Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202007083)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007083

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

15 December 2021

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 concerns:
1. How the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s property following his reports of damp and mould.
2. How the landlord handled the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The handling of the formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repairs as “emergency” (attend within two hours for vulnerable residents and within 24 hours in all other cases) and “responsive” (attend within 28 calendar days). Emergency repairs are defined as “incidents that could seriously damage someone’s health or the property”.
Section 4.5 of the policy states that the landlord may, during exceptional circumstances, suspend its normal repairs service.
During the period of this complaint, the landlord’s repairs service was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns. During the lockdowns the landlord prioritised emergency repairs. Following the end of the national lockdown, the landlord had a backlog of responsive repairs to respond to. It also stated it experienced difficulties in sourcing materials and skilled labour which caused further delays to work concerned with roofing, kitchen fittings and jobs relating to gas and electric components. The landlord stated it kept its residents updated on the status of its repairs service via social media and its website.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

In December 2020 a damp survey was undertaken at the property. This recommended work to the kitchen and bathroom in order to alleviate condensation and damp. However, due to the restrictions the landlord’s services were working under at the time due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the work was postponed.
On 25 January 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord’s records describe the elements of the complaint as:
1. He had ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property for several years. The landlord had previously undertaken work to improve ventilation and paint the affected areas, but the issue remained outstanding.
2. The resident wished to be rehoused but had been advised that due to his rent arrears that this was not possible. He noted that due to the number of appointments he had to be available for, he was unable to work and this had affected his ability to pay the arrears. The resident had also provided evidence of health issues to support a move.
3. The work to resolve the outstanding damp and mould had been pushed back due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The resident understood that the pandemic would cause delays but requested that the landlord look to prioritise the work at his property in light of the length of time he had lived with damp and mould at the property.
The landlord called the resident on 25 January 2021 to discuss the complaint. The landlord notes of the call state that it informed the resident that it expected the outstanding work to be completed in March and April 2021, and that it had raised a work order to inspect the fire door, which was also highlighted by the resident during the call.
The landlord and resident spoke again on 2 February 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident disputed the landlord’s position that the work could not currently go ahead due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that the landlord informed him that his case would be discussed at a meeting due to be held on 4 February 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 15 February 2021 and requested an update. The landlord called the resident back on 16 February 2021. Its notes state that the landlord informed the resident that repairs could not move ahead at that current time but may change following the government’s planned announcement relating to the national lockdown on 22 February 2021. It also offered the resident help with biding on housing through the local authority. The landlord stated that it would be sending a complaint response confirming its position that day.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 16 February 2021. The landlord informed him that:
1. A staff member would be calling him to offer help and advice on moving properties.
2. It recognised that there had been communication issues when organising appointments in the past and that it offered reassurances to the resident that it would work with him to ensure that this did not happen in the future.
3. It confirmed that it would review its repair restrictions following the government announcement on 22 February 2021 and that if it had the ability to do so, it would then look to work with the resident to complete the outstanding work.
4. It had closed the side of the complaint relating to repairs but would leave the side of the complaint relating to rehousing open until the resident had spoken to a staff member.
Following a further telephone conversation between the resident and landlord on 16 February 2021, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two. The landlord described the resident’s grounds for requesting an escalation as:
1. He felt discriminated against by the landlord as it had not taken his health condition into account when considering his request to be rehoused.
2. He had been told that work on his property had to be put off until April 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, yet he had observed landlord operatives attending other properties to undertake work.
3. He had made several requests for the landlord to provide him with a list of all outstanding work and how/when the work would be completed but had yet to receive it.
The landlord called the resident on 17 February 2021 to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint. On 25 February 2021 the resident called the landlord and expressed his frustration at the length of time it was taking for the complaint to be resolved.
On 29 March 2021 the resident called the landlord about an appointment held that day. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that:
1. The appointment to replace the extractor in the fan in the kitchen did not go ahead as a kitchen cupboard was in the way. The landlord was already aware of this issue prior to the appointment and that the job would now have to be rebooked.
2. He was still waiting for an appointment for the bathroom tiles to be regrouted.
3. Due to these ongoing delays, the work to address the mould and damp in the property remained outstanding and the issue had gotten worse. The resident described a damp and mouldy smell from the bathroom and lounge.
4. The survey undertaken at the property had said that there were “dangerously high levels of moisture” in the property and the recommended work was not being carried out by the landlord.
5. The resident also requested information on how to pass on a letter from his doctor relating to his request to be rehoused.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 April 2021. It provided an email address for him to send a copy of the doctor’s letter. The landlord also requested that the resident provide it with photographs to show the extent of the mould at the property.
The resident called the landlord on 8 April 2021. He informed it that operatives had attended that day to measure the bathroom to fit a new radiator. He noted that measurements had already been undertaken previously and expressed his disappointment that no work had yet started. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident also raised the damp survey and enquired if the regrouting work had been cancelled.
An internal landlord email sent on 9 April 2021 stated that it had been informed by the contractor that due to minimal space and the location of a kitchen unit and the gas boiler, that in order to install an extractor fan a wall unit may have to be removed.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord and resident had a telephone meeting to discuss the outstanding issues. The landlord’s notes of the call state that they spoke for one hour and 40 minutes and that:
1. They discussed the damp survey that was undertaken at the property. The survey had found high moisture levels and had recommended work to fit a larger radiator in the bathroom, install an extractor fan in the kitchen, regrout the bathroom tiles to prevent water build-up behind them, and add trickle vents to the windows.
2. They also discussed the resident’s requests to be rehoused, the effect that living in the current property has had on his health and what evidence would be required by the landlord to consider a move on medical grounds.
3. The resident requested to be provided with a stage two response to the complaint.
The internal landlord email describing this telephone call also requested that a stage two response be sent to the resident by 16 April 2021.
