Sovereign Network Homes (202204756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204756

Sovereign Housing Association and Network Homes

(Formerly Sovereign Housing)

31 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of cracks in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the identified remedial works.
3. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.
The resident has explained that the outstanding issues are:
1. Communication and missed appointments about the work.
2. Damage to the garden due to the works at the property.
3. Windows replacements outstanding.
4. Carpets on stairs damaged/stained due to the works at the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The landlord merged with Network Homes in October 2023. Any actions by the landlord and policy documents referred to within this report relate to before this merger was completed.
The resident has lived at the property, which is a semi-detached house, with her family since 2007.
The evidence reviewed by this Service shows that there is a long history to this case in that the resident first reported concerns of cracks in the interior and exterior walls of the property in 2011. A structural inspection report dated 19 January 2019 identified that the cracks were due to low-bearing soil underneath the property which was causing movement.
It is understood that the landlord agreed to carry out the necessary works at the property. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s approaches to these issues from April 2021.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 26 September 2019 as she had not received any updates from the landlord. On 6 November 2019, the landlord’s records state that the resident agreed to close her formal complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process as it had passed the matter to its insurers. Its stage 1 closing statement outlined that it would carry out further investigations at the property.
On 16 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase for an update on the required work as she had not received any contact. The landlord reopened the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 April 2021 and advised that it would book an appointment with her to have trial boreholes drilled at the property. This appointment was later made for 26 May 2021.
The appointment on 26 May 2021 went ahead as planned and a structural engineer attended. The landlord requested a copy of the engineer’s report and advised the resident that it would call her to discuss it.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 June 2021 via email and advised that it had received the report from its contractors and it would call her to discuss the findings. The landlord’s records show that in an internal email that same day, it had called the resident to update her and stated that it may need to go back to its insurers, depending on the cost of the works. In an internal email that same day, the landlord stated that its insurer had formally refuted the claim but this was contradicted by the latest engineer’s report it had received. It also stated that it would keep in contact with the resident every week.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was still pursuing its insurers with a view to the works being passed to a loss adjuster who would source specialist contractors to carry out the works.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 27 July 2021 and the landlord advised the following:
1. It was unlikely it would continue to carry out the works under its insurance.
2. It had requested a specification of work and pricing schedule from the structural engineer.
3. There had been delays in receiving the specification and it was waiting to appoint an approved contractor to complete injection works into the ground beneath the property which were recommended in an earlier survey.
4. The landlord stated it would follow up with its contractors every week and would update the resident at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord provided the resident with a further update on 18 August 2021. It stated that it was working with a contractor to agree on the design for the works. It was providing the contractor with a floorplan of the property. It would contact her again once it had assigned a contractor to carry out the works and would provide her with an estimated timescale of how long the works would take to complete. The landlord advised the resident again on 26 August 2021 that it was still chasing its contractors for an update.
On 3 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and outlined that she was unhappy with the length of time it had taken to address the issues at the property. She advised that this was the third or fourth time the landlord had told her it was approaching its insurers. She asked for a copy of the schedule of work. On 9 September 2021, the landlord apologised for the time it had taken and agreed to send a copy of the schedule of works.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord advised the resident again that its insurers would not cover the cost of the works. It stated again that it would need to seek approval from its head of property operations and it would continue to provide the resident with weekly updates.
The landlord advised the resident on 8 November 2021 that it would be at least 8 weeks until the work started on the property. It outlined that surveys were still required for drainage, asbestos, and the sub-base of the property. On 16 November 2021, the resident asked for more information on the works. The landlord responded the following day and stated that the ground injections were to stabilise the property, not to address damp proofing as it had previously stated.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 9 December 2021 in which she outlined her concerns that there had been little progress with the repairs in the last 7 months. The landlord responded and stated they would provide a copy of the schedule of works and reports from the surveys. It also stated that it was having issues with its procurement team concerning the work required. The landlord’s records show that on 17 December 2021, it noted that finding a suitable contractor to carry out the specialist work required was difficult due to the geographical location of the property.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response in which it stated:
1. All the required works at the property had been approved by its engineer.
2. It was looking to instruct its main contractor in the coming weeks and appointments would be made with her in advance.
3. It hoped that the work could start within the next 12 weeks.
4. Surveys were required at the property including:
  1. Asbestos.
  2. A CCTV survey of the drainage system.
  3. Location of the utilities running into the property.
5. Arrangements would also be made around parking of contractor vehicles and communications with neighbouring properties.
6. Once all aspects were confirmed, the works would be managed by its planned maintenance team.
7. On completion of the works, further contact would be made with the resident to discuss redecoration of the property and any other concerns the resident may have.
8. The landlord stated that this response concluded stage 2 of its complaints process and it had closed her complaint.
9. The landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works.

