Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202208936)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208936

Sovereign Housing Association Limited3

13 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of his reports of his home overheating.

Background

2. The resident held a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom flat and was purchased by the resident in September 2016. The landlord acquired the resident’s property via a stock transfer from another Housing Association (HA) after 2019.
3. Between 2017 and 2018 the resident raised concerns about overheating in his property. The previous HA tried to address these concerns by replacing the mechanical ventilation heat recovery unit (MHVR), however, the resident informed the HA that this had not resolved the issue.
4. On 28 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, he said that he had raised the issue of overheating in his property from 2017 to 2019 with the previous HA and that he provided the landlord with evidence of their acknowledgment of the issue. He was unhappy that the landlord had refused to act unless he commissioned his own overheating assessment. As an outcome of his complaint, he wanted the landlord to adhere to its ‘home place standard’ and help resolve the issue.
5. On 3 August 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints process. The response said:
   1. It had advised the resident to contact environmental services or building control.
   2. It felt it had been supportive and had responded to his emails promptly.
   3. He was responsible for the inside of his home and if he felt the overheating issues lay outside of his flat it would be up to him to provide professional evidence, which it would then consider.
6. The resident responded the same day and said that the overheating issue in his property had not been fully addressed or taken seriously. He said that the landlord should be committed to applying its standards to all its properties including his. He disagreed that the landlord had been supportive and was unhappy that he would have to carry out a heat assessment at his own cost without any help from the landlord.
7. On 26 August 2022 the landlord issued its final response: It did not uphold the complaint. In summary, the response said:
   1. It had reviewed the correspondence passed to it from the HA and it could not find any reference to excessive heat issues, but it would be happy to review any correspondence the resident had with the HA about this.
   2. It could not apply its homes and place standard retrospectively to the building because the landlord isn’t the freeholder.
   3. He was responsible for the maintenance and improvement of his own home as per the conditions of his lease.
   4. It could commission a report into the overheating issue, but it would pass on the associated costs to him.
   5. It could have provided a better explanation on why he was being advised to get his own survey, but the advice was correct.
   6. That the application of the home and place standard retrospectively was an aspiration but that it was not possible to bring all its properties up to this standard.
   7. He could help mitigate the heat issues by applying solar reflective film to his windows, fitting thick curtains or blinds, putting a fan by an open window, fitting a ceiling fan, and/or considering air conditioning.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he advised that he first reported the heating issues in his home during the defects period and therefore the landlord should have dealt with the matter. He said the landlord was refusing to put in place its home and place standard which states homes should be cool in summer. As an outcome, he said he wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for the overheating of his property.
9. The landlord recently carried out a review of the resident’s complaint in which it apologised to the resident for the lack of support he received and for not acknowledging the negative impact the situation had on his well-being. The response said that it had been incorrect to say that the landlord would not do anything as it was not the developer. It said it had forwarded his heat survey to its asset team and that it would contact him on the next steps. It also offered the resident compensation of £675 as a reimbursement for the cost of the survey and £100 to reflect the distress caused.
10. The resident responded saying that he wanted a timeframe for resolving the heating issue before discussing compensation and clarified that the heating survey had, in fact, only cost him £220. The landlord informed this Service that it intends to honour the £675 offered to the resident due to the time and trouble caused.

Assessment and findings

11. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

12. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
13. The landlord’s Home and Place standard states that homes will be comfortable for the long term and that they will resist overheating and that they will be designed to avoid the need for active cooling systems. The standard also states that it has the necessary investment to hand and wants to raise standards across all its homes.
14. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timescale, however, it failed to inspect his property and carry out an assessment of the overheating issue. This was unreasonable. The resident provided evidence to the landlord, as requested, that he had reported the overheating issue in his property to the previous HA. The evidence showed that the issue was brought to the attention of the HA during the defects period and that the issue remained. It would have been clear to the landlord that this was having a considerable impact on the resident for a prolonged period and that the resident had acted reasonably by trying to get the issue resolved at an early stage. Therefore, following the resident’s reports, and in line with the principles of its home and place standards, the landlord should have acknowledged this and taken steps to investigate the problem.
15. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord advised that he arrange his own heat survey, which he did. This advice was inappropriate. The issue of overheating in a property is often complex, and there can be several external contributing factors. In view of this, and the evidence of the resident reporting this matter historically, the landlord should have acknowledged the complexity of the issue and carried out its own survey. The landlord’s response was unreasonable, and it failed to act in line with the principles of its home and place standard.
16. Further, the resident provided a copy of the heat survey to the landlord (after its final response), which found that one of the main causes of the overheating issue was the design of the development and the number of heavy building materials used. The survey made suggestions that the landlord could take to mitigate the issue such as planting trees and installing hanging baskets with plants, however, the landlord failed to acknowledge or consider these. The landlord’s response to the survey was dismissive and it put the onus back onto the resident. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
17. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to provide suggestions to the resident on how to keep his property cool, it incorrectly suggested that he was solely responsible for resolving the overheating issue. The landlord later acknowledged that the overheating was likely due to the design of the building and has recently indicated that it was responsible for trying to resolve the issue.
18. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s reports unsatisfactorily and failed to take a customer-focused approach to his concerns. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident and the negative impact this was having on his life. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord.
19. This Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has since tried to ‘put things right’ for the resident by offering to reimburse him the cost of the heat survey and compensation for the stress caused. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £600 – £1,000 should be considered where there has been a significant failure that has adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation is broadly in line with this Service’s guidance and the Ombudsman has considered this as part of its orders, set out below.

20. Had the landlord offered compensation, acknowledged the distress caused, and passed the issue onto its asset team to investigate as part of its complaints process, it is likely the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress. However, it was not until over eight months later when the Ombudsman was involved that the landlord identified failings in its handling of the complaint and took action to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. In view of this, the Ombudsman has still made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of the resident’s home overheating.

Orders

22. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
    1. Pay the resident £675 compensation for the reimbursement of the heat survey and the time and trouble caused.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. Develop a plan on what action it will take to try and resolve the overheating issue. This plan should include timeframes for actions and be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

23. It is recommended that the landlord carry out the suggestions within the heat survey provided by the resident.