Sovereign Network Homes (202215203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215203

Sovereign Network Homes

25 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:
   1. Reports of water damage to the kitchen ceiling.
   2. Reports of damage to the bathroom ceiling from a leak.
   3. Request for a new kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives with his wife in a 3-bedroom ground floor flat.
3. The resident made multiple complaints to the landlord between July and August 2022, raising 9 different issues as part of the complaints as follows:
   1. Repair delays to a leaking external waste pipe.
   2. Damage to his bathroom ceiling from an internal leak.
   3. Previous repair delays to the communal front door.
   4. A broken external security light.
   5. A broken internal light in the communal hallway.
   6. Arranging repairs to the back door lock himself when the landlord should have been responsible.
   7. His kitchen not being replaced for 40 years, despite others having had works.
   8. Damage to his kitchen ceiling from internal water damage.
   9. The landlord’s contractor attempting to access his key safe unnecessarily.
4. The landlord combined all the resident’s complaints so it could provide one comprehensive response to all matters. When he brought the matter to this Service, he advised that only 3 of the above points remained outstanding. Going forward, this report would only mention the aspects of the landlord’s responses which are relevant to the outstanding matters as advised by the resident.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 decision to the resident on 23 August 2022 with an offer of £115 compensation for the time taken to resolve his complaint points and inconvenience experienced. It responded to the issues he raised as part of his complaints as follows:
   1. His kitchen was due for replacement between 2030 and 2035. Its internal records showed it had planned to renew his kitchen units in 2015 but this was cancelled. It was unable to determine why this was cancelled or find a copy of the letter sent to him about it.
   2. It had made an appointment to repair the kitchen ceiling on 25 August 2022. There was no record of him reporting damage to the kitchen ceiling.
   3. It completed tests in the property above his and found no indication of any internal leaks, however it was going to perform further investigation. It would also repair his bathroom ceiling during the appointment on 25 August 2022.
6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 24 August 2022 as he was not satisfied with its stage 1 response. He made the following points:
   1. He did not understand why it was attending to repair the bathroom ceiling when no leaks were identified or fixed above.
   2. The kitchen ceiling may need testing for asbestos before repairs as it had been artexed for over 40 years.
   3. He had not received the letter telling him kitchen unit replacements were cancelled in 2015 and maintained that other properties in his block had received replacements.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 decision to the resident on 27 September 2022. It offered an additional £142 in compensation on top of the £115 offered at stage 1 and accepted that there were times it could have acted sooner to reduce delays. It also offered a goodwill payment of £30 to cover the cost of paint for the kitchen ceiling as it would not be painting it. It identified 8 complaint points and addressed each as part of its response. The responses are broken down as follows:
   1. Investigations into the internal leak were ongoing and it would provide a schedule of works for his bathroom ceiling when these had been completed.
   2. Its obligation was to repair the kitchen ceiling and paint the repair but that it would not paint the entire ceiling for aesthetic purposes only.
   3. It could not comment on other kitchens due to GDPR and a residents right to privacy. It stated that just because other kitchens were replaced did not mean he would be entitled to the same. It could not find the letter sent to him in 2015. Kitchens were replaced as and when needed which was reviewed on a case-by-case basis and in line with tenancy obligations.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to repairs to the bathroom ceiling, repairs to the kitchen ceiling and his request for a replacement kitchen and referred the complaint to this Service on 13 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident made a formal complaint concerning multiple issues relating to leaks, however, he did not raise a complaint about damp in the property. He has since raised this as part of a new and separate complaint with the landlord.
10. This investigation has only considered 3 of the complaint points as set out in the complaint definition. While the resident made multiple complaints to the landlord as part of the complaints procedure, according to him, all other issues were resolved to his satisfaction prior to his referral to this Service.

Kitchen ceiling damage

11. The landlord was aware of damage to the resident’s kitchen ceiling from 4 August 2022 and completed repairs on 22 September 2022. Its repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 1 calendar month unless specialist parts are required. The policy also states that it aims to complete complex repairs requiring surveys or investigation within 90 days. Its response was reasonable and in line with its policy due to the need for an asbestos survey.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is his responsibility to keep the interior of the premises properly decorated and painted to the landlord’s satisfaction. Its repairs policy outlines that it is responsible for repairs to ceilings but not for painting or decorating. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to repair the damage to the ceiling but not to paint any parts of the ceiling that had not been repaired.
13. As part of its stage 2 response the landlord offered £30, as a goodwill gesture, for the resident to buy paint. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in repairing the ceiling in a timely manner and advising the resident of his responsibility to decorate.

