Sovereign Network Homes (202212307)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212307

Sovereign Network Homes

11 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 the landlord’s response of the resident’s reports of:
1. Mechanical ventilation issues.
2. Various repairs.
3. Staff conduct.
4. Allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

This Service is aware that the resident made a secondary complaint in relation to a letter received from the landlord’s solicitors, advising her that she had acted in a way which has caused, or could cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress. The resident stated that she was unhappy with receiving the letter, which she felt was threatening, and detrimentally impacted her health.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme confirms that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
After careful consideration, 1(d) of the complaint has been ruled outside of jurisdiction as there is no evidence of the complaint being escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
This Service understands that the resident is likely to be disappointed by this decision, however, the resident is advised to escalate the complaint with the landlord, and she retains the right to bring a new complaint to the Ombudsman as a separate case.

Background

The evidence confirms that the resident made initial reports of chemical burns, which she suggested were from the ventilation system in the property in 2020. The landlord sent a stage one response in April 2020 which confirmed that it had assessed the resident’s concerns, considered a possible defect issue, but had been unable to find anything that would cause the symptoms described. It did not believe the issue was related to the building, or the resident’s property.
In the summer of 2020, the landlord appointed a surveyor to reassess the situation. The surveyor confirmed that the landlord’s apparatus and access points were unlikely to be the cause of any chemical burns, and all components were functioning as they should.
The resident continued to report her concerns and in January 2021. In response, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that:
1. It had investigated her reports of chemical burns on three separate occasions, over the course of the last six months.
2. It had found no link between the ventilation system, or other common parts in the property to the resident’s chemical burns.
3. The resident was advised to seek independent medical advice, to determine the nature of the burns and how they were caused.
4. It would not conduct another investigation, until such time as there was compelling evidence to determine the burns were caused by the landlord’s services.
5. It had investigated the resident’s reports that the chemical burns were caused by a neighbour. The neighbour was interviewed and denied all the allegations. There was no factual or physical evidence to pursue any further investigations.
6. It carried out a survey in the resident’s block in December 2020 and confirmed that no other residents had experienced a chemical burn or had a significant problem with access points.
7. Given the number of emails and other communication it had received in relation to the issue, it confirmed it would no longer be registering complaints on the specific issue.
8. It had sufficient concern to initiate safeguarding protocols and confirmed that it was prepared to classify the resident as a vexatious complainant if she did not desist from sending unacceptable levels of communication.
9. The resident was reminded that she was at liberty to contact this Service.
Between 21 May and 20 August 2021, the resident reported that her extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. The resident believed the extractors were blocked; however, no faults were found upon inspections.
The resident emailed the landlord in August 2021 and stated that “things were being done deliberately”, to “harm her physical and mental wellbeing.” She said that a substance was entering her home, via the balcony, from a neighbouring property, from them opening and closing their windows and it was that physically impacting her. She submitted a complaint on 31 August and 1 September 2021 which said:
1. She had reported that the rubbish bin store door was broken on 23 July 2021 and had not been repaired. She had cleaned food waste from the store, as pests were becoming a problem. She felt the repair was taking too long.
2. There had been an issue with a substance entering her property since January 2020 which had an impact on her health. It was the resident’s opinion that the substance was entering from a flat below her and she requested the landlord ensured correct valves and mechanisms were present in her kitchen and bathroom.
3. The resident was struggling to accept that the issues were random and wanted to highlight a “very nasty and deliberately malicious element to the issues that are occurring.”
On 3 September 2021, the resident reported that her extractor was not removing air from her property. She also reported that there was a low beeping noise coming from her neighbour’s smoke alarm.
On 7 September 2021 the resident advised the landlord that she did not consent to a member of staff contacting her and that she found his correspondence offensive, obstructive and requested a reasonable adjustment that he was prevented from contacting her.
The landlord conducted a home visit on 16 September 2021. During the visit, it:
1. Repaired and replaced the window handles in the bedroom and living room.
2. Patched the duct on the extractor with sealant tape after the resident raised a concern about a pinhole.
3. The resident believed gas was coming through the bathroom sink plughole and causing irritation. It confirmed that it was not possible for gas to come from drainage pipework, but it was possible for nasty smells/bacteria to come from drainage pipework that can be quite pungent. However, at the time of visit, there were no pungent smells or signs of irritation to the resident’s hands.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 4 October 2021 which noted that It was told that the door lock to the rubbish store had been repaired on 26 July. It apologised for overlooking the other outstanding repairs namely the missing slats and damaged netting and said that a follow-up repair had been raised. A follow-up repair had been raised. It had already investigated concerns regarding chemical substances entering the property and there was no evidence to support the claim.
The resident emailed on 12 October 2021, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord failed to acknowledge her complaint within 5 working days and did not receive a response within 10 working days and that despite requesting that a named member of staff did not contact her, he had continued to do so which she had reported to the police as harassment.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 4 November 2021 and said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in accepting and acknowledging the complaint. A discussion had taken place with managers to consider whether the issues raised were best dealt with as a complaint, or whether it was best to signpost her directly to this Service.
2. It was correct and appropriate that the stage one officer did not consider the allegations in relation to a member of staff, as its solicitors were going to write to her in connection with the allegations.
3. It was sorry that it did not address the ventilation unit, but it was aware that she had been corresponded with extensively on the matter. In hindsight, it would have been helpful if it had commented on the points raised and it apologised for not doing so. It would discuss the ventilation situation with its technical experts to determine whether a further inspection would prove useful.
4. The landlord was not aware that the resident had raised an issue with windows that she could not open in her emails on 31 and 1 September which formed the basis of her complaint. However, it was aware that an inspection had been completed and the window handles were going to be replaced.
5. The issue with a fire alarming beeping had not been raised as a complaint and therefore was not referenced in the complaint response.
6. The stage one response apologised for overlooking the outstanding repairs to the bin store which included missing slats and damaged netting. A contractor subsequently visited on 26 October 2021 and completed temporary repairs until the specialist contractor could replace the missing metal slats.
7. It had arranged for dumped items to be removed and had dealt with the pest problem that had arisen.
8. It concluded that it took its repair responsibilities seriously and endeavoured to complete them in a timely manner. It apologised that the bin store repair had taken longer than anticipated.
9. It carried out an extensive review of its records relating to a chemical substance entering the property and the impact on the resident’s health. It had no reason to disagree with the conclusion reached at stage one which did not identify anything to substantiate the claim. It confirmed that the resident was advised she could instruct an independent survey and would review any report which it considered to be a sensible suggestion to bring the matter to a close.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response and said that it had not taken reasonable steps to identify who was responsible for releasing a substance that was entering her property and impacting her heath. She requested compensation for harassment by an employee and repair the mechanical ventilation system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has made allegations against a member of staff, which she reported to the police. This Service cannot make any determination as to whether this conduct took place, therefore the resident would need to pursue the matter with the police for further investigation, should she wish to. The Ombudsman will consider how the landlord responded to her reports regarding staff conduct in general and whether it did so reasonably and fairly.
This Service understands that the resident feels that landlord has failed to properly address the ventilation issues which have impacted her health. This Service recognises the concerns she has reported, which have caused distress to her. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether there is any direct link between her reported health issues and the landlord’s actions.

