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

Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202209778)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209778

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

16 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal repairs and communal cleaning.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom flat in a purpose built block.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 January 2022. He was unhappy that he was not informed when communal repairs were happening, despite having asked the landlord to make him aware beforehand. He said this impacted him due to his mental health condition. The resident challenged the landlord’s usual practice of not informing residents about communal repairs, and stated they should be made aware in case of access issues or mental health vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident later complained about the standard of communal cleaning, which was added to his complaint on 24 February 2022. He said he was unhappy because residents paid a cleaning fee and the standard they received was poor.
  4. On 19 May 2022 the landlord said it raised concerns with its cleaning contractor and requested an audit, which was carried out on 28 April 2022. It was informed the overall standard of cleaning was good. The landlord said it would monitor the situation and ensure operatives signed in correctly on each visit and the property was audited regularly.
  5. In June 2022, the resident raised concerns about the fire door at his property. He was concerned the fire proof paint on the door was incorrect and did not meet regulations. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection. On 5 July 2022, the resident reported issues with some communal bannisters being damaged.
  6. On 7 July 2022, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage two. He was unhappy as he waited in for an appointment for an inspection of his front door, but the operative did not knock or call to let him know they attended. He was frustrated with the lack of response from the landlord.
  7. On 15 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage two response. It said it had completed some outstanding repairs to both the communal door and the door to the resident’s property, and had booked in repairs for a communal window and the staircase spindle. The landlord increased the number of audits following the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning, and installed a new visit log to monitor operative attendance. Additionally, it apologised for the resident’s experience with communication and stated it had taken steps to rectify the issues.
  8. On 29 November 2022, the resident contacted this Service. He was dissatisfied that his complaint had been closed, and that the landlord refused to log an additional complaint about its complaint handling. He said repairs had taken 4 months to be completed and the communal window had still not been repaired.
  9. Following contact from this service, the landlord provided an additional complaint response on 31 July 2023. It apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation for complaint handling delays; £100 for failing to log an additional complaint; and £300 for inconvenience, service failures and lack of empathy.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. It also states that it aims to provide a response to complaints at stage one within 10 working days, and within 20 working days at stage two.
  2. The occupancy agreement states that the landlord will ‘take reasonable care to maintain any communal areas’. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will carry out regular cleaning and servicing of equipment in communal areas where it is responsible for maintenance.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal repairs and communal cleaning

  1. 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 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. 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’.
  3. The resident initially complained in January 2022 about not being informed when communal repairs were taking place, as this affected his mental health. The landlord explained its usual practice was not to inform residents about communal repairs, though the resident disputed this and specifically asked to be notified. The resident raised the issue again when he requested to escalate his complaint to stage two in July 2022, as he had waited in for an appointment and was not notified of the operative having attended. In the stage two response, the landlord failed to address this complaint point specifically, although it apologised for the resident’s general experience with communication and stated it had taken steps to rectify these issues. The landlord failed to address the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord did not have to notify the resident of communal repairs, it missed an opportunity to reasonably consider his request. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
  4. The resident later complained about cleaning in communal areas of the property. He raised this as an issue in February 2022, and in April 2022 he reported the cleaning had not been carried out for over a month. The landlord contacted the resident about the cleaning in May 2022, asked for further information and forwarded his concerns to its cleaning contractor. An audit was conducted on 28 April 2022 and the standard was considered to be good overall.
  5. Further concerns about the cleaning service were subsequently raised in June 2022. The landlord remained in contact with the resident and agreed to monitor the situation, ensure operatives signed in and out on each visit and that the property is regularly audited. Although the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the cleaning, the evidence shows it took the landlord 3 months to contact the resident after the issue was first raised. The reason for the delay is unclear. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, and constitutes an unreasonable delay in addressing the resident’s issue.
  6. The resident raised additional concerns about the fire door to his flat on 1 June 2022. This service understands the resident was concerned about the fire proof paint on his front door, as it did not match the other doors and he disputed that it met regulation standards. Concerns were also raised about a decorative repair, after the resident stated a metal strip was not installed correctly. On 7 July 2022 an operative attended, though it is unclear if any work or an inspection was carried out. Operatives attended again on 18 August 2022 but could not access the property.
  7. A further repairs issue with the communal door was raised on 18 July 2022. In the stage two response from 15 November 2022, the landlord stated the work to the resident’s front door and repairs to the communal door had been completed. From the evidence provided, it is unclear when these repairs took place, though the landlord could reasonably have been expected to attend with 28 days.
  8. Similarly, the resident reported a fault with the communal staircase on 5 July 2022 and this was not completed until 25 November 2022, 4 months later. Overall, it appears there was a considerable delay in carrying out all the repairs mentioned. It is of concern that the communal door appears to have taken 4 months to repair, as this would be a safety concern. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and contributed towards the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience in having to chase these repairs.
  9. After the resident brought his complaint to this service, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £300 for the ‘inconvenience, service failure and lack of empathy’. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer this remedy in its stage two response, and it missed an opportunity to provide this to the resident earlier. Although the compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord failed to provide this via its internal complaints procedure, and it took the involvement of this Service before a suitable remedy was offered. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and a finding of maladministration is made.
  10. Orders are made below, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to learn from outcomes and put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained on 21 January 2022. Both the landlord’s own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.  In this case no stage one response was provided. This was a failing and represents a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns at an earlier opportunity.
  2. The stage two response was provided on 15 November 2022. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord was in communication with the resident, and provided a response about the cleaning issues on 19 May 2022 and 28 June 2022, which appears to have resolved the issue. However, the timescale from the stage one complaint being logged and the response being provided was 209 working days. The resident reiterated his complaint and chased a response from the landlord on 5 occasions during this time. Whilst its clear the landlord took steps to address some of the resident’s concerns, the time taken to formally respond to the resident’s complaint was excessive and constitutes an unreasonable delay. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. Although the landlord has since acknowledged this failing and offered the resident £200 for the complaint handling delays, it again failed to do so via its internal complaints procedure and did so seemingly after the involvement of this Service. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and a finding of maladministration is made.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord chose not to log an additional complaint when the resident requested it in regards to his dissatisfaction with its handling of his complaint, and referred the resident to this service instead. As above, the landlord has since apologised to the resident. It is reasonable for a landlord to refer a resident to the Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of a complaint, including how it has been handled. The Ombudsman would not usually expect a landlord to raise a further complaint about the handling of a complaint, as the next step in the complaint process would be for this Service to consider the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal repairs and communal cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the compensation offered if it has not already done so.
    2. Assess the communal areas of the property for outstanding repairs and rectify any issues highlighted.
    3. Review its process for completing communal repairs and ensure these are actioned within a reasonable timeframe, and advise the Ombudsman of the outcome of this.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review how it handles complaints from residents, and re-train staff if necessary to ensure responses are in line with the guidance set out in this Service’s complaint handling code.