock the shower drain.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord and contractor accessed flat B without forcing entry because the tenant let them in. However, flat B had no electricity and therefore the contractor could not complete the repair. The landlord raised a further repairs request to carry out the work on 14 March 2023. It sent a letter to flat B containing the appointment date and advising that electricity would need to be reinstated.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 March 2023. He said that there had been a leak into his property from the flat above since 15 February 2023. He said that he was “stressed and depressed” because water was leaking into his kitchen and living room “mostly every day” causing the living room ceiling to collapse. He said that he would like the repair completed as soon as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 7 March 2023 and said that it would send a response by 22 March 2023.
The resident responded on 7 March 2023 to tell the landlord that the problem was urgent. He said that the water leak was from the shower waste and therefore “foul contaminated wastewater was cascading” into his home and contaminating food preparation areas.
The landlord raised an emergency job to unblock the shower drain of flat B on 7 March 2023. A contractor attended but was unable to gain access.
Internal landlord emails dated 15 and 16 March 2023 said that contractors had been unable to access flat B on 14 March 2023. The landlord decided that it would need “an access injunction plus prohibition to force the tenant of flat B to top up the electricity.”
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023. It apologised that the leak had been ongoing since 15 February 2023. It said that there was a problem with accessing the flat above. It reassured the resident that it would rectify any damage to the property caused by the leak but that he should claim for personal possessions via his home contents insurance or the landlord’s insurance team. It awarded £45 compensation. It said that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, stating why he remained dissatisfied and what the landlord needed to do to resolve the issue. It also said that it had logged a case so that the repairs would be monitored to ensure that there were no further delays.
The resident responded on the same day, by email, asking the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He emailed the landlord again on 10 April 2023 to ask again. The landlord replied on 11 April 2023. It said “your complaint is not at Stage 2. If you wanted to escalate to Stage 2 you would need to write to us to explain why you are dissatisfied and how we can assist in resolving this for you.”
On 16 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process again. The landlord responded to ask the resident why he wanted to escalate the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 17 April 2023. He said that the reason he wanted to escalate the complaint was because the property was still damaged. He asked if the leak had been resolved.
The landlord responded the same day to say that the leak was ongoing. It asked what the resident wanted it to reinvestigate and what part of the stage 1 response he disagreed with.
On 27 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and reiterated that the reason he wanted to escalate the complaint was because the property was still damaged.
On 19 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked if an advocate could request the repair on his behalf. The advocate told the landlord that it had still not rectified the leak, more than 3 months after it had been reported, and the resident was living in unsatisfactory conditions. He asked the landlord to tell the resident when it would complete the repairs.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord sent a claim to the local county court for an injunction to access flat B.
On 27 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again. He asked for a completion date for the work on the property. The landlord responded on 30 May 2023. It said that it had raised a job to make good the damage which it would chase up.
On 2 June 2023 an operative attended the property. He reported that:
1. Parts of the lounge ceiling had started to come down and needed to be reboarded and skimmed.
2. The kitchen ceiling needed a patch repair.
3. An electrician needed to check the light fitting because it was hanging off the ceiling and water was coming through it.
An internal landlord email dated 14 June 2023 asked for an update on the court application to gain access to flat B.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 June 2023. He said that water was leaking through the light fitting. He asked why the landlord was ignoring him. A contractor attended the property the same day, he noted that the leak was coming from flat B but there was no access.
The local county court returned the claim to the landlord on 19 June 2023 advising it to send the claim to a different county court.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 20 June 2023. The landlord raised an emergency repairs job but could not gain access to flat B.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord sent the claim for an injunction to the alternative county court.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It listed all the unsuccessful callouts to flat B. It said that it could see from the photographs provided that the affected area was “substantial” and apologised that the situation had been ongoing for several months and that the residents’ possessions had been damaged. It said that due to data protection reasons there was limited information it could give regarding its interactions with the neighbour but that it was “being looked at by our legal team.” It said that it had now disconnected the water supply to the other property in the building to stop the leak and prompt the tenant to give access. It said that when it had repaired the leak it would repair the damage to the resident’s property. It increased the offer of compensation to £630 which it said it would review once all work was complete.
An internal landlord email dated 26 June 2023 confirmed that the landlord was waiting for the court to set a date for the injunction hearing. On 13 September 2023 another internal email said that the landlord had been chasing the court for an update “to no avail”. It therefore presumed that the court had not received the request and sent the claim again.
On 18 July 2023 in an internal email, the landlord gave an example where it had forced entry based on the clauses in the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that “given the serious damage already sustained” flat B should be given 24 hours’ notice before the landlord forced access to complete the repairs.
The landlord agreed to temporarily rehouse the resident in September 2023. It offered an alternative property, but this was not suitable due to the resident’s mobility issues. On 15 September 2023 the landlord fitted drip trays to the property.