Assessment

Mechanical ventilation system

The evidence shows that when carrying out the inspections, the landlord and its operatives did not report experiencing any of the same symptoms as those of the resident and had not received reports of a similar nature from neighbouring residents.
Its findings concluded that there was no requirement to undertake any further investigations on the basis that there was no evidence that its services were causing chemical burns, or that the ventilation systems were not working as they should. This Service considers this to be a reasonable and proportionate response.
While the resident expressed her concern that the investigation was not satisfactory, the landlord was entitled to reply upon the opinions of qualified members of staff. The landlord instructed investigations by operatives and surveyors which indicated that it was focused on providing the resident with independent opinions on the matter. Additionally, the landlord was open to reviewing any findings if the resident wished to instruct her own independent survey of the property. This demonstrates that the landlord has over time, reviewed appropriate action and been resolution focused, to bring the matter to a satisfactory close.
This Service understands that the resident’s experienced must have been distressing. While the resident considers the issue unresolved, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted in accordance with its polices and appropriately relied upon its contractor’s reports which formed the basis of its conclusions.

Various repairs

In response to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord reviewed its repair records, specifically in relation to the windows and fire alarm and confirmed that the issues had not been raised previously, or within the resident’s initial complaint. Therefore, it was appropriate to advise that it needed the opportunity to put things right, before investigating as a complaint.
In response, the landlord promptly arranged for replacement window handles and accepted responsibility for not addressing all the relevant repairs required to the bin store. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the repair issues. Although there were some delays in completing non-urgent repairs to the bin store, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation and carried out interim repairs while it waited for a specialist team to replace parts to the bin store.
This Service is unclear if the beeping from the neighbouring fire alarm has been resolved, and therefore recommends that the landlord follows this up, if it has not already done so.

Staff conduct

Policy

The landlord’s habitual complaints policy was developed to help members of staff and managers deal with difficult cases. The policy outlines situations where a complainant is being unreasonable or has become habitual and in pursuing a complaint where the complaints procedure has been fully implemented and exhausted or has an excessive number of contacts placing unreasonable demands on staff.

Assessment

This Service understands that the resident notified the landlord on numerous occasions that she did not consent to a member of staff contacting her. She explained that she found his correspondence deliberately upsetting, obstructive and offensive. She requested a reasonable adjustment on the grounds that he was deliberately worsening her condition.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident was able to substantiate her allegations, or that there was any basis for the allegations. In the absence of any examples or evidence of behaviour, there are limited steps the landlord could take to investigate the reports.
After the resident reported the staff member to the police for harassment, the matter was considered by the landlord’s solicitors, and the resident was provided with a letter which set out its final position on the matter on 24 September 2021. It confirmed that the allegations were unsubstantiated and without foundation. It appropriately appointed a new single point of contact (SPOC), which satisfied the resident’s reasonable adjustment request and managed the communication in accordance with the landlord’s habitual complaints policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord informed the resident in April 2020, January, and February 2021 that it had extensively investigated the resident’s complaint in relation to a chemical substance entering her property. At this time, the landlord appropriately explained that it would not investigate the matter further, unless there was compelling evidence to confirm that the burns were caused by the landlord’s services. As the resident did not provide any further evidence, it was a reasonable response, and in accordance with its complaints policy.
The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint but explained that it had considered the best course of action for the resident, and reflected whether it would be most appropriate for her complaint to be brought to this Service. It decided to open a new complaint, even though the issues raised were similar to those in a previous complaint.
This demonstrated a willingness on the landlord’s part to try and resolve the complaint for the resident. However, to manage expectations in the future, it would be beneficial for both parties, for the landlord to commit to its original position, that it would not investigate or respond to a matter that had been previously investigated. This will ensure a clear and transparent process, in line with its complaints policy.
Although there was a slight delay in acknowledging the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident was not significantly impacted as a result, and the complaint response was issued within ten days of acknowledging the complaint.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the situation has been upsetting for the resident, but the landlord’s actions have focused on mitigating any detriment to the resident and provided her with sufficient explanations to support its findings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Mechanical ventilation issues.
2. Various repairs.
3. Staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

Contact the resident to confirm if she is still experiencing an issue with her neighbour’s fire alarm, if not already done so.