Bathroom ceiling damage

14. The resident reported damage to his bathroom ceiling to the landlord on 7 July 2022. It attended on 11 July 2022 to confirm that an investigation would take place into the source of the leak in the property above on 19 July 2022. It surveyed the resident’s home on 22 July 2022 and found no signs of water damage on his ceiling. Its initial action was prompt and thorough.
15. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about several issues, including the bathroom ceiling, on 4 August 2022. He stated his ceiling had not been decorated to the standard of the property above and that he had been told the floorboards would be lifted to inspect for a leak. It had repaired pipework in the property above on 3 August 2022 and had planned further investigations for 10 August 2022. It correctly advised him that it would progress with any further works once the investigations had been done.
16. The landlord raised a repair to the resident’s bathroom ceiling as part of its stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2022. The appointment was scheduled for 25 August 2022 and would include any necessary replastering, application of stain block and painting. It attended this appointment but found that an asbestos survey was needed before works started. Its decision to postpone works was to ensure the safety of the resident and appropriate in the circumstances.
17. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 September 2022 to advise that it could not complete works in his bathroom as it had arranged an intrusive investigation to identify leaks in the property above. Its stage 2 response on 27 September 2022 stated that it would provide a schedule of works for his bathroom once it had completed its investigations. Its decision to postpone works was reasonable while investigations were continuing.
18. The resident informed the landlord on 9 January 2023 that the bathroom ceiling had still not been repaired and he was unsure if the leak in the property above had been fixed. In a telephone call with this Service on 8 January 2024, he stated that the landlord had not completed the repairs and he had undertaken these himself. The landlord confirmed, by email to this Service on 18 January 2024, that it had not completed the works. However, it had attended to complete other works. The landlord’s failure to complete repairs it had identified led to the resident having to complete them himself.
19. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide residents with an estimated completion date for a complex repair but it aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days. However, it failed to comply with this timescale in this case. The Ombudsman would have expected it to update the resident with a date for repairs as it stated in its stage 2 response, or to have provided him with a reason for further delays. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to make a further offer of compensation to the resident in line with its compensation policy once it was made aware the works had not been completed on 9 January 2023. This Service finds that there was failure in the landlord not offering compensation as remedy for this aspect of the case, especially since the resident completed the repairs himself.

Kitchen replacement

20. In January 2021, the resident asked the landlord when his kitchen was due for replacement. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord responded to this query at the time. He then raised the question again to its surveyor during a visit to his property on 22 July 2022. It noted during this visit that his kitchen was functional, and no further action was taken. This was appropriate as he had not reported any repairs for his kitchen, and it had not identified any problems.
21. The resident formalised his request for a replacement kitchen as part of his complaint on 4 August 2022. In its stage 1 response, on 23 August 2022, the landlord advised that his kitchen was scheduled for replacement as part of cyclical works between 2030 and 2035. As it had not found any issues with his kitchen, its response was appropriate.
22. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 12 September 2022 as part of a repair request for a broken sink unit in his kitchen. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 27 September 2022 advised that, although other residents were having repairs or replacements, it did not mean he was entitled to a replacement kitchen. It explained that kitchens are replaced when required and this was reviewed on a case-by-case basis and in line with its tenancy obligations around cyclical works. Its response was appropriate as it had inspected the kitchen and found no requirement for a replacement kitchen.
23. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 January 2023 and confirmed that the kitchen was due for an upgrade between 2035 and 2040. The dates differed from the date provided in its stage 1 response on 23 August 2022. The landlord’s responses were not consistent and a recommendation is made for the landlord to confirm the proposed replacement date to the resident. It also asked the resident to send photographs of his kitchen for it to consider earlier replacement. The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated that it was willing to consider the resident’s request further.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling.
    2. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
    3. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

25. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its service failure and inconvenience of having to complete works to his own bathroom ceiling.
    2. Inspect the repairs completed to the bathroom ceiling and arrange necessary follow-up work if any is identified.
26. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

27. This Service recommends that the landlord confirms the accurate timescale for the kitchen renewal to the resident.
28. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident the previously offered goodwill payment of £30 in relation to his kitchen ceiling if it has not done so already.
29. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident the compensation of £115 offered at stage 1 and the further £142 offered at stage 2 if it has not done so already.