On 18 September 2023 the landlord logged a repairs job because the toilet in flat B was blocked and backed-up because it would not flush due to the water supply being disconnected.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord sent a letter to flat B advising that it would force entry if access was not provided within 7 days.
On 23 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and sent further photographs of the property. He said that he thought urine was coming into the property from above.
On 23 September 2023 the original claim sent to the second court was struck out. The landlord advised this Service that it did not receive a notice from the court to advise of the hearing date.
On 2 October 2023 the landlord forced entry to flat B. It said that flat B required an environmental clean before any work could be carried out.
The court granted an injunction for the landlord to access flat B on 24 October 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with alternative temporary accommodation on 27 October 2023.
The resident retained the keys to the property and provided this Service with a video of water pouring through the kitchen ceiling on 24 May 2024.
On 21 June 2024 the landlord advised this service that the repairs to flat B were complete and that the resident would be able to move back into the property from 8 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs policy states “we are responsible for repairing all leaks. We are responsible for keeping in repair and working order installations for the supply of water. These include: • Basins • Sinks • Baths • Toilets • Showers where fitted by the landlord • Flushing systems and waste pipes.”
The repairs policy also states that “we aim to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe. Emergency repairs are situations where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that is rapidly getting worse. An example of an emergency repair would be no power in a home or an uncontrollable flood.”
The resident reported the leak via email on 12 February 2023. The landlord’s website advises residents to report emergency repairs by telephone and therefore taking into consideration that it was Sunday; it is understandable that the landlord did not raise an emergency repair job on the same day.
The landlord accepted responsibility for the issue and raised an emergency repairs job on 14 February 2023. This was the appropriate action to take. However, despite asking the resident where the leak was coming from, it initially attended the resident’s property and not the property with the leak, which was a failing. It did not raise a repairs job to rectify the leak in flat B until 17 February 2023. This delay meant that the situation deteriorated causing the resident distress and inconvenience. It also cost the resident time and trouble because he had to contact the landlord again.
An operative gained access to flat B on 17 February 2023 but did not rectify the leak. This was a valuable opportunity to resolve the issue at an early stage, but it was missed. The landlord did not raise a job for follow on work until 23 February 2023, after the resident had contacted it again. This delay cost the resident further time and trouble chasing the landlord and further distress and inconvenience because he was living with an ongoing leak.
The landlord’s fixed term tenancy agreement says that residents must give the landlord reasonable access to carry out repairs. It says that “we will give at least 24 hours’ notice of our intention to enter the premises. However, we have the right to enter your home without notice in the case of an emergency. An emergency can include but is not limited to the following:
1. Fire
2. Flood
3. Leaks
4. Risk of significant damage to your home or any other properties.”
The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with the tenancy agreement of the resident of flat B when it arranged to force entry on 3 March 2023 in order to complete the necessary repairs. On that occasion however, the neighbour allowed access but there was no electricity in flat B and the contractor could still not complete the repair. Numerous further repairs jobs were subsequently logged, however even if access had been given the issue with the lack of electricity would have remained.
Following this a senior member of staff should have taken responsibility for ensuring that the issue was resolved. However, this Service has seen no evidence that this happened. The landlord should have taken action to ensure that relevant support was in place so that electricity was restored to flat B. Alternatively, the landlord could have provided a generator or used battery powered appliances so that the work could be carried out after a forced entry. This severe failing meant that the situation was ongoing.
Instead, numerous new repairs jobs were raised which were unsuccessful. The resident lived with an intermittent but severe leak into his lounge and kitchen for nearly 9 months. This caused severe damage to the property. He lived with substantial holes in the ceilings through which dirty shower water regularly “cascaded” which caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. He contacted the landlord on numerous occasions for updates over the months which cost him considerable time and trouble.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord decided that it needed to apply for an injunction to enter flat B. However, it did not apply to the courts for over another 2 months. This was another unacceptable delay which meant that the resident was living in unsatisfactory conditions for longer than necessary. Despite applying to the courts and waiting many months for a response, the landlord also arranged to force entry to flat B on more than one occasion. It is therefore unclear what its agreed procedures were for dealing with such instances.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The resident contacted it on numerous occasions, but the landlord did not resolve the leak or state what it was going to do to resolve it. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord proactively contacted the resident to give him an update on the actions it was taking and to reassure him that it understood how it was affecting him. Evidence has also not been provided to demonstrate that all his emails were responded to. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord told the resident in the stage 2 complaints response dated 23 June 2023, that it had disconnected the water to flat B. The landlord was told on 18 September 2023 that the toilet in flat B was blocked and backed-up. On 23 September 2023 the resident reported that he thought urine was coming through the ceiling. It is entirely possible as there was a hole in the floor of the bathroom above and the toilet was overflowing, that urine may have been leaking into the flat below. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any immediate action about the residents concern that urine was coming through the ceiling. This was a severe failing that left the resident living in increasingly unsanitary conditions.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered moving the resident to alternative accommodation until 7 months after the leak began. The landlord knew that the damage to the property “was substantial” and said in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident felt that the living room was uninhabitable. However, it failed to offer a decant at an earlier stage. This failure caused the resident further unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The landlord initially offered the resident a property that was not suitable due to his mobility issues. The resident was living in a ground floor flat, and the landlord should have checked his vulnerabilities prior to making an offer. This failing caused a further delay, prolonging the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Due to the multiple failings, delays, missed opportunities, and significant adverse impacts on a vulnerable resident there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The stage 1 complaint response said that the landlord had raised a case to monitor the repairs and to ensure that there were no further delays. This Service has seen no evidence that this promise was actioned which resulted in further unacceptable delays. The landlord decided to take legal action to gain access to flat B but it did not apply for an injunction for a further 2 months. Had it monitored the case as promised this delay would not have occurred. This complaint handling failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that “residents have up to 30 days from the date of the Stage 1 response to escalate their complaint to stage 2. If an escalation request is received after the 30 days, we may ask for further details from the resident to help us to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to agree to escalate a complaint. Again, the decision on whether to accept an escalation will be at the discretion of the investigating complaints officer and the complaints manager. If we determine a sufficient reason has not been provided, we will refuse the escalation, confirm our reason for refusing the escalation and provide contact details for the Housing Ombudsman Service.”
