Sovereign Network Homes (202224013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224013

Sovereign Network Homes

3 May 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.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, and her tenancy started in March 2015. The resident is considered to be vulnerable due to a health condition.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2022 to raise a repair to the bedroom window in her property, and reported that she was unable to lock the window. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would raise the repair, but if it was an emergency the resident should contact its repairs call centre. It provided the number for the call centre.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the window repair on 27 May 2022 and said she was unhappy as its contractor had called at 9pm to advise it was on the way to fix the window. She explained it was unacceptable that she had to wait for 4 hours for someone to arrive.
6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 16 September 2022 and apologised for the “major breakdown” in communication about the window repair, and offered the resident £240 in compensation for its handling of the matter. On 21 September 2022, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. She explained that a contractor had recently attended to complete the repair but did not have the right part, so the repair did not go ahead.
7. The landlord completed the repair to the window on 30 September 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2022, and restated the compensation offer made at stage 1.
8. The resident contacted this Service on 21 January 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint, and said that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

9. 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 supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
10. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
11. The landlord’s repair policy states it 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).
12. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, in January 2023, she raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of repairs that were part of an ongoing disrepair claim. These repairs listed were:
    1. A “crumbling” kitchen floor.
    2. An ongoing infestation of mice and ants, and the associated repairs.
    3. Leaks/drainage issues.
    4. An electrical socket.
    5. A loose door handle.
13. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns about its handling of the above repairs, as part of a complaint response. Because the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns as part of a formal complaint response, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. The resident may wish to raise her concerns about the repairs associated with her disrepair case as a formal complaint.
14. Considering the above, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the window repair, as it has had the chance to respond to the resident’s concerns as part of a complaint.
15. When the resident asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, in September 2022 she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her health. 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. 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 she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
16. The landlord was on notice about the repair to the window from 27 May 2022, and the evidence shows it sought to attend to the repair the same day as an emergency repair. It is noted that the resident was unhappy that she had wait up for it to attended, and cancelled the appointment. However, its handling of the repair, at the time, was appropriate and in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy.
17. The landlord conducted a “make safe” repair on 31 May 2022. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was proactive in trying to book the follow on repair, after the resident cancelled the emergency repairs visit. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, and the resident was cost time and trouble chasing it to attend to the repair by email in July and August 2022. The resident was caused a further inconvenience when a contractor attended to complete the repair, in September 2022, and did not bring the correct part, and was unable to complete the repair.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of September 2022, was detailed and gave a thorough assessment of its handling of the repair. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and conducted a thorough investigation. The landlord’s response was transparent and showed the appropriate level of learning, and is evidence it sought to build trust with the resident. The compensation it offered, at that point, was reasonable and went some way to putting right its admitted failings.
19. This Service has seen evidence that, following its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord sent an internal email to the repairs team detailing key learning points from its handling of the repairs. This is evidence the landlord sought to learn from the issues complained about, and adopted the Ombudsman’s complaint handling principle of learning from outcomes.
20. The repair to the window was completed on 30 September 2022 which was 4 months after it was put on notice about the repair. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and the landlord accepted its handling of the repair was poor. The landlord’s stage 2 response was also detailed and showed learning about its handling of the matter, which was appropriate. However, it is unclear why it did not seek to increase its offer of compensation given it took a further 2 weeks to complete the repair, after it issued its stage 1 response. Given there was a further delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have revisited its offer of compensation to reflect the full detriment experienced by the resident.
21. That landlord accepted its handling of the repair was poor, and there was a “major breakdown” in communication. The landlord’s complaint responses were thorough, reflective, and transparent. At the time of its offer of compensation the matter was outstanding. That it did not revisit its offer of compensation to reflect the further delay was inappropriate, as it did not reflect the full detriment to the resident. As such we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Complaint Handling

22. 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.
23. As outlined above the landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and showed an appropriate amount of learning about its handling of the substantive issue in the complaint. However, there were procedural shortcomings in its complaint handling, due to delays in issuing responses, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
24. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the window repair on 27 May 2022. The landlord did not send its stage 1 response about the issue until 16 September 2022. This was well outside of the complaint handling timeframes set out in its policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This inconvenienced the resident as she waited nearly 4 months to get a formal response to concerns she raised. That the landlord did not apologise for, or acknowledge, the delay in its stage 1 response was inappropriate.
25. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to explain the delay in issuing its complaint response to the resident. This was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling, as the resident was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord would respond to her complaint.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was also sent outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code, as it was sent 24 working days after it was made. It is noted that this was a far shorter delay than at stage 1. However, that it did not acknowledge or apologise for the, albeit slight, delay was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
27. On 3 April 2024 we determined a case for the landlord where similar complaint handling shortcomings were identified (reference 202222407). In that determination we made a learning order in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling timeframes, and the need to acknowledge delays. Given similar shortcomings were identified in this investigation, we have not made a further learning order to what has recently been ordered.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £415 in compensation, made up of:
       1. The £240 it offered for its handling of the repairs (if it has not already done so).
       2. A further £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the further delay in completing the window repair.
       3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.