Post-complaints process

The landlord’s records confirm that on 10 January 2022, a contractor carried out a CCTV survey of the drains and cleaned them using high-pressure water. The resident contacted the landlord the following day and reported that the contractors had used her water supply to fill a tank in their vehicle for over 30 minutes. The landlord responded and confirmed that the contractors should not be using her water supply without consent, stating this was unacceptable. It would follow up on this with the contractor’s management team and would provide feedback to the resident once it had a response. From the evidence reviewed by this service, it is unclear if the landlord contacted the contractor about the resident’s concerns.
During February 2022, the landlord’s contractors who were due to carry out the stabilisation injections attended the property and drilled boreholes next to the property. The resident reported to the landlord on 14 February 2022 that this was not what she had expected and the contractors had left the garden “in a mess” and broken the concrete edges of the garden pathway. She stated that she hoped this would be addressed later and that her lawns would recover over time. The resident asked for copies of all information so that she could refer to it if needed in the future.
The landlord replied to the resident via email and stated they had requested the contractors make good the garden areas once the works were completed. It also confirmed that its staff would assist the resident in moving furniture and carpets to enable the contractor’s access inside the property.
On 19 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update on the works. She stated that she had not heard from them in over 2 months and during her last contact with the contractors she was told that they hoped the works would start before the end of the tax year but that had not happened. It is not clear that the resident received a response.
The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 9 June 2022 via email. She asked how to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded that same day and following an email and telephone call it stated:
1. It closed her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process, once the case had been passed to its property manager who was responsible for delivering the works at the property. It stated that she could escalate her complaint to this service as their complaints process was complete.
2. It asked the resident to outline her concerns.
3. It remained committed to being available for the resident to contact should she have any questions about the works.
4. The works at the property were still a key focus for the landlord.
5. It provided further updates on the works at the property. It provided dates on which the ground injection works would be completed by its contractors. It confirmed the date on which its own staff would attend to remove kitchen units and carpets.
The landlord’s records confirm that on 4 July 2022, the ground injection works were completed. It also confirmed that extensive works were needed inside and outside the property, including:
1. Replastering of rooms throughout the property, however, the full extent of the work needed was unknown until it began the works.
2. Full redecoration of rooms throughout the property.
3. Replacement of kitchen floor and wall tiles due to the uplift movement of the floor and cracks in the walls.
4. Survey of front and rear entrance doors with possible new frames and trim.
5. External drains required liners to be installed.
6. External rendering of the property due to cracks.
The resident advised this service in August 2022 that the landlord had advised her that it may need to instruct contractors to complete the further repair and redecoration works due to the large amount of work required.
In further contact with this service on 18 April 2023 the resident advised:
1. Repairs were still incomplete.
2. The landlord had instructed a contractor to carry out the repairs and work had started on 27 January 2023.
3. She further reported that no work had taken place since 28 March 2023 and the contractor’s foreman told her that he was on holiday and would contact her on his return on 12 April 2023, but this did not happen.
4. The resident also outlined that she had contacted the landlord via telephone and email several times but had not received any response.
In further contact with this service on 31 July 2023 the resident advised:
1. She met with the landlord and its contractor on 26 April 2023 and the works were restarted on 5 June 2023 but remained incomplete.
2. The quality of the work completed was poor and she reported that different operatives were attending every week.
3. Her husband suffers from epilepsy and the stress had caused him to have numerous seizures.
4. She provided a number of photographs of the property which show inhabitable rooms due to ongoing works, stained carpets on the staircase and building materials and tools throughout the property. She advised that she had needed to live like this for some time.
In further contacts with this service in late October 2023 and early November 2023 the resident advised:
1. Repairs were still incomplete.
2. She met with the landlord and its contractor on 23 September 2023 and they noted which works were still required on the exterior of the property.
3. The landlord had apologised to her on 16 October 2023 for the works being incomplete and would ask the contractor to contact her that same day. She advised this did not happen.
4. Decorators had attended the property between 31 October 2023 and 2 November 2023 but had to leave to attend to another job. She finished the decorating in her son’s bedroom herself.
5. She was awaiting the adjustment of a door by a joiner. Measurements for new doors had been taken but were unlikely to be fitted until 2024.
6. A bathroom fan needed to be changed.
7. Her carpets on the staircase were cleaned but this was before works on the staircase were carried out therefore they were dirty again. She could not afford to replace them.
8. Works outside the property were still required including levelling of paths which had dropped and cracked.
9. Drainage underneath the front window was complete but the landlord still needed to gradient the lawn as it was now a trip hazard.
10. The last contact she had received from the landlord was on 16 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outlines provisions for ad hoc major work projects. This includes works which are outside the scope of its responsive and planned repairs service. Such works include structural and external works. It states it will agree on specific completion target dates with affected customers for these types of works.
It also outlines that it will compensate residents where there has been a failure in its service, including:
1. loss of a room or facilities
2. loss of personal property, damage or inconvenience
3. where appointments are missed with residents
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines two complaint stages. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. Its complaints policy further states that as a charitable organisation, it rarely offers compensation. This is unless the resident has suffered financial loss, such as damage to personal belongings or paying for a service they didn’t have.