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint’s process on 22 March 2023 which was the same day that he received the response and therefore well within 30 days. Therefore, in accordance with the complaints policy, he did not need to give a reason for requesting the escalation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this request at all.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said that “a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.”
The resident asked for updates on the stage 2 complaint response a further 5 times, costing him further time and trouble, but the landlord refused to escalate the complaint. It kept asking the resident why he wanted to escalate it, when he did not need to provide this information. The request should have triggered the landlord to check if there was any further action it could take to resolve the substantive issue behind the complaint, but it did not.
When the resident provided a reason, the landlord still did not escalate the complaint and did not give a reason for refusing the escalation or provide the Housing Ombudsman’s contact details as part of the refusal. The landlord therefore failed to follow its own procedure and the Code which meant there was an unreasonable delay inescalation. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It responded 3 months after the initial request which was not in line with its policy. This delay meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issue for the resident. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that each aspect of a complaint is assessed on its own merits but that when there has been “a serious failure in service standards with severe consequences which took a considerable amount of time and effort to resolve. This has had a major impact on the complainant’s lifestyle and/or enjoyment of their home”. £20 per week should be awarded for the delay, £20 per week for distress and £5 per week for time and trouble. In addition to this £20-£50 may be awarded for poor complaint handling, or late responses and further compensation may be awarded for lack of follow up after a complaint and time and trouble due to a lack of or late response to letters or emails.
Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £630 at the time of the stage 2 complaints response was not in line with its compensation policy and did not adequately reflect the severity of the conditions the resident was forced to continue living in as a result of its own failings. This caused the resident further distress. The landlord should also have regularly reviewed this offer based on its ongoing failure to resolve the leak. This failure meant that the resident had to refer the case to this Service which cost him further time and trouble.
Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly a total of £2,600 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1,300 in consideration of the rent charged between when the resident reported the issue up until the date of the stage 2 complaint response. This is approximately 25% of the rent charged in recognition that the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property.
2. £500 for time and trouble for chasing the repair.
3. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £300 for poor complaint handling.
Apologise. A senior member of staff at Director level or above must apologise in person to the resident for its failings in this case.
Inspect the property. A repairs supervisor and landlord representative must inspect the property to ensure that all remedial repairs are complete and that the leak has been resolved. The supervisor must oversee any further work required and be a direct point of contact for the resident. Any additional works must be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.
Ensure that the resident is supported to claim for any damaged items via its insurance company.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should undertake a senior management review of the case and present the findings to its senior leadership team and this Service within 12 weeks. The review should consider at minimum the following:
1. A review of its procedures regarding gaining access to properties in emergency situations.
2. Ensuring that there is adequate oversight of complex repairs cases such as this to ensure that they are brought to a successful conclusion rather than new repairs jobs repeatedly being logged.
3. A review of current complaint handling practice to:
  1. ensure that adequate emphasis is given to resolving the substantive issues.
  2. ensure that complaints are escalated appropriately, without delay and in line with this Services’ Complaints Handling Code.
4. A review of its’ decant procedure specifically to update, or provide training and guidance on, when a decant should be offered and to ensure that decant offers are suitable for the resident’s needs.
5. Review its procedures for involving third party support agencies to ensure the satisfactory fulfilment of its safeguarding responsibilities.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

Review the third party support agencies involved with the neighbour. The landlord should ensure that it engages effectively with them in the future to prevent a similar situation occurring. If necessary, it should make referrals to, and work in collaboration with, further appropriate agencies and should keep the situation under review.