Sovereign Network Homes (202222058)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222058

Sovereign Network Homes

3 November 2023

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 the resident’s request it:
1. repair the heating system;
2. resolve an intermittent humming noise from the plant room, and;
3. increase the compensation offered.
The resident also complained about the level of service provided by the landlord.

Background

The resident moved into his new build, shared ownership property in May 2021.
The developer owns the head lease. The landlord entered a shared ownership arrangement with the resident. The defect period ended December 2021.
The heating is communal with a plant room providing the supply for the block. Within a week of moving in, the resident realised the heating did not work, this was reported to the landlord on 2 June 2021. The resident was away between June and August 2021. The heating was fixed on 27 October 2021.
From 2 October 2021 the resident noticed an intermittent humming noise, mainly at night which was disturbing his and his partner’s sleep. This continued until June 2022 when the developer installed noise dampening measures. The resident can still hear the noise, but it is not having the same impact on their lives.
The resident did not believe the landlord managed these issues in a timely manner and so he raised a complaint to the landlord. In its final response in December 2021 the landlord offered £250 for the inconvenience the resident experienced with the heating and for the continuing inconvenience of the intermittent humming noise.
The resident remains dissatisfied, as a resolution he would like the uneven flooring and kitchen cabinet repairs to be completed. As explained in the scoping paragraph below these repairs are not able to be considered as part of this report. The resident would also like no other resident to go through the experience he has. The only way he believes this can be achieved will be through an improved compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside this.
Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
This Service accepted the acknowledged complaints points as a complaint for investigation on 25 January 2023. The resident had an open complaint with the landlord which addressed additional points including uneven flooring and a kitchen cabinet. The resident would like this report to consider and resolve these points.
This Service is unable to consider these points in this determination as they had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure prior to this complaint being accepted on 25 January 2023. Should the resident wish to, he can bring these complaints to this Service separately. This determination is solely addressing the complaint definition in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it repair the heating system.

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its approach to responsive repairs. The principles of which it applies to residents regardless of tenure type. The landlord recognises repairs is one of its most important functions. Its policy states that it provides a prompt repairs service that residents value and are satisfied with. The services will be easily accessible at a time and place to suit the residents, which deliver high standards of customer care.
The shared ownership lease states the landlord will make reasonable endeavours to procure the head landlord to comply with their respective repairs and maintenance obligations.
From time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified at the point of handover or are identified through the course of the resident’s occupation. Shared owners are therefore protected by the defect period. The landlord also has referred to a further warranty which the resident can access if the developer does not deal with the defects within a reasonable period. The existence of defects alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
It is appropriate to recognise the landlord was not responsible for carrying out work to remedy defects and this remained a contractual obligation of the developer. This Service would expect the landlord to explore every available option to ensure the developer complies with any applicable contract.
The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of telephone calls. Therefore, this Service has relied on the information provided through works orders and emails between the landlord, developer, and resident. The lack of records will be a recommendation of this report.
The resident informed the landlord that the heating was not working on 2 June 2021. The landlord had a target completion date of a week later. The resident was abroad for 9 weeks from 2 June to 4 August 2021. The resident reraised this on 12 August 2021. The landlord confirmed the repair works order on 22 September 2021 and advised the developer would attend later in September 2021. The resident advised this Service the developer repaired the heating on 2 occasions, but it only worked for a few hours then stopped again. The heating was fixed on 27 October 2021.
In its final response letter, the landlord said it was not responsible for the heating repairs but put pressure on the developer to complete the work. The landlord acknowledged its response times and contact could have been significantly better. It offered the resident £250 for both this and the intermittent humming noise. The landlord noted the resident was abroad for some of the time contributing to the delay and lessening the impact of not having heating.
The resident advised this Service, while he was abroad his friend could and did provide access for the landlord. The resident further advised he did not receive any telephone calls regarding the heating despite calling the landlord while he was away. The landlord has not provided evidence of any appointments or correspondence relating to the heating during this period. Therefore, it was not reasonable for the landlord to attribute the resident’s holiday as contributing to the delay.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating any defect issues between the developer and resident, to ensure that defects were appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard in a satisfactory timeframe.
From the initial report, the time taken to resolve the heating issue was 21 weeks. This was not in line with the target date of a week, or the prompt repairs service the landlord’s policy promises.
This Service finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it repair the heating system.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it resolve an intermittent humming noise from the plant room.

