Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202218855)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218855

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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs required to the boundary wall.
    2. Overgrown brambles and the subsequent damage caused.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2-bedroom terraced property. She bought a 40% share of the property on 1 July 2016. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident’s property backs onto a boundary wall. There is approximately a metre between the resident’s home and the boundary wall. It is important to note that at the time of first reporting, it was believed there was a lane on the other side of the wall that had been adopted into the gardens of the private residents living the other side of the wall. The responsibility for the upkeep of this wall lay with the landlord; this is not disputed.
  3. The resident first reported that the boundary wall was crumbling in May 2019. The landlord inspected the wall on 10 June 2019 and confirmed damp was coming through and the render was coming off. The ownership of the land on the other side of the wall was, at that time, unknown. The landlord sought to find this information so it could conduct a repair on both sides.
  4. There has been no evidence provided to this Service, of communications with regards to the boundary wall between 2019 and 2021. In November 2021, the landlord sought guidance from its internal legal team as they believed the lane behind the wall was owned by the local authority and the private residents had adopted that lane into their gardens. In April 2022, the landlord was advised by its legal team to write to the private residents to obtain access to conduct the repair. The landlord was further advised to contact the local authority to ascertain if they could assist in resolving the access situation.
  5. On 5 May 2022, the resident made a separate report to the landlord that water had leaked into her kitchen from outside 3 months earlier, and a damp patch had formed in her kitchen. The resident advised, that as she had initially believed the leak was internal, so she had called a plumber directly. The plumber’s view was the leak had been caused by damage to the drainpipe from the overgrown brambles outside the property. The resident shared the plumber’s findings with the landlord.
  6. The resident received no response after she initially reported the issue and contacted the landlord a further 4 times over a 6-week period to chase the repair. The landlord attended to inspect the property on 15 June 2022. The inspection could not proceed as the brambles had not been cleared.
  7. The resident raised a complaint on 5 July 2022 in which she raised concerns about the ongoing issues with the boundary wall, the damage caused by the brambles, and the lack of contact from the landlord. The resident asked for the boundary wall to be repaired, for the immediate upkeep of the brambles and repair to the internal and external parts of her kitchen wall. She also asked for a 100% refund of her service charge plus a further £800 compensation.
  8. In its stage 1 response, on 5 August 2022, the landlord said that, in relation to the boundary wall, it had been trying to arrange access, it had instructed an external solicitor to assist and would provide an update when it had one. With regards to the brambles, the landlord said it understood those had now been removed. The landlord advised that as the resident was a shared owner, she had liability for any repairs under the terms of her lease and asked the resident to obtain a builder’s report to ascertain the work needed and the cause of the damage. If that report showed the landlord had liability it would complete a repair. The landlord offered £100 as a goodwill gesture.
  9. On 9 August 2022, the resident requested escalation to stage 2. In its stage 2 response, on 30 August 2022, the landlord stated they were still awaiting information in relation to the boundary wall. It further reminded the resident that it had advised the resident to provide a builder’s report to demonstrate the cause of the damage and that it had nothing further to add. It offered £100 for communication failures and the time the resident had taken to contact the landlord.
