The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Network Homes (202222407)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222407

Sovereign Network Homes

3 April 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 reports of repairs to the heaters, and the associated request for a refund for increased heating costs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable due to suffering from a health condition. The evidence also shows that the resident considers himself to have a mental health condition.

Summary of events

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 and reported that a storage heater in his property had stopped working. The landlord attended on the same day and completed a repair. The notes from the visit state the resident refused to allow the operative to put a “temporary supply” to the heater to check if it was working.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 and said the storage heater in his living room had stopped working completely. The landlord attended on 22 September 2022 and installed a new storage heater.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2022 and reported the new heater was not working. The notes reflect the landlord tried to attend on 24 September 2022, but was unable to get access. It attended the resident’s property on 27 September 2022 and “programmed” the heater, the notes reflect it was left in working order.
  4. The resident reported the heater in his living room was not working properly on 29 November 2022, and said it was not “retaining heat”. The landlord attended the same day and the notes reflect the heater was installed correctly, but was not working, so it raised a job to install a new heater.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 to make a complaint, and said it had given “no recognition” that the storage heater was faulty. He said that he was unable to heat his property during the day.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with 2 temporary heaters on 1 December 2022.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2022, and reported the heater was not working again. The landlord attended the same day and found the heater was working but was “not big enough for the room”.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 23 December 2022, and said:
    1. It gave a list of the times it had attended to repair the heater (as outlined above).
    2. It reported that the reason had recorded a no access visit for 24 September 2022 was because the resident had said he was not prepared to “wait up” for the operative to attend.
    3. It was of the view the heater was working, but may not be the correct size for the room. It would complete a ‘heat loss survey’ by 6 January 2023 to see if it needed to install a bigger heater.
    4. It explained how storage heaters worked by heating bricks internally and then releasing heat throughout the day.
    5. There were “many attendances” which had caused a delay and “frustration” for the resident.
    6. The time taken to carry out the repairs fell “well below” its expected timescales. It apologised for the lack of communication, and that the resident had to chase it for responses.
    7. It offered £169 in compensation for its handling of the issue.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2023 and said he was unhappy with its stage 1 response, and the compensation it had offered. He said he was facing increased heating costs due to the fact the heater was not working properly.
  10. The landlord raised a job to install 2 new storage heaters in the resident’s property on 9 January 2023, it is unclear when the work happened.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2023, and said:
    1. It had found it should have sought a long term remedy to the issue sooner, and apologised for the frustration caused.
    2. It replaced the heater on 6 February 2023 to one of the “appropriate size” for the room.
    3. It gave a breakdown of how it had calculated the compensation at stage 1.
    4. After it had issued its stage 1 response it had offered an additional £130 for additional heating costs, and then rounded up its total offer to £300.
    5. It asked the resident to supply copies of his electricity bills from the 1 September 2021 to 30 January 2023. This was so it could assess if issue had caused a “significant increase” in electricity usage. It would then consider if a further refund for costs was appropriate.
    6. It offered a further £80 in compensation for the later 6 week delay to replace the heater, calculated at £10 per week, making its final offer of compensation £380.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a follow up to its stage 2 complaint response on 20 February 2023, and said:
    1. It had been trying to speak with his energy provider to get an accurate calculation of the increased heating costs.
    2. It had become apparent that it would not be able to get a full breakdown of costs, so it had decided to offer an additional £150 for increased heating costs.
    3. It had calculated this figure using the energy unit charged by his energy provider, based on 5 hours per day usage.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on 16 April 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the length of time the issue took to resolve. He felt the landlord’s offer to reimburse the heating costs had left him “out of pocket”.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the heating systems.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states it takes responsibility for repairs needed to heating systems. The landlord has 3 categories of repair: Emergency (which it aims to attend within 4 hours); Routine (which it aims to attend within 5 working days); Complex (which it aims to complete within 90 working days). It defines an emergency repair as a situation where there is a risk to a residents “health or safety”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it 3 categories for calculating compensation: low, medium, and high impact. It can offer the following amounts for delay and distress separately: For low impact in can offer £5 per week, for medium it can offer £10 per week, and high impact £20 per week.
  4. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and send its response within 10 working days. It says it will send stage 2 responses within 20 working days.

