Sovereign Network Homes (202224092)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224092

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

28 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:
1. Response to the residents reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. She lives in a 3 bedroom house where she has held a tenancy since January 2007. The resident’s son has autism and ADHD which presents difficulties with disturbance and changes to his routine. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s household has reported disabilities. Its records state “sensitive approach” and “please allow time to get to the door.”
From March 2022 the resident chased the landlord about the need for a replacement back door. Asbestos inspections due in March 2022 did not take place as arranged and the resident chased the landlord for updates in June 2022. She requested action before the weather changed as the wind already “howled through the door.” Delays and poor communication continued until the door was replaced on 12 May 2023. The landlord said the delay was caused by planning permission as the property was in a conservation area.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord via its website portal on 9 November 2022. She chased it for updates regarding reported damp and mould and outstanding repairs to the property. The resident explained she had called on 24 October 2022 and the landlord advised it would update her in 5 working days. This did not happen and she chased it again on 1 and 9 November 2022. She raised the complaint as the landlord had no update and said, “it was looking in to it.”
On 19 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that damp and mould was getting worse and water was entering the property through her windows. The resident chased it on 3, 10, and 11 January 2023 as water continued to penetrate at least 9 windows. She reported that mould was in multiple rooms including her children’s bedrooms. On the 18 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord she had completed her own mould wash as she had waited 2 weeks for it to act.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 16 January 2023. It had not supplied her with a stage 1 response or an action plan to resolve her outstanding service requests. A window contractor attended on 3 January 2023 and informed the landlord that 36 units of glass at the property required sealant and “without deglazing, it would not be able to tell where the leaks were coming from.”
On 18 January 2023 the landlord raised a new job to replace radiators at the property. The subject of its internal communication said, “radiator job for the mould team.” The resident chased the landlord for updates between 31 January 2023 and 22 February 2023 as she had received no update. The work remained outstanding until completion on 22 March 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 February 2023. It said it had responded at stage 1 on 24 November 2022 and closed her complaint. The resident disputes ever receiving a response which is why she had sought to escalate it. The landlord upheld her complaint and offered £150 worth of decorating vouchers to help the resident with the cost of redecorating following a mould wash.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 February 2023. She described how her son’s autism had been affected by the landlord’s handling of her service requests and he had been in the accident and emergency department having attempted suicide. She said she never received a stage 1 response and wanted the landlord to replace the windows, address the damp and mould, and improve its communication.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord issued a second stage 2 response. It said that her complaint was awaiting review by the Housing Ombudsman Service and it had reviewed its earlier decision. The letter said that the windows had been replaced on 14 March 2023 and the radiators replaced on 16 March 2023. It acknowledged identified failings in its delays to complete work, poor communication, and acknowledged its failure to offer her support around the time her son attempted suicide. It offered £1,200 compensation.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that this letter was incorrect as the windows had not been replaced. She said that the glazed units had been deglazed and sealed with silicone on 14 March 2023. She described this as ineffective and that water continued to penetrate the frames. She explained that issues with mould continued and she had required the use of a dehumidifier which was costing her additional electricity. She informed the Ombudsman that her windows were replaced at the end of January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope on investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident informed the landlord and the Ombudsman of her son’s health and his suicide attempt. She explained how the delays to repairs, the presence of mould, and returning tradesman working in her son’s bedroom had caused him distress. We have spoken to the resident to ensure that she is comfortable for us to include this information in our report. We acknowledge the seriousness of this situation and how difficult this must have been.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has reported that the situation has affected the health of members of her household. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability, or award damages. This would be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, consideration of any aggravating factors such as a health condition, could justify an increased award. This would be to consider the resulting distress and inconvenience caused.