The landlord’s response to reports of cracks in the property.

It is noted that the works required at the property to address the movement of the property were very complex and required specialist contractors. It is further noted that due to the geographical location of the property, the landlord was limited to being able to use certain contractors. If the property was on the mainland of the UK, it would likely have had access to a wider range of specialist contractors. In turn, this may have provided a quicker resolution to these particular works.
Whilst the landlord had agreed some years previously that the major structural works it appears that it only took steps to complete the works after the resident made contact. This was following a request from the resident in which she asked for her complaint to be reopened as the landlord had not taken any action following the agreed closure of her complaint at stage 1.
The landlord was seeking updates from its insurers due to the significant costs involved in the specialist works required at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to pursue its insurers and in June 2021 it informed the resident that it could not pursue an insurance claim. It stated this again in Sept 2021 when the resident had chased it again for an update.
It took the landlord a long time to provide the resident with a copy of its contractor’s report and schedule of works. Despite having received a copy of the report on 21 June 2021, the resident had to chase the landlord a number of times to receive a copy. The resident was still chasing the landlord on this in late 2021. It is not clear why the landlord took so long to provide the resident with copies of the report and schedule of works.
Throughout this case, it is evident that the resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates. This is despite it agreeing to provide her with weekly updates on her case and the repairs. This service therefore finds that the landlord’s communications with the resident were poor and this led to her becoming frustrated. She experienced long periods where the landlord did not provide any updates. Whilst it is noted that the specialist nature of the works would have taken time for the landlord to arrange, it should have kept the resident updated on its progress throughout.

The landlord’s handling of the identified remedial works.

Despite repeated promises from the landlord that it would keep in frequent contact with the resident, it did not do this consistently. This led to the resident having to chase for updates.
This service has not seen any evidence from the landlord’s records to show that it contacted its drainage contractor about her concerns about them using her water supply at the property. This was despite it informing the resident that it would do this, as it agreed that its contractor’s behaviour was unacceptable. As such, the resident did not receive an update from the landlord on this, which again demonstrates its poor communication with the resident.
It is understandable that the landlord would not have reasonably known the scale of work required at the property once the ground stabilisation works were completed. However, the resident has stated that some works to make good the decoration at the property are still ongoing some 17 months later.
It is positive that the landlord did identify a list of further works required once the ground stabilisation works were completed in July 2022. It did not however fully follow its repairs policy by providing the resident with specific target completion dates for these repairs. It could have easily amended any target dates if it became aware of further issues and communicated this to the resident. The resident has provided this service with photographs of the property which show that she and her family are continuing to live in a property which is being extensively refurbished throughout.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord at any point considered offering the resident and her family a temporary decant to another of its properties. Had it done so, this may have minimised the impact of the work on the resident and her family. Due to the large scale and disruptive nature of the work required the resident and family have been living in a building site for close to 2 years. This service finds that this is unacceptable, and the landlord should have considered other available housing options for the family.

Complaint handling

It is noted that the resident agreed with the landlord in November 2019 to close her formal complaint at stage one of its complaints policy. The landlord acted appropriately by reopening her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints policy when requested by the resident.
The landlord then kept the resident’s complaint open at stage 2 for 10 months, from 16 April 2021 to 6 January 2022, a period of 184 working days. This is way beyond its policy position of providing a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is unacceptable and it meant that the resident was kept within the complaints process for far longer than necessary.
It is noted that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not make any explanation for the delays in providing its response. Also, it did not offer any apology for the delays which the resident experienced in bringing her complaint. Whilst the stage 2 response does detail the steps the landlord took to address the resident’s concerns and the repairs, it does not state clearly in either response whether it upheld or did not uphold her complaint. Additionally, the landlord makes no offer of redress to the resident as part of the resolution to her complaint. It makes no reference to the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident about the length of time taken to address the repairs at the property. These failings demonstrate poor complaint handling by the landlord and are at odds with the guidance outlined in this service’s complaint handling code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of cracks in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the identified remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a time-specific plan outlining how it will complete all remaining remedial works at the property, including but not limited to internal redecorations, cleaning, or replacement of damaged carpets and to make good the garden areas.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1600 compensation which is comprised of:
  1. £400 in relation to its communication failings with the resident.
  2. £600 in relation to its failings in its handling of the identified remedial works.
  3. £600 in relation to its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.