A meeting between the landlord and its contractor was held on 15 April 2021 to agree a schedule of work with the resident. This meeting raised work orders to:
1. Attend the property on 15 and 16 April 2021 to remove the bathroom wall tiles and replace any wet or damaged plasterboard, fit new shower panelling and regrout any remaining tiles. If more than two days were required to complete this work, it would be scheduled for the following week.
2. An electrician would attend the property on 15 April 2021 to inspect the kitchen and determine how best to install the extractor fan. Follow-on work to complete the installation would then be booked.
3. Attend the property on 6 and 7 May 2021 to check and replace the trickle vents as required, ensure that there were cavity closers under the window cills and reseal the inside and outside of the windows.
The landlord called the resident on 21 April 2021 and confirmed the 6 and 7 May 2021 appointment dates.
On 28 April 2021 the resident called the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the quality of work in the bathroom. He informed it that the shower was not properly sealed and the mould on the bathroom floor had not been washed off. The resident requested that the bathroom was inspected by a different staff member than had previously inspected the work.
The landlord visited the resident on 29 April 2021. The landlord’s notes of the visit stated that:
1. It informed the resident that as the bedroom in the property is north facing it would be slightly colder than the other areas of the property and as a result has two radiators.
2. When the damp survey was undertaken, there were no signs of damp or mould in the bedroom. The landlord would arrange for a mould wash to be undertaken in the bedroom.
3. It would ask the contractor responsible for the damp survey to provide a copy to the resident.
4. The contractor recommended that a positive input ventilation (PIV) system be installed to prevent condensation and mould. However, this was declined by the resident.
5. The bathroom radiator that was delivered to the property was the wrong size and would need to be reordered.
6. There was damage to the internal doors in the property as a result of them being punched and kicked. The landlord informed the resident that it would replace the doors, but that this work would be rechargeable. This offer was declined by the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 30 April 2021 and requested an update on when the correct radiator would be fitted and that a full mould wash had yet to be completed in the property.
The resident called again on 14 May 2021. He confirmed an appointment had been agreed for 20 May 2021 to fit the bathroom radiator, that there were still signs of mould in the bedroom, that the water pressure in the new shower was poor and that marks remained from the old shower screen had yet to been cleaned. The resident also stated that he was still waiting for the landlord to send him a full list of what work the landlord had agreed to do and when it would be completed.
The landlord called the resident on 19 May 2021 to inform him that during the 20 May 2021 appointment that it would check the shower pressure and examine the area in the bedroom highlighted by resident for signs of damp and mould.
An internal landlord email sent on 20 May 2021 stated that it had been provided with a video from the operative who attended which showed that there was no issue with the shower. The operative noted that it was not as powerful as the previous shower, but that was a bespoke shower that had been installed by the previous tenant.
The resident called the landlord on 27 May 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that if he had been made aware that the new shower would not be as powerful as the old one then he would have not agreed to have it replaced. The resident also requested an update on his rehousing status and to receive a final response to the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 May 2021 and confirmed that the bathroom radiator would be fitted on 8 June 2021 and the mould treatment would be undertaken on 22 June 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2021 and gave him an update on the status of repairs and the complaint. It informed him that:
1. Contractors would be attending on 22 June 2021 to fit a PIV system to the hallway cupboard, apply a mould treatment to the affected areas then treat the areas with anti-mould paint.
2. Repairs to the windows were completed on 6 May 2021. A replacement double glazed unit was ordered for the lounge and was fitted on 2 June 2021.
3. Work took place on 15 and 16 April 2021 to repair damaged plasterboard in the bathroom and fit panelling to the shower area. Follow-on work was then raised to replace the shower due to the condition of the old shower and install a new shower screen. Operatives attended on 29 and 30 April 2021 after the resident reported issues with how the shower was sealed and with flooding. The operatives found that the shower had been running for a long period of time with a blockage in the waste which caused water to spill over the shower tray. This issue was then was rectified.
4. A staff member inspected the shower due to the resident’s concerns of the lower pressure than the previous shower. The staff member found the installation of the shower to be correct and the pressure adequate. The landlord advised the resident that if his individual needs required a different shower that he should consult an Occupational Therapist.
5. A staff member and contractor would visit the resident on 9 June 2021 to discuss further repairs to the kitchen and lounge.
6. Once the 22 June 2021 work and installation of the bathroom radiator had been completed, a stage two response would then be sent to the resident.
On 8 June 2021 the resident called the landlord. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that the resident was unhappy that the appointment that day to fit the bathroom radiator had been cancelled and rescheduled for 5 July 2021. He explained that he was tired of being “messed around” by the landlord and requested to receive a final response to his complaint. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested to be rehoused.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 17 June 2021. The landlord explained that a staff member with a contractor attended the property on 9 June 2021, however they were unable to gain access to the property and their calls to the resident were unanswered.
It confirmed that the 22 June 2021 work and the rescheduled appointment to fit the bathroom radiator would still go ahead and it would continue to monitor damp and mould issues at the property.
The landlord then confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his case to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The complaint response also included a letter addressing the elements of the complaint relating to rehousing. The landlord explained that its transfer policy placed applicants in four bands according to their needs and that to meet the criteria of band 1 (urgent move), an applicant must provide evidence of the following:
1. A household member was unable to occupy their home due to acute medical need.
2. The home could not be adapted to meet a householder’s medical needs.
3. There was high risk of harm to a household members health by living in the current property.
4. There was a high risk of harm to others living in the vicinity resulting from a mental illness from a household member.
5. The police or another involved outside agency supported a move to another property.
The landlord asked the resident to provide it with any evidence to support an urgent move based on the described criteria. It also informed the resident that it would speak to his GP or support workers about his request to be moved on health grounds if it was provided with their contact details.
The landlord also suggested a mutual exchange as a possible method for the resident to be rehoused.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the landlord to inform it that the appointment had failed. They stated that they attempted to gain access to the property, called and sent text messages to the resident for two hours before leaving. The contractor provided a photograph of the card they left at the property and also informed the landlord that they had called the resident the previous day to confirm the appointment.
During a telephone conversation with this Service on 1 September 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of t he complaint as the ongoing issue with mould had impacted his health and that the landlord had refused to rehouse him despite both the police and his doctor supporting his request.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s property following his reports of damp and mould.