Response to the residents reports of damp and mould at the property

On 24 March 2022 the landlord’s repair records state the need to “inspect, treat, and identify cause of mould” at the resident’s property. An inspection was completed in 3 working days. This was reasonable. The landlord recorded that a specialist inspection was required as there was “damp and mould in the property and moisture in the wall.” Its repairs and maintenance policy states that if an inspection is required, it will complete this and the subsequent repairs within a target of 28 calendar days.
There is evidence that the landlord raised for a specialist damp and mould inspection on 6 April 2022. The inspection took place on 19 May 2022 and the final report recorded by the landlord on 22 June 2022. A duration of approximately 85 calendar days and therefore outside of its policy time frames.
The report identified that there was black mould in the corners of the resident’s rooms, on the ceilings, and walls. It identified ill-fitting vents from recent roofing work, cracks in external mortar, eaves incorrectly full of insulation, a low performing bathroom fan, and the need to treat mould areas.
While the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange for a specialist damp and mould survey, the is no evidence that any corrective work was undertaken within 28 calendar days. This was not appropriate and not in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. Furthermore there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident or provided any updates regarding how it planned to provide a remedy for ongoing repair issues while awaiting the inspection report.
There is evidence that concerns regarding damp and mould continued. The resident reported increased issues surrounding her windows on 19 December 2022. While the landlord recorded the need to inspect, treat, and identify the cause, there is no evidence of her being informed that a repair was raised. Its communication remained poor and she chased it until she received contacted on 17 January 2023. At this point she advised she had completed a mould wash herself due to the landlord’s failure to act. Considering both the risks associated with mould and the known vulnerabilities within this household this was not appropriate.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problem in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Given that the inspection reports identified the presence of mould, the landlord failed to demonstrate monitoring this hazard. Furthermore its delays in addressing the causes only added to the distress experienced by the resident and members of the household.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. While it took appropriate action to instruct a specialist to inspect the property it failed to demonstrate that it gave the resident any initial support or more importantly regular communication.
In December 2022 the landlord undertook a damp and mould self-assessment. Within this assessment it identified several key areas where it assessed its compliance performance at the time as a score of either 1 or 2 out of 5. (1 being not compliant and 5 being fully compliant). The landlord’s own assessment of itself in two areas of note was:
1. That it needed to update its approach, communication, complaint handling, and culture towards its current damp and mould strategy.
2. That it needed to set out response times within its processes and then monitor and address performance.
While it is welcomed that the landlord undertook this exercise there is evidence that the resident experienced the landlord’s self-identified shortcomings. As the landlord was actively reviewing its service provision, it is unreasonable that the resident did not benefit from improved communication or an action plan of how it would remedy and monitor the identified damp and mould. Particularly as the resident reported issues with damp and mould remained ongoing into January 2024.
Despite the landlord knowing of the vulnerabilities within the household and marking the need for a sensitive approach on its records, there was no evidence this need was observed. A change to working practices can be seen as a reasonable adjustment. Given the information the resident had shared, it is a reasonable request to have such an adjustment in place. This would ensure the household are not disadvantaged when accessing the landlord’s services due to the reported disabilities.
While the landlord has shown some learning with its revised stage 2 response the resident and her vulnerable household was left in considerable detriment living with damp and mould for approximately 22 months. The poor communications showed a lack of respect for the repeat requests for help and prolonged the detriment experienced. The repeat and cumulative failures in communications and opportunities to put the failures right led to significant distress to the resident and her household. This is demonstrated in the language and tone of the residents pleas for help.
Although the landlord does not dispute its failures, it did not demonstrate that it showed due regard to the known vulnerabilities of the household or its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. Although the landlord demonstrated taking some appropriate action to investigate concerns, this was insufficient mitigation for this determination to be less than severe maladministration.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress for this complaint, the resident’s weekly rent has been taken into consideration. The resident’s weekly rent was charged for 52 weeks of the year and changed at the start of each financial year. The average rent for the 2 years in question was approximately £166 per week. The rent figure has been used as a guideline only and is not intended to amount to an exact refund.
While the damp and mould remained an ongoing issue for approximately 22 months, the resident lost the quiet enjoyment of her property. Although no rooms were lost entirely, it was not reasonable for the resident to have experienced the delays to put this right and to have lived with the presence of mould for this long. Therefore, it is reasonable to reimburse the resident 10% of her rent for the period March 2022 to January 2024. This amounts to £1,583.

Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property

In accordance with the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a statutory obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the external doors, windows, and radiators. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms this responsibility.