As previously mentioned, the landlord’s repairs policy states it will provide a prompt service which residents are satisfied with. In addition, the shared ownership lease placed responsibility on the landlord to pursue the head landlord to comply with its repairs and maintenance responsibilities.
The resident noticed an intermittent humming noise which started on 2 October 2021. This was reported to the landlord via telephone and confirmed in email on 4 October 2021. The landlord’s records have this reported on 20 October with a target resolution date of 27 October 2021.
The noise was mainly heard in the resident’s bedroom at night which affected their sleep. The resident’s partner is a nurse, and the resident raised his concerns with the landlord about the impact of her being sleep deprived.
In its final resolution letter in December 2021 the landlord advised that the developer could not identify the issue and offered the resident noise recording equipment. The resident did not want this, so the landlord planned to install it in the empty flat below and asked the resident to keep a noise diary for a 2 week period.
The landlord instructed a specialist noise company to investigate. In their report dated 14 January 2022 the engineer concluded the noise level and tone was an annoyance and they could understand why it caused a complaint. It narrowed down the source of the noise as potentially being from the plant room.
After a number of resolution attempts, works to dampen the noise were completed on 22 June 2022. The resident still reports hearing the noise, but not at a level to cause a nuisance. Since the landlord’s offer in December 2021 of £250 for both this and the heating delays, the resident has had no further offer of financial recognition for the disturbance from the humming noise.
As previously stated, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating any defect issues between parties. This includes ensuring that any reported defects were passed on to the developer and arranged within a reasonable amount of time. When the landlord received the call and email from the resident on 4 October 2021, it should have raised the works order, rather than waiting until 20 October to raise it.
In accordance with its obligations the landlord liaised with the developer and secured a way to dampen the noise levels. The Service acknowledges the intermittent noise was a difficult issue to resolve and specialist companies were needed to identify the problem and manufacture the solution. The landlord took reasonable steps by installing noise recording equipment and asking the resident to keep a diary. However, the time taken to resolve this issue was over 8 months after the landlord’s target date, and the resident experienced disturbance for 9 months.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure the resident was kept informed of the progress of the repair. In emails to the landlord, the resident stated he did not have any proof or visible actions the humming noise was being looked at. This illustrates the resident did not feel well informed which added to his frustration to the extent he asked for temporary accommodation on at least 5 occasions to try to get some rest. The landlord needed to ensure it kept the resident informed of developments and ensured it was being progressed in a timely manner.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it resolve an intermittent humming noise from the plant room.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it increase the compensation offered.

The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award weekly compensation of £5 for low, £10 for medium, and £20 for high impact. Low impact is described as a service failure which was rectified in a reasonable amount of time, with low effort and impact on the resident. Medium impact as a significant inconvenience and multiple attempts to resolve an issue involving much time and effort. High impact is a serious failure in service standards with severe consequences taking considerable time and effort to resolve. This would have had an impact on the complainant’s lifestyle and/or enjoyment of their home.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award £20 per week from 1 September after the first 7 days for loss of heating.
Complaints about contractors will be handled by the landlord who will then seek to invoke reimbursement from the contractor.
In its final response letter, the landlord offered £250 for the delays to the heating repair and for the humming noise. This was offered at stage 1 and reoffered at stage 2. The resident does not believe he has received any money from the landlord for this complaint. The landlord has not provided a breakdown of how the compensation amount was arrived at.
In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for the heating, the resident should be awarded £20 per week for the 8 weeks without heating from 1 September to 27 October 2021. This equates to £160.
The landlord may have been prudent to revisit the compensation offer following the resolution of the humming noise. In its first complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the enjoyment of the resident’s home had been impacted by the humming noise. This, plus the large number of emails the resident made to try to resolve the issue result in it being classified as a high impact. Therefore, in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation policy it should have offered 36.5 weeks at £20 per week, equating to £730.
This Service finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it increase the compensation offered.

The resident also complained about the level of service provided by the landlord.

Complaints can be a way to resolve issues before they worsen. They can be used to clarify the landlord’s position, positively remedying the situation to improve the relationship between both parties. The complaint response is one way the landlord can attempt to rectify any poor service delivery experienced.
From the emails the resident has provided to this Service it is evident this experience has been difficult for him. Once the resident moved in there was no heating, then he had 9 months of disturbed sleep from an undiagnosed humming noise. When considering the amount to recompense the resident for the distress and inconvenience suffered it is difficult to quantify.
While it is acknowledged the landlord does not have ultimate control over these repairs, it has entered into an agreement with the resident and the developer. As such, it should ensure it can deliver the covenants of the contract and proactively liaise with the developer to achieve a good level of service for the resident.
The resident raised complaints to try to resolve these issues. Through the complaint process the landlord has given full responses and complied within its published timescales. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident had not always received the high level of service he should expect. As such, this Service finds the resident has been offered reasonable redress for the level of service provided by the landlord.
In accordance with the scheme this Service finds there was reasonable redress in the level of service provided by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it repair the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministrationin the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it resolve an intermittent humming noise from the plant room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it increase the compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the level of service provided by the landlord.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £1,440. This includes the previously offered compensation of £250. This comprises of:
1. £160 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of his property for the period the property had no heating.
2. £730 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of his property for the period he was disturbed by the humming noise.
3. £150 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates.
4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. £100 for the landlord’s failure to handle the compensation appropriately.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

While the Ombudsman appreciates that with new builds, the landlord will often be relying on third parties to undertake works, the landlord should still endeavour to provide a good and prompt repair service for its residents. It is clear from this case, however, that there were issues with the communication and the level of service provided. If the landlord has not already, it should arrange to meet with developers at prebuild stage to agree a streamlined approach for assessing defects, arranging repairs, and managing resident expectations. The landlord should reflect on this case and should ensure that moving forward, it is effectively managing and monitoring the performance of such third parties to ensure that contractual obligations are met.
The landlord has not provided evidence of phone calls, either notes or the recordings themselves. It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate records are maintained. If it has not done so already it should consider implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge Management and Information (KIM).