Sovereign Network Homes (202220542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220542

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 10 January 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord had recorded that there were vulnerabilities in the household due to mobility and mental health issues.
On 7 April 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about several repairs issues that were outstanding at the property. However, the resident has asked this Service to only investigate the handling of the kitchen repair. The resident said that she had not noticed the repairs issues when she viewed the property before carrying out a mutual exchange. She said that she had originally made a complaint by telephone at the end of February 2022 about how the repairs had been dealt with. However, this Service has seen no record of this call.
The resident said that she had not been kept informed about appointments for repairs. This meant that she and her children (one of whom has additional needs) had remained in the house for multiple days waiting for workmen and her husband had had to have time off work.
The kitchen repairs issues highlighted in the complaint were:
1. there were tiles falling off the walls that had been super glued on,
2. one of the cupboards was removed to fit the dishwasher in and this had caused a draught which was letting in excess cold,
3. the dishwasher had an extension lead to power it that ran under the sink,
4. there was no door on the cupboard under the sink (this was of particular concern because her child with additional needs could reach the cleaning products),
5. there were 2 more cupboards with broken doors,
6. the cooker seemed to be in the wrong place because there was a gas pipe on the other side of the kitchen where the ventilation was situated which meant that the smoke alarm was triggered regularly when cooking.
The resident also said that an external company had looked at the kitchen and said it was “in a bad state”. The resident was unhappy that she had been told that only certain things would be replaced that these were not “like for like”.
A property inspection was requested in an internal landlord email of 4 May 2022. The usual officer for the patch the property was located in was absent so another member of staff was asked to complete the inspection. Following the inspection the usual officer was told to raise an order for all necessary works.
On 23 June 2022 an internal email asked if the complaint had been resolved yet.
On 19 July 2022 an internal landlord email asked what was happening with the complaint. It said that the inspection had been completed but no jobs had been raised and requested that this could be done so that the complaint could be closed. The officer that inspected the property emailed the usual officer on the same day to make sure that they had received the emails and photographs of the property following the inspection.
The resident called the landlord on 22 July 2022 and said that she was unhappy that she had not been contacted since the inspection in May. She explained that she worked in a school and would therefore like the repairs to be carried out in August. An email was sent to the officer that had inspected the property asking them to contact the resident by the end of the next day. This officer said that it was not their patch so they were not handling the complaint. When the usual officer was emailed they said that the complaint “had not come up on their weekly report” so they did not know about it.
On 1 August 2022 the resident called the landlord again, chasing a response to her complaint.
A letter from the landlord to the resident dated 2 August 2022 was provided to this Service. It advised that works had been booked following an inspection. Dates given for the work to be carried out were in September and October. These included an independent contractor to look at the repairs in the kitchen, the date for this was to be confirmed.
On 5 August 2022 an internal email was sent asking why the issue was still outstanding on the system. It said that no jobs had yet been raised so could they advise what work needed to be done. The response to this was “it’s just another one on my list, I’ll try to get it actioned soon”.
The resident called the landlord again on 8 August 2022 and said that she was very unhappy with its complaint handling and lack of communication. Contractors had attended that day and advised that they would be patching up the original blue tiles with white ones. She said that she had been told at the inspection in May that all kitchen units that needed replacing would be the same colour as the current ones (blue) along with matching worktop and tiles. The resident said that she had been asking to speak to a manager for 4 weeks. She also said that she had been asked to allow for a plan of action to be given to her before escalating the complaint. She still had no plan of action and therefore felt no closer to a solution.
An internal landlord email on the same day requested another property inspection. Instructions were given for the previous inspection, completed in May, to be disregarded.
A chain of landlord internal emails dated 9 August 2022 raised concerns about the data coming from its systems regarding complaints and complaint owners. Concerns were raised that complaints such as this one were “floating around”, not showing up on reports and being lost until the customer chased them. Finally, it was confirmed that the complaint had now been assigned to the correct complaint handler and that this was showing correctly on the system.
On 23 August 2022 a letter was sent to the resident to update her on the work that had been ordered following the more recent inspection. This said “we have requested that an independent contractor will look at the repairs to the kitchen, they will contact you directly. Any work will be agreed prior to taking place”.
On 31 August 2022 an internal landlord email was sent requesting that the complaint was closed down as the inspection had been completed and the works order had been raised.
On 13 September 2022 the resident called the landlord to ask about the progress of her stage 2 complaint. The landlord attempted to call her back but there was no reply and no facility to leave a voicemail.
A quotation was provided to the landlord for the kitchen works on 15 September 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 September 2022 to advise her that it now had the costings to repair the tiles and doors. It said that the previous contractor would need to return to complete the worktop.
On 12 November 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the resident advising that it had asked a contractor to attend to the tiling repairs and booked a carpenter on 3 February 2023 to do some boxing in in the kitchen.
On 5 December 2022 the resident called the landlord. She said she was very frustrated about the outstanding issues. She said that since her complaint had been escalated to stage 2 she had received no communication from the complaint handler. She said that issues were still outstanding despite several jobs being raised. She advised the landlord that she had 2 children and was having to lock the kitchen door due to the unsafe conditions because cupboard doors and drawer fronts were still missing, there was damaged flooring and tiles falling off. She said that operatives had been to the property but either didn’t have materials or were not willing to complete the works as agreed following the inspection in August.
An internal email regarding the call, sent on the same day, confirmed that the complaint had been closed following instruction on 31 August 2022 but no formal stage 2 response had been issued. It said that the customer had said that the landlord had not told her that the complaint was closed. Another internal email dated 5 December 2022 said that the landlord must have thought the complaint was at stage 1.
A stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 5 December 2022. It said that as part of the stage 2 process the landlord had visited the resident to discuss outstanding issues and agree an action plan. The landlord admitted that there had been delays with completing the work but a contractor had now been engaged to overhaul the kitchen. They had also been instructed to complete the tiling to minimise further delays. It said that the materials had been ordered incorrectly by the supplier which meant that the contractor was unable to complete the work the previous week. It had since tried to call the resident to re-arrange the appointment but had been unable to reach her. £50 compensation was offered in acknowledgement of the inconvenience.
On 24 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord again and said that the kitchen was still not complete. Outstanding issues were listed as follows:
1. The worktops were cut wrong and had silicone and large pieces of plastic holding them up, the end panel had not been put in place.
2. The sink was damaged by the workers and was dented.
3. The cooker had not been moved
4. There was still a draught coming from location of dishwasher.
The landlord responded on 17 February 2023. It said that the stage 2 complaint had been upheld with regards to the worktop which would be replaced by a different contractor. The dent in the sink had not been reported before, so could the resident send a photograph so it could be reviewed.
On 5 April 2023 a repairs job was raised to replace the worktops following poor repair and refit sink unit.
On 12 September 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord to request information regarding the case.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord provided an update to the resident. It said that since the referral to the Ombudsman it had reviewed the case to check that it agreed with its previous decision. It said that the kitchen issues had first been reported on 17 January 2022 and that the complaint was now upheld. It agreed to replace the kitchen and said that the survey would take place on 2 November 2023. A further £1,300 compensation was also offered to the resident. The landlord said this was £500 for the delayed work and poor workmanship, £500 for distress and inconvenience and £300 for poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