  10. The local authority confirmed, on 1 September 2022, that it did not own the land behind the wall, and this was in fact owned by the private residents. This was relayed to the resident who, on the same date, highlighted that the landlord had spent 2 years chasing the local authority about land they did not even own.
  11. On 13 October 2022 the landlord advised they were continuing to liaise with internal departments to resolve the issue. Internal emails, on 31 October 2022, highlighted that the landlord felt a review of its legal support was needed as they had spent 6 months doing “very little” and had not resolved the issue.
  12. On 7 March 2023 the resident advised she was seeking legal advice. The landlord confirmed, to the resident, the crumbling on the boundary wall was removed in November 2022 and it was left in a safe condition while they obtained clarity on whether the wall was listed. It reminded the resident that the internal damage to her kitchen was dealt with at stage 2, and it would not comment further unless the resident provided a builder’s report demonstrating the cause of the water ingress to be the brambles.
  13. On 14 March 2023, a maintenance team attended the property to ascertain the current condition of the boundary wall. No further communication is evidenced until 31 May 2023, when the resident contacted the landlord asking them to take responsibility for the repairs to the boundary wall.
  14. The landlord replied the same day saying it was continuing to look at the issues with the boundary wall and advised the person originally dealing with that had since left and apologised for no communication. The landlord had inspected the wall and said it remained in “a generally good condition” and that it was “not unsafe”, and it would carry out minimal work to remove the render and potentially repoint the wall.
  15. Following a referral to this Service, the landlord conducted a review of the complaint. In relation to the boundary wall, the landlord apologised for the delay and stated that it should have been investigated and a repair put in place quicker. With regards to the damage caused by the brambles, the landlord said while it was hard to assess if the brambles caused the damage, it did not feel the damage was significant enough to warrant a builder’s report and that this should have been concluded at the time. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence with regards to whether the external wall was repaired and by whom. It apologised and offered £100 to the resident to purchase paint for the kitchen. It offered £750 for the time and effort taken in complaining about the damaged wall and grounds maintenance.
  16. With regards to its complaint handling, it awarded £100 and said it had not been empathetic towards the challenges faced by the resident. Overall, it offered £950 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The terms of the resident’s lease state that the resident must keep the premises in good and substantial repair, decorative order, and condition, and whenever necessary, to renew or rebuild the premises. It further states that the resident must keep any garden area included within the premises tidy and properly cultivated.
  2. The terms also state that the landlord will use reasonable endeavours to maintain, repair, redecorate, renew, and improve the communal facilities and all other parts of the estate that do not form part of any resident’s demise.
  3. In its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord states it will insure the properties they own. This forms part of the service charge and covers the cost of insuring the resident’s property, any communal areas and public liability insurance. The service charge, for shared owners, also covers costs associated with looking after the outside areas of the estate including gardening and maintenance.

