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

Sovereign Network Homes (202108328)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108328

Sovereign Network Homes

26 February 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The resident’s reports of cracks in the wall.
    3. The resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal front door.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy, which had a fixed term of 5 years. The property was a 3-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident had three children living with her. The resident had informed the landlord that she experienced issues with her mental health.
  2. The resident experienced problems related to antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the upstairs neighbour for a sustained period. The resident had made a previous complaint to the landlord regarding the handling of her ASB case. This report will focus on the events from 17 December 2021, which is the date of the previous complaint response provided by the landlord. During this time, the resident reported noise nuisance, and threats of violence and sexual assault towards her and her children. She said that she had PTSD from previous trauma she had experienced, and that the threats made, as well as the frequent male visitors to the neighbour, impacted her mental health. She had also noted ASB by various visitors of the neighbour spitting on her door, urinating outside of the property and selling drugs out of the upstairs property.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. She said it had not provided adequate support to her and that she felt she had to continually provide evidence of the ASB. The resident also raised concerns about disrepair issues at the property, but it was not clear what this specifically was in reference to.
  4. On 29 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It clarified that its response would focus on events after the previous complaint response from 17 December 2021. The response said:
    1. It had communicated with the resident through weekly calls and responded to all her contacts either on the same day or the following working day. It gave multiple examples of when it had responded promptly.
    2. It had taken both informal and legal action regarding the ASB, including applying to court for an injunction for the neighbour to desist in further ASB and for a possession order if the injunction was breached. It said that the evidence requested from the resident was important to address the concerns with the alleged perpetrator.
    3. It had considered her request for a move to another property and would convene a panel to discuss a management transfer application. If successful, it said it would allow her banding on the housing register to increase to a higher priority.
    4. It had received her report of a repair required to the communal door frame and communal door lock. It said that it had attended, and follow-up work was being arranged to repair the door frame. It said it provided the resident with updates of the repair in its weekly calls to her.
    5. It had received her report of cracks in the walls of her property. It said that a surveyor had confirmed that the cracks were decorative and therefore would be the resident’s responsibility to manage. It said that if the cracks were to worsen, she should contact it to raise this for further investigation.
    6. It had a previous report of damp and mould which was subject to a disrepair claim. It said that the resident had reported further mould concerns after the claim had closed and that it had arranged a damp specialist to attend the property, installed vents and completed a mould wash. It said that the resident had confirmed there had been no further issues since the works were completed on 21 January 2022.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 March 2022. She said that the cracks were not decorative, and they were getting bigger daily. She also said that she felt the landlord had not taken the ASB concerns seriously, but that she was happy with the possibility of a management transfer. She said that the ASB had impacted on her mental health and had impacted her children too. She said that the weekly phone calls did not provide a resolution to the ASB. She also mentioned that the communal door had been “patched together” but issues with this remained. She mentioned that she had not received an update from the landlord’s insurers about mould damage to her personal belongings.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 April 2022. It split the complaint into various subheadings to address the concerns raised by the resident. The landlord’s response said that:
    1. A surveyor had assessed the cracks in the wall, including the additional pictures that the resident had sent with her complaint escalation. It reiterated that the cracks were decorative, and the resident was responsible for managing these.
    2. It had taken her concerns about the ASB seriously and had provided prompt communication on each occasion of ASB reports. It said that it had continued to update her at each stage regarding the action, both informal and legal, it had taken. It said that it worked with external agencies to help resolve the ASB, such as the police and the neighbour’s support workers. It confirmed that the panel had met about the transfer application, and it had uplifted her banding to Band A.
    3. It had considered the impact of the ASB on the resident given her mental health and personal circumstances. It said that it had tried to support her and acted in ways appropriate for her, such as its weekly calls to her.
    4. It disputed that the weekly calls were not helping the resident. It said that the resident reported repairs during these calls, and she was kept up to date with the progress of the ASB case as well as providing information on how to move properties.
    5. It had originally intended on replacing the door frame but decided to repair this instead as this would be major work due to the age of the property. It said that it had changed the locks and the door closed properly. It said that she could raise any further issues as a repair.
    6. It understood that providing evidence was inconvenient, but it needed the reports of ASB to take effective action. It said that it had installed a Sitex door which meant that the neighbour’s property could not be accessed, and that it hoped this would result in no further ASB concerns for the resident.
    7. It was aware that its insurers wrote to the resident on 1 March 2022 to confirm that it was taking on the claim and that for any further updates, she should contact the insurers directly. It gave her the contact details for the insurers and confirmed that it had no influence over the outcome of the claim.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked this Service to investigate. She said that the cracks in the property were not decorative, the communal front door still required repairs and that she was unhappy with the way that the landlord handled the ASB case. The complaint became one that we could investigate on 30 March 2023. The resident moved to another of the landlord’s properties in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she was unhappy with the way that the landlord handled the concerns of damp and mould in her property. In the resident’s complaint and escalation request, she mentioned general disrepair issues at the property and that she was awaiting a response to her insurance claim about damaged items caused by damp and mould. She did not make reference to being dissatisfied about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports. The landlord gave information about how to contact its insurers and confirmed that it could not influence the insurers decision. If the resident remains unhappy about the handling of any repairs related to damp and mould, she may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord regarding these issues. The resident may wish to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint that her health had been affected by the situation. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses outlined that it focused on the period from its previous final complaint response on 17 December 2021. This investigation will therefore focus on events that have occurred between 17 December 2021 and the landlord’s final complaint response on 8 April 2022.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that it requires residents’ full cooperation to help resolve the ASB, including providing information when requested such as incident log sheets. The resident complained that she had to continually provide evidence of the ASB to the landlord and that she felt that the landlord only acted when matters escalated. The landlord said that this was not an unreasonable request as it required recent and ongoing evidence to take legal action to resolve the ASB. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  2. While it may have been upsetting for the resident to have to report matters, the landlord required this evidence to be able to take steps to resolve the ASB. The landlord had told the resident in December 2021 that it had served a pre-NOSP (notice of seeking possession) against the neighbour, which is one of the first steps in taking possession of a property. It then updated her on 31 January 2022 that it would serve a NOSP that week following continued reports and evidence of ASB. Its stage 1 complaint response, on 29 March 2022, said that it was applying for both a court injunction against the neighbour to stop the ASB and for a possession order if the neighbour breached the injunction. The landlord may not have been able to take such action without the evidence provided by the resident. Its positive action showed that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. An action plan and risk assessment was completed with the resident on 30 November 2021. The landlord confirmed that this risk assessment was used for the ASB concerns investigated in this complaint. This document states that the resident was issued with diary logs and that it would agree dates for these to be returned to the landlord. However, the landlord has confirmed that the resident did not complete diary sheets. While this contradicts the agreed action plan and risk assessment, the resident was able to log incidents via email to the landlord. She also had opportunities to raise new incidents during weekly telephone calls that the landlord made to her between January and March 2022. It is evident that the resident raised incidents by both methods and there is no indication that she raised any dissatisfaction about using these methods at the time.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will respond to any reports of ASB within 5 working days, and for high level incidents, it will respond to such reports within 1 working day. It is evident that the landlord followed its policy by responding to the resident either the same day or the following working day when reports were made. Its complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 gave examples of how it met the timeframes set out in its policy, and this is further confirmed through the evidence provided by the landlord to this Service.
  5. The ASB policy also states that the landlord will work in partnership with police and community agencies when investigating ASB cases. In both the evidence provided by the landlord and in its communication to the resident, it is evident that the landlord signposted the resident to contact the police. This was also identified in the action plan and risk assessment document dated 30 November 2021. The resident provided the landlord with crime reference numbers to give updates of the ongoing ASB. The landlord also worked with the neighbour’s support workers to try and resolve the ASB before it took legal action.
  6. The policy continues to state that it will try and help residents to stay in their own home and support them throughout the ASB case. It said that it would issue warnings and make referrals to support services for the perpetrator of ASB before it would take legal action, such as serving a NOSP or injunction. While the landlord has not provided evidence of the exact dates of when the pre-NOSP and NOSP were served, it is not disputed that the pre-NOSP was served in December 2021 and that an application for the NOSP was submitted to the courts around the week of 31 January 2022.
  7. The landlord gave regular updates to the resident during this time. It gave her realistic timeframes of when she could expect further action to be taken regarding resolving the ASB. For example, it told her that it would need to wait 4 weeks for the NOSP to expire before it could act. On 4 April 2022, following the resident’s reports of the neighbour’s flat being occupied by non-residents, the landlord arranged for the neighbour’s support workers to visit the property. It then arranged for the police to attend after it was identified that the neighbour was not residing there. The neighbour’s property was then fitted with a Sitex door to prevent re-entry. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.
  8. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she had not experienced any further ASB from the neighbour or visitors following the landlord’s responsive action taken on 4 April 2022. While it is acknowledged that the process of applying to courts and taking legal action to resolve ASB concerns can be lengthy and distressing for the resident, such delays are not always within the landlord’s control.
  9. The resident had complained to the landlord that it had not considered the impact of the ASB on her mental health. The landlord’s vulnerable customers policy states that it will adapt its services to meet the needs of vulnerable residents. While the landlord has told the Ombudsman that it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, it was evident that after being notified of the mental health concerns following the resident’s communication in January 2022, it acted reasonably by adapting its processes to support the resident. It began offering her weekly calls from 17 January 2022 to discuss the ASB concerns. It maintained this contact weekly on the same day each week at a time that suited the resident.
  10. As part of the resident’s complaint on 14 March 2022, she said that the calls were not helping her, and it is understood that the landlord stopped the weekly calls at this point. It was reasonable for it to stop this action at the resident’s request. The resident wished to move home to be away from the ASB, and while its ASB policy aims to support residents in their own home, it offered further support by arranging a panel to discuss a management transfer application. This action showed that the landlord took her concerns about her mental health, and that her previous trauma was being impacted, seriously. It gave her updates on the progress of the panel and provided information about what this would mean for her housing options if successful. In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that her case had been heard and accepted for the highest band on the housing register. This meant that the landlord thought she was in the greatest need to be rehoused.
  11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in ASB cases, it will complete an action plan, identify any vulnerabilities, and complete risk assessments. It states that it will share the action plan with the resident and provide progress updates to the resident on an agreed frequency. The landlord was proactive in its communications in providing updates to the resident as previously noted. The landlord produced an action plan and risk assessment document which was dated 30 November 2021. There is a lack of evidence to confirm that the document was updated and whether the landlord revised its risk assessment in light of each of the resident’s new reports of continued ASB. It does not provide any details of what it would do to further support the resident in light of escalating events and does not note any steps taken, neither informal nor legal action.
  12. The landlord has provided an additional action plan to the Ombudsman. The action plan provided was not dated and had ‘active’ tasks listed but it had confirmed to the resident that the ASB case was closed as of 5 August 2022. It is unclear why the tasks therefore remained ‘active’ and outstanding, and it suggests that the landlord did not update this during the ASB case. It is a shortcoming of the landlord to have not evidenced that it re-assessed the risks towards the resident and the household after each report of new ASB incidents occurring. By not doing this, the landlord may have missed opportunities to provide further support to the resident, as this could have been identified by speaking to the resident and updating the living risk assessment.
  13. While this would have been appropriate, there is no evidence to suggest that this had any impact on the resident. The landlord has demonstrated that it took numerous steps to update and communicate with the resident, including the opportunities this communication gave the resident to raise any new concerns. Its proactive communication with the resident and consideration of the impact of the ASB in light of her mental health concerns and previous trauma was appropriate and fair in the circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was disadvantaged by the lack of these actions being completed or updated by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of cracks in the wall