Overall, the landlord has followed its repairs policy when responding to the resident’s report of a leak. The damp survey held at the property recommended work to prevent condensation and the occurrence of damp. However, during this period the landlord’s services were affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord kept its residents updated via its website on the status of its services and had advised that delays to non-emergency repairs were likely. This was in line with general industry practice at the time as many landlords were running a reduced repairs service due to the pandemic and the associated restrictions.
There is no evidence from an appropriate qualified source that the repairs presented a serious health and safety risk to the property or to the resident that would need to be considered an emergency by the landlord.
Following the government advice on 22 February 2021, the landlord started to raise work orders and arrange appointments to undertake the recommended work.
The landlord’s services were still affected by problems due to the Covid-19 pandemic following the lifting of the national lockdown, as it explained on its website. This resulted in the appointment for a gas engineer to install the new radiator being cancelled twice and rescheduled for July 2021.
Although the overall handling of the repairs was reasonable, particularly given the unprecedented context of Covid-19 there was a delay in installing the bathroom radiator. This had been highlighted in the December 2020 damp survey. It was not then discussed until chased by the resident in April. The landlord then ordered the incorrect size before it was installed in May 2020.
It might also have helped if a more explicit schedule and timetable of works had been provided at the start of the works in March 2021. The landlord had been clear earlier in the year that the works would take place in March and April. However the resident chased specific repairs they knew were required in those months while the works were already ongoing. This resulted in a sense that the resident was having to chase works, when much of the timetable appears to have been what was planned from the start.
The works overran into June and July. However these repairs often focused on issues that had been raised following the initial repairs (for example the shower leak that was found to be from a blocked tray; the pressure of the shower). It is reasonable for landlords to assume works have been completed when attended by appropriately qualified contractors. The landlord’s obligation is then to ensure it arranges appropriate following inspections and works if it receives any further report from the resident.
The landlord consistently responded to the resident’s enquiries over the course of the works, including arranging follow up inspection. Furthermore while some of the repair timescale was affected by the landlord’s management, some was also affected by the resident (for example initially refusing the PIV system or by not providing access for some appointments).
When all the circumstances are taken into account, between Covid-19, the landlord’s repairs and follow up, and the resident’s communication, the landlord’s handling of the works that resulted from the damp survey were reasonable.
The resident has also described the adverse effect on his health caused by the delays in completing the work. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident considers that his health has been affected by any action or inaction by the landlord he may wish to raise this as a claim against the landlord’s liability insurer or take legal action. If the resident wishes to pursue legal action, he may wish to take independent legal advice. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.