Boundary Wall

  1. The resident first reported issues with the state of the boundary wall in April 2019, however, despite requesting evidence the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlords handling of this issue prior to November 2021. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on why there was a delay between reporting and subsequent action because of this. Landlords should have systems in place to ensure accurate records are kept of all repair requests, not only to ensure timely actions are taken but also to monitor and track any delays.
  2. In November 2021, the landlord was seeking to ascertain the owner of the land behind the boundary wall and was advised, by its legal team, to contact private residents on 8 December 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord actioned this. It is unclear why, at this stage, it had taken almost 3 years to ascertain the information required. In circumstances where there is a delay, landlords should ensure reasonable updates are given to residents to manage expectations. The landlord should have systems in place to monitor repairs, any delays which would prevent it taking action or decisions required in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord had, on 17 November 2021, discussed contacting the local authority to ascertain ownership, but failed to do this. This was suggested again on 13 April 2022. Although contact with the local authority was made, this Service has seen no evidence as to when this was done or why there was such a delay. Given the long delays already in its investigation, the time taken by the landlord to obtain the information was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord informed the resident, on 1 September 2022, that the local authority did not own the land behind the wall and on 11 October further communicated that they were still trying to resolve the issue around the ownership of the land. This was another unreasonable delay. The landlord did not communicate with the resident during this delay. Landlords should ensure, where there are delays, regular updates are given to residents, even where there may not have been any progress made, to manage the expectations of a resident. The landlord did not show reasonable regard to the distress the delay was causing the resident especially given she thought the wall was going to crumble.
  5. The landlord, on 30 October 2022, recognised a review of the provision of its legal advice was necessary, acknowledging that they had spent 6 months doing “very little” and had not yet resolved the issue. While it is appropriate to recognise the issue, the responsibility ultimately lay with the landlord to ensure it provided a good service. The landlord had been aware of the issue since April 2019 and therefore, it is fair to say that the landlord itself had done very little to resolve the issue. The time taken to ascertain ownership and coordinate a repair that was 3 years old was unacceptably long.
  6. While the landlord made the wall safe in November 2022, there is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident to ease her concerns that it was going to fall. The landlord was aware that the resident was concerned about the safety of the wall and that she had spent considerable time and effort in chasing a repair. Communicating in a timely way with the resident on its progress would have reduced the impact and distress for the resident. Good communication would have also helped to rebuild trust in the landlord and resident relationship. The resident would have known the landlord had acted on her concerns and that risks from the disrepair had been minimised.
  7. In communication with the resident, on 7 March 2023, the landlord stated it was in contact with Historic England to ascertain if the wall was listed. However, no evidence has been provided in relation to this communication and therefore the Ombudsman cannot determine the nature of this communication or if the landlord actively sought to obtain an answer in a timely manner.
  8. In May 2023, it advised that Historic England could not confirm the status of the wall. The landlord confirmed it would carry out minimal work, while assuring the resident that the wall was in a safe state of repair. The time taken to obtain this information is another unacceptable delay. While the Ombudsman recognises that it was reasonable for the landlord to seek detail from third parties, it is unreasonable that it did not seek the information sooner.
  9. Throughout the duration of the investigation into the boundary wall, the landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident to manage expectations with regards to timescale and the action it was taking to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman expects landlords to put residents at the centre of complaint’s handling, to ensure that it manages the expectations of residents through its communication and to ensure it works to put things right. While the landlord recognised the delays in its review following referral to this Service, it is unacceptable that it did not act in a timely manner.
  10. It should also be noted that no evidence has been provided in relation to the communication the landlord had with both the resident and historic England in relation to the boundary wall. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’ (May 2023) highlights the importance of record keeping and having good systems in place to ensure good records are held. Had the landlord had a system in place where it could track progress of the outstanding repair, it may have helped to ensure timely progress was made with its investigations and repairs.
  11. It is clear from the evidence provided, that the resident spent a lot of time and effort in chasing the landlord for updates in relation to the repair request. The resident raised that she believed the wall to be dangerous in her stage 1 complaint on 5 July 2022, this was raised again on 31 August 2022 and further on 31 October 2022. In none of its communication with the resident did the landlord consider the impact and distress on the resident or reassure her fully that it had assessed the risk from the condition of the wall. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have a resident focussed approach in dealing with complaints which it failed to do in this case.
  12. Following referral to this Service, the landlord conducted a review of its handling of this complaint. It concluded that given it confirmed responsibility for the repair in May 2022, it should have completed the wall repair sooner. It acknowledged that discussions did take place with the builder but there are no notes provided of the content of those discussions. It advised that learning has been shared internally in relation to this.
  13. However, the delays in this case are unacceptable, it should not have taken 3 years to establish responsibility and a further year to complete a repair. The delay in coming to its conclusion that it had not acted fairly, is an acknowledgement that the landlord did not act fairly at the time, however it is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
  14. Overall, the long delays in investigating and subsequently repairing the wall have led to a determination that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boundary wall.