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for plasterwork but that the resident is responsible for minor cracks to the plaster. The resident’s occupancy agreement mirrors this. The resident reported cracks in some of the walls in the property on 17 January 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. It said that it would investigate the issues. On 19 January 2022, it told the resident that it had referred the matter to a surveyor and that it would aim to give her an update during the weekly calls it had at the time.
  2. On 19 January 2022, the surveyor confirmed that the cracks were decorative, as opposed to being a structural matter, and said that the resident was responsible for the cracks because of this. It is unclear whether the landlord communicated this update to the resident during the weekly call, however, it confirmed its stance in the stage 1 complaint response. The resident disputed this in her complaint escalation and said that she was unhappy that the cracks had been deemed as decorative and she said that they were getting bigger.
  3. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its surveyor when determining that the cracks were decorative, and not caused by a structural issue. The landlord ultimately took responsibility for the repair and filled in the cracks, although it is unclear when this occurred. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she has had no further issues at the property in relation to cracks forming or growing.

The resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal front door

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy both state that the landlord is responsible for the repair of common parts, which include entrances. The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the external doors and door frames of a property. The repairs policy adds that for emergency repairs, including where a property is not secure, it will attend to make safe within 4 hours. Its non-emergency routine repairs will be responded to within 15 working days.
  2. The repair was raised by the resident on 17 January 2022. The landlord attended the same day in line with its emergency repairs timeframe. The contractor’s job completion report stated that the lock was fully working, and the door closed without sticking. It was noted that a new doorframe could be needed. The landlord said it would keep the resident updated about whether it would need to complete any further works as identified by the contractors.
  3. On 19 January 2022, the resident provided the landlord with a video of the door and further problems it had in closing. The following day, the landlord confirmed in internal emails that as the report said that the door was fully functional, it would not authorise a replacement on this basis. It also noted, internally, that the video provided by the resident showed an issue with the lock and not the doorframe. Instead, it asked the contractors to return to inspect the door and complete any further repairs required. On 25 January 2022, the contractor attended and confirmed that it had adjusted the keep on the lock as best as it could. It noted that it required a new doorframe again and the landlord approved the works for a frame replacement on the same day.
  4. The resident was kept updated with the progress of the doorframe replacement and she was advised that it had to be prefabricated. Any delays in the manufacturing of the frame would have been outside of the landlord’s control. The resident reported further reports that the door could only be locked internally on 21 February 2022, and this was repaired on 23 February 2022, which was in line with the landlord’s routine repairs timeframe.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the job for the doorframe repair was completed on 31 March 2022. It remains unclear whether the doorframe was replaced or repaired by the landlord. While the landlord’s records suggest that the doorframe was in the process of being replaced, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it had intended to replace it, but it took the decision to repair it instead because of the age of the property. It confirmed that the works were completed to a good standard and that it took the decision to repair the doorframe because it would have been considered major works to replace it. Its response was reasonable given the practicality of completing such a task. The resident has not disputed the landlord’s repairs method and has confirmed to this Service that there were no further issues with the door after March 2022.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the wall.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal front door.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider offering an apology to the resident for its lack of regular updates to its risk assessment and action plan documents, and for any missed opportunities that may have been caused by this.
  2. The landlord should review its procedure of how it records any updates made to the risk assessment considering new incidents of ASB. This should include what advice was given, any new, ongoing, or resolved risks and the steps it will take with the relevant dates recorded.
  3. The landlord should review its record keeping procedures relating to action it has taken on an ASB case. This should include the dates of when it applied to court for an injunction or notice, and the dates of when a notice was served and expired.