Reports of repairs to the heaters

  1. When the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint, in April 2023, he raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on his mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.
  3. Throughout his complaint, the resident told the landlord that he suffered with poor mental health. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not accurately record the resident’s vulnerability on its systems. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping. The landlord’s failure to accurately record the resident’s vulnerability can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its ability to provide him with an appropriately tailored service, in line with his individual circumstances.
  4. The landlord was on notice about the heater not working from 13 September 2022. The landlord replaced the heater on 22 September 2022. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the landlord sought to repair the heater first, but the replacement was installed 7 working days later. This was slightly outside of its target repair timeframes for routine repairs, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
  5. When the resident reported the heater not working, the day after it was installed, the landlord appropriately logged it as an emergency repair and sought to attend the same day. The notes reflect the resident refused the appointment as he did not want to “wait up”. The evidence shows that the landlord did not attend for another 3 days, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by living in a property without adequate heating, and the landlord not attending to the repair with the appropriate urgency.
  6. When attending to the same repair in December 2022, the landlord supplied temporary heaters to assist the resident in heating is property. It is unclear why it did not do so in September 2022. While it is noted it was likely to be warmer in September than in December, it is also evident the resident was using the heating. That the landlord did not supply temporary heater was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of December 2022, gave a thorough assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point. This was reasonable in the circumstance, and the landlord appropriately apologised for its handling of the repairs.
  8. The stage 1 complaint response also said it would complete a ‘heat loss’ assessment to establish if it needed to install a larger heater. This was an appropriate approach in the circumstance. However, there is no evidence to indicate when/if the assessment went ahead, or the outcome was fed back to the resident. It is noted it raised a job to install a new heater on 13 January 2023, but its own comments on the repair log indicate that it was unaware of the outcome of the repair. The above failings indicate that the landlord’s knowledge and information management around the repair was poor, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delays in resolving the issue.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave greater detail than its stage 1 response. It gave a detailed breakdown of how it had calculated the compensation offered, which was appropriate, as the resident had expressed he was unhappy with the amount offered.
  10. That the landlord offered an increased level of compensation, at stage 2, to cover estimated increased heating costs, was appropriate. This is evidence it gave the appropriate consideration to the resident’s concern about costs he had incurred. The landlord also sought to reassure the resident that it would revisit this offer once the resident had provided copies of bills for it to assess. This was an appropriate and thorough approach.
  11. The evidence seen for this investigation indicates that the landlord took a supportive approach in assisting the resident to provide heating bills for it to consider. It contacted his energy provider to try to obtain a bill, and when it was apparent it would not be able to, it made an increased offer of compensation, based on assumed costs. This was a pragmatic approach, and is evidence that it sought to put right the costs he had incurred in a fair way.
  12. The landlord accepted its handling of the repairs was poor, and offered an appropriate level of redress to put things right, in line with its compensation policy. A finding of reasonable redress is made, based on the level of compensation offered as part of its complaint, and follow up, response. If the landlord has not yet paid the resident the compensation, it should do so.
  13. The record keeping around the repairs was poor, and its recording of the resident’s vulnerabilities lacked accuracy. Its complaint responses offered a detailed assessment of its actions and showed learning. The landlord took a supportive approach to the heating refund, and its response was pragmatic and fair. The supportive approach to the refund is evidence the landlord had due consideration for the vulnerabilities of the resident, despite its poor record keeping around the issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has supplied no evidence to indicate that it formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, after he made it in November 2022. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord setting out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of his complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 18 working days after the complaint was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and the Code, and a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. While not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.
  3. The resident expressed a dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 January 2023, and the evidence shows the landlord delayed opening stage 2 complaint investigation, which was inappropriate. This created an, albeit slightly, protracted complaints process, and resulted in a delayed stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent 30 working days after it was made, which was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. Again, this was not an excessive delay, but it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident experienced a further inconvenience of a delayed stage 2 complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heaters, and the associated request for a refund for increased heating costs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord accepted its handling of the repairs was poor, and offered an appropriate level of redress to put things right, in line with its compensation policy. The record keeping around the repairs was poor, and its recording of the resident’s vulnerabilities lacked accuracy. Its complaint responses offered a detailed assessment of its actions and showed learning. The landlord took a supportive approach to the heating refund, and its response was pragmatic and fair. The supportive approach to the refund is evidence the landlord had due consideration for the vulnerabilities of the resident, despite its poor record keeping around the issue.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which caused an inconvenience. Both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were delayed, which caused a further inconvenience. That it did not acknowledge, or apologise for, either delay was inappropriate.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £75 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints of the importance of:
      1. Formally acknowledging complaints, in line with its policy and the Code.
      2. Acknowledging complaint handling delays in its responses, and offering redress where appropriate.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £530 it offered for its handling of the repairs to the heaters, including costs towards heating, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any support needs he has. This will enable it to have an accurate record of his vulnerabilities, and provide an appropriately tailored service to him.