Brambles and subsequent damage

  1. When the resident first noticed the leak, as per the terms of the lease, she correctly contacted a plumber directly who asserted that the leak had been caused by the pipe damage from the overgrown brambles. While the resident has a repair responsibility, the landlord had a responsibility for the ground’s maintenance, paid for through the service charge. Therefore, it should have attended or at the least communicated with the resident in a timely manner to assess the condition of the brambles and to ascertain who was responsible for any subsequent repairs.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord a further 4 times to chase the repair. It attended, on 15 June 2022, to inspect the issue; 27 working days after the resident initially raised the repair request. This was an unacceptable delay and added to the resident’s distress around this issue. Particularly in relation to who was responsible for the repair and when it would be fixed.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy stated that it would complete regular grounds maintenance to estate areas and ensure hedgerows and shrub beds were maintained. This was paid for through the resident’s service charge. While the service charge policy does not give prescriptive timelines for ground maintenance there should be in place a rolling programme of maintenance. If this was affective, the brambles are unlikely to have got to a stage of causing damage. When the resident reported the issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review its maintenance programme to ensure the situation would not reoccur, there is no evidence this to support this happened. This was a missed opportunity.
  4. In the stage 1 response, on 5 August 2022, the landlord said it understood the brambles had been removed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to check the brambles had been cleared before making the assertion that they had. Evidence shows, the landlord requested maintenance of the brambles on 9 August 2022. The delay to cut back the brambles was unreasonable; especially given the possibility they had caused the damage to the resident’s property. The landlord and resident relationship requires trust and confidence in the landlord, misinformation does not support a positive relationship and erodes trust.
  5. The landlord, in its stage 1 response, advised that the resident was liable to complete any repairs to the property and therefore would need to obtain a builder’s report to show the brambles had caused the damage. As a shared ownership property, it is not disputed that the resident was responsible for internal repairs to the property. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord asked the resident to supply evidence to support her claim that the landlord was responsible.
  6. It was, therefore, also reasonable that the landlord agreed that if the resident could supply a report asserting the landlord had liability for the repair, it would then conduct a repair.
  7. However, given that the resident paid for buildings insurance through the service charge, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the resident if she maintained the landlord was at fault. However, there is no evidence to show this discussion took place and therefore the landlord failed in this respect.
  8. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, offered £100 compensation to the resident for the time taken to deal with the overgrown brambles The resident spent a lot of time and effort to chase a repair and maintenance of the brambles, as per the landlord’s obligation under the terms of the lease. Therefore, this amount does not accurately reflect the failings in this case. Neither does it reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in chasing the landlord and living with damp in her kitchen for an unreasonable period.
  9. In reviewing its response in this case, the landlord reflected that the damage was not significant enough to warrant a builder’s report. It stated that it could have been fixed while attending to repair the boundary wall. It offered the resident £850 compensation at this stage. While the landlord’s review has made a reasonable conclusion, the landlord missed opportunities to take this action sooner. Had this been the response at the time, a conclusion of reasonable redress may have been made.
  10. While it is appropriate the landlord considered the complaint again following referral to this Service. The Ombudsman expects landlords to conduct thorough and fair investigations at the time of the initial complaint and not following a referral to this Service. The delay in coming to the conclusion that it did, is a demonstration that the landlord did not act fairly at the time and therefore it is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
  11. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the overgrown brambles and the subsequent damage caused.

Complaint’s handling

  1. The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process. It said that it would aim to respond to complaints within 10 and 20 working days, at stage 1 and 2 respectively. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained on 5 July 2022, and it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge her complaint the same day. This is in line with the Code and the landlord’s policy. The landlord then took 23 days to issue the stage 1 response, this was unreasonable and outside of the 10 days committed to in its policy. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge or explain this delay within its response.
  3. The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its own policy resulted in extra efforts from the resident to progress her complaint. The time, trouble and distress caused to the resident by this delay is unreasonable.
  4. A complaint response must be sent to a resident when the answer to a complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are resolved. Outstanding issues and investigations must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously by the landlord with regular updates provided to the resident.
  5. Following referral to this Service, the landlord conducted a review of the complaint. It concluded there had been failings in the way it handled the resident’s complaint and highlighted it was not empathetic towards the challenges the resident faced. It offered the resident £100 compensation. Whilst the Ombudsman finds it appropriate the landlord conducted such a review, only doing so after a referral to this Service, highlights that the landlord did not handle the complaint in line with the Code or its own policies first time around.
  6. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repair requests. As a result of these, a wider order was issued to the landlord in November 2023 under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. The landlord was ordered, on November 2023, as part of case 202200596, to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs and its complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case have similarities to those in the previous cases and therefore learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required to the boundary wall.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown brambles and the subsequent water damaged caused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Reoffer the resident the previous £950 compensation payment it offered to her for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report, if it has not already paid this.
    2. Write to the resident and apologise for the issues identified in this report.
    3. Provide this Service with the learning found as part of its review of this complaint and evidence how it has integrated that learning into its service in relation to estate management.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and identify any learning points and opportunities for service improvements.