How the landlord handled the resident’s request to be rehoused

The resident has requested to be rehoused as a resolution to the complaint due to their medical needs. As previously explained, it is not within the remit of this Service to comment on the matters relating to health and medical conditions. However, the Ombudsman is able to assess how the landlord handled the information it received.
The information provided by the landlord in its letter sent with the stage two response on 17 June 2020 is in line with its banding criteria procedure document. This document also gives examples of what type of medical needs would be considered as Band 1. These include:
1. A household member is in hospital and unable to return home as a result of medical needs.
2. A household member must sleep downstairs and cannot access toilet or bathing facilities due to stairs.
3. The home cannot be adapted for wheelchair access.
4. It is not possible to adapt the home to provide the necessary care and support required.
5. A consultant psychiatrist has assessed that the existing home is having a major effect on the mental health of a household member.
No evidence has been provided as part of this case that suggests that the resident provided documents to the landlord during the period of the complaint to support being moved on medical grounds that met the criteria as specified above. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to be immediately rehoused as a resolution to the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances and there is no evidence of service failure. Furthermore the landlord provided advice about how the resident might explore other options such as through mutual exchange or with the local authority.

The landlord’s complaint-handling

The landlord did not follow its complaint policy at either stage of its complaint process. The stage one response was not provided within ten working days and the stage two response was not provided within 20 working days. No evidence has been provided that shows that the resident was informed that the responses would be delayed or to give him a revised timeline.
There was also clearly confusion as to how and when the stage two response would be provided to the resident. In its internal correspondence, the landlord discussed providing a stage two response to the resident following several telephone calls where this was requested. However, the landlord also discussed not providing a stage two response until all work had been completed at the property. This was explained to the resident in its email to him sent on 7 June 2021.
This conflicting advice clearly caused confusion and inconvenience to the resident. Moreover, the stage two response made no reference to the delays in the complaint process. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.
In this case, the landlord did remain in regular contact with the resident and responded to his queries relating to the repairs and rehousing, despite it not properly respond to his requests to receive a final response to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. How it handled repairs to the resident’s property following his reports of damp and mould.
2. How it handled the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

As a result of the determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 within four weeks.