Backdoor

While the resident’s reports of a repair needed to her back door did not form part of her initial complaint, the matter formed part of the landlord’s communication and second stage 2 response. Given the duration that the repair remained outstanding and the impact on the household, it is appropriate that we include it within our investigation.
There is evidence that the landlord was aware of the resident’s need for a replacement backdoor as early as 10 March 2022 this was not resolved until 12 May 2023. From August 2022, when chased by the resident for an update, the landlord said that due to the property being in a conservation area, planning permission was causing delays. While the Ombudsman is aware that planning permission can take time, it is unclear from the landlord’s repair records what work was undertaken to improve the condition of the door while this matter was resolved.
Furthermore, on 11 November 2022 the landlord’s repair record’s state that the door was “beyond repair” and raised a replacement order. Having been on notice that the door needed to be replaced from March 2022 and knowing the location of the property, it is unclear why the landlord did not submit a planning application sooner. Furthermore it is unclear why it did not communicate anticipated delays to the resident until she chased it.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will keep in touch to update residents on the progress of their repair. This was not demonstrated throughout. Communication with the resident was poor and she was required to chase for information. There is no evidence that either the landlord or its contractors were proactive in providing updates about the door replacement. This was not appropriate as it failed to follow its repairs and maintenance policy.
On 16 December 2022 there is evidence the landlord recorded telling the resident that its contractors manage their own diaries and suggested she call them herself. She was advised to get the contractors number from the internet. This is unreasonable. The landlord expected the resident to manage her own service request, which shows a lack of oversight by the landlord of its contractors and repairs.
Due to the vulnerabilities in her household she had expressed concerns with the delays and changes to appointments. The landlord’s lack of support at this stage did not demonstrate the behaviour of a landlord giving due regard to the needs of its resident. Given that she had explained her dissatisfaction, it would have been reasonable to have expected it to have given her assistance to ensure appointments were managed to minimise the impact on her household needs.
The landlord was aware of the poor condition of the resident’s backdoor from at least 10 March 2022. It therefore took over 290 working days to replace it on 12 May 2023. This was an unreasonable delay which could have been managed better had the landlord communicated with her in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
While it is noted that the speed in which planning permission is granted is beyond the control of the landlord, its delay to carry out the repair was unreasonable and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Had the landlord communicated effectively and submitted the necessary planning application when first aware of the condition of the door, the detriment to the resident may have been reduced. For these reasons we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this repair.

Radiators

The resident’s ongoing reports of mould and reports of water penetrating the windows led to the landlord assessing the radiators in the property. While this was a reasonable step to take the landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated with the resident about the work it would undertake and when.
Between 18 January 2023 to 16 March 2023 the landlord’s internal communication addressed the resident’s need for replacement radiators as “radiator job for mould team.” The landlord was therefore aware of the ongoing mould problem at the property. However it continued not to evidence any monitoring of this hazard or explain to the resident when it would undertake the repairs.
While it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to improve the heating systems for the resident, its communication remained poor. The resident says that her son became distressed by mould and by the work undertaken at the property. Particularly in his bedroom. There were delays completing the installation as some radiators ordered were the wrong size and a wall in her son’s bedroom was damaged during the installation. The resident says this required further appointments to resolve. She explained that her son attempted suicide due to distress caused by the thought of more people having to be in his room.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to fix any damage caused by its repair work, its lack of effective communication and coordination caused distress. At this time, the landlord did not demonstrate giving due regard to the resident’s household vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s records for this household state the need for a “sensitive approach.” However there is no evidence of how it managed this need. While the landlord’s policies state that it has made consideration for the Equality Act 2010, and that it will make sure its services are as inclusive and accessible as possible, there is no evidence within the policies provided of how this would be applied.
Having suitable means to maintain a consistent temperature in a property is essential. It can, in conjunction with good ventilation, minimise condensation and slow down the spread of damp and mould. While taking action to replace the radiators was appropriate, the landlord’s lack of communication or evidence of monitoring did not demonstrate it treating the replacement of the radiators with the urgency it required. Its failure to recognise the household vulnerabilities and the importance of a sensitive approach was not appropriate.
The resident was unclear what work would be completed or when. The delays and repeat appointments due to missing materials and damage did not demonstrate the landlord learning from the household needs. This adversely affected members of the household and caused further distress and inconvenience. Therefore we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this repair.