This Service asked the landlord to supply the repairs logs from when the kitchen issues were first reported and evidence of what action it had taken. These have not been provided and the landlord has confirmed that all the information that it holds on this case has been supplied. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord and shows poor knowledge and information management. The failure to provide this information has meant that this Service has been unable to investigate the cause of the initial delays with the kitchen repairs.
The repairs issues were reported following a mutual exchange. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that it will carry out a visual inspection of properties prior to the swap and that current residents will be advised what repairs they need to do before the exchange can take place. It also says that before residents apply to exchange the landlord will ask them to make sure that their home is up to the landlord’s current empty homes standard.
The landlord has been asked to provide a copy of the report that was completed following the visual inspection prior to the mutual exchange. The landlord has not provided this which is another record keeping failure. The report may not have been provided because it does not exist due to the inspection not being completed. If this is the case the landlord failed to follow its own procedure, which would also be failing.
The landlord’s empty homes standard says that for kitchen it will:
1. Make sure cupboard doors and drawers work and the worktop is free from deep scratches.
2. Try to match drawer and cupboard fronts.
3. Inspect all tile splashbacks and ensure grout is clean and joints are sealed with mastic.
4. Adapt layout to ensure there is free standing space for appliances.
5. Ensure the cooker space is compliant.

The landlord failed to follow its own policy when the mutual exchange was carried out because the kitchen was not up to its empty home standard. This caused the resident hardship as she had to report the issues which were outstanding for many months.

This Service has seen no evidence to confirm when the original repairs issues were reported. However, the landlord’s letter of 31 October 2023 said that the resident first raised the issues on 17 January 2022. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it “will try to complete all responsive repairs within 28 days on a right first time basis”. Therefore the landlord failed to follow its own policy. It did not order works to be completed until August 2022 and the kitchen doors were still not replaced at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, 11 months later. This caused particular hardship to the resident because her child, who had additional needs, had to be supervised at all times when in the kitchen due to the missing doors.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also states that it will offer an appointment slot to suit residents and that it will prioritise appointments by recognising the health and safety of residents. The repairs to the kitchen should therefore have been prioritised which did not happen and this was another failing by the landlord.
The repairs were reported in January 2022. An inspection was carried out in May 2022 and although this was already 4 months after the original report, the order to get the works done following the inspection was not raised until August 2022. This was because a member of staff covered the inspection for another who then did not raise the order for works. Even when this was chased in June and July the order was still not raised. This was an unacceptable and entirely avoidable delay that caused the resident further distress, inconvenience and time and trouble because she had to contact the landlord on numerous occasions to find out what was happening.
Taking into account all of the above factors, there was maladministration by the landlord in it’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it aims to “agree a solution with the customer within 10 working days”. The landlord gave no written response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint at all, it just closed the complaint 4 months later after an inspection had taken place. Effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood but this did not happen in this case. This was a serious complaints handling failure by the landlord. The resident had to chase the landlord many times but this still did not prompt a response or action by the landlord to resolve the issues. This caused the resident further distress and time and trouble because she had to keep contacting the landlord.
The chain of internal landlord emails sent on 9 August 2022 showed that there was obvious confusion. This confusion was about which complaint handler was responsible for the complaint, whether the computer system had been updated and if the reports were correctly showing who was assigned to the complaints case. This was the cause of further delays with the handling of the complaint. Unfortunately, even when the correct person was assigned to the case and it was no longer “floating around” the system it was still not treated urgently. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required” this did not happen in this case and was a further complaints handling failure by the landlord.
In its letter of 31 October 2023 the landlord said that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process on 8 August 2022. However, the stage 1 complaint was not closed until 31 August 2022, showing further confusion on the landlord’s part. The Code in place at the time said that landlords should respond in writing to stage 1 complaints before escalating to stage 2 which did not happen in this case. Therefore, this was a further complaints handling failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that it aims to make a decision on stage 2 complaints in 20-30 days. The stage 2 complaints response was dated 5 December 2022 which was 84 working days after escalation. Again, the resident had to take further time and trouble to chase this on numerous occasions which was a further complaints handling failure by the landlord.
The stage 2 response was sent on the same day that the resident called to express her frustration that she had heard nothing about the complaint. It showed no empathy regarding the resident’s concerns about the safety of her child. The internal emails written after the resident called to chase the response showed that there was still confusion about what stage the complaint was at. This shows that the stage 2 complaints response was written that day and only because the resident had chased it. This meant that insufficient time and effort was put into a thorough response. The landlord’s complaint handling system was still not fit for purpose with complaints “floating around” until residents chased them. This was a further serious complaints handling failure by the landlord.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord reviewed the previous complaints response. It then offered a kitchen replacement and increased its compensation offer to over 26 times the previous one. This was more appropriate in recognition of its failings and represented an attempt to put things right. However, this was offered over 10 months after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was preceded by the resident contacting this Service for help. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process. The resident was subjected to further distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble which would not have been the case had the landlord handled the complaint effectively initially.
Cumulatively, the above failures constitute maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must directly pay the resident £1,500.00 in compensation. Any compensation paid already should be deducted from this amount. This is broken down as follows:
1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delayed repairs.
2. £500 for time and trouble due to the resident chasing updates.
3. £500 for poor complaint handling.
The landlord must carry out staff training to all staff members that approve mutual exchanges. This is to ensure that its policy is followed so that:
1. adequate records are kept regarding inspections
2. properties are not approved for exchange if they do not meet the landlord’s empty homes standard.

This must be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.

A senior officer must review this case, having sharp focus on the following issues:
1. Reviewing the complaints handling system in place to ensure that complaints are processed correctly and in accordance with its own procedures. This is to make sure that complaints do not get lost in the system.
2. Why the repairs logs for this case could not be provided and making sure that this is not an on-going issue.

This must be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.