Windows

On 19 December 2022 the landlord initially responded to the resident’s reports of water penetration within 24 hours. This was appropriate and in line with how it should deal with an emergency under its repairs and maintenance policy.
However, it took a further 58 working days after the resident reported water entering through her window frames for the landlord to attend to undertake a repair on 14 March 2023. The repair record’s state that 36 double glazed units were removed, drainage cleared, and sealed. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attend to address the resident’s repair, the delay to complete this was unreasonable. Given that the resident had reported mould growth and active water penetration, it is unclear why this was not addressed sooner.
After completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure on 7 February 2023, it issued a second stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. It said that it had replaced the resident’s windows on 14 March 2023 as part of its planned programme of works. Between the two response it had upheld that there had been issues with its communication but considered that it had replaced the windows in line with its repairs and maintenance policy and within 90 working days.
However this information was incorrect as the resident advised the Ombudsman that the windows were not replaced until late January 2024. Therefore while the landlord had sought to review the findings of its earlier decision, its records and communication continued to be inaccurate. This did not demonstrate and learning by the landlord.
Between December 2022 and January 2024 the resident reported experiencing ongoing water penetration from her windows and excessive condensation. She said that this further contributed to the mould growth. This was an unreasonable period of approximately 275 working days. The distress was made worse as the landlord’s complaint response considered a repair in March 2023 had been to renew the windows. This was incorrect and did not demonstrate a thorough investigation to identify that the replacement of defective windows remained outstanding. Therefore we find severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this repair.

Summary

While it is noted that the landlord has since acknowledged its poor communication and repair service failures, it is not sufficient mitigation to warrant a finding less than severe maladministration. The accumulation of failures continued over a significant period of time. The reoccurring theme of poor communication and delayed repairs across each of the resident’s service requests exacerbated the detriment experienced by her and members of her household. Therefore an order has been made to pay a further 10% rent reduction. As the repairs span the same period as the resident’s reports of mould, this will also be calculated based on a period of 22 months.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. At stage 1 its policy states that it will agree a solution with a resident within 10 working days. At stage 2 it states that it aims to have a decision for the resident within 20 working days. Furthermore, it states that sometimes it may need extra time to make the right decision, so it may not be able to respond for a further 30 days.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) clearly sets out the requirements of member landlords. This includes the number of days that a landlord should provide its stage responses and the number of days that this can be extended (on agreement with the resident). The wording of its complaints policy at the time, particularly around extensions at stage 2 of its procedure, suggested a time frame outside of the Code. If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider reviewing the response time frames within its policy.
The Code says effective complaint handling enables residents to be heard and understood. The landlord initially said it acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 24 November 2022. However thereis no evidence that a response was sent to the resident.Having not received a stage 1 response, the resident was not provided the right of a stage 2 complaint investigation until she chased for updates. This was not appropriate and not in line with its complaint handling policy or the expectations of the Code.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. Its response was sent within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint handling policy.
Within its response, it apologised for the time it had taken to arrange a mould wash, upheld her complaint, confirmed a date for this to take place, and offered the resident £150 worth of decorating vouchers to help with the cost of redecoration. It also upheld failings with its handling of her window and radiator repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failures and take steps to put things right. However there is no evidence that the landlord made any effort to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s reports of her son’s attempted suicide.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances. At this stage no offer was made to consider any distress or inconvenience caused by its failures. Having repeatedly chased for updates on various repairs contributing to mould in the property since March 2022, this offer did not go far enough to put things right.
The landlord’s complaint investigation, particularly at stage 1, lacked any meaningful engagement on the matters raised. Furthermore, the repairs and poor communication issues remained ongoing. It failed to appropriately acknowledge the resident’s reports of the impact on her household and in particular her son. The initial stage 2 response did not apologise for failing to respond at stage 1. Therefore the landlord did not demonstrate any learning throughout its initial 2 complaint stages or offer a reasonable level of redress.
Given the known vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, it is reasonable that the landlord should have attempted to understand the household needs and respond to them in order to give due regard to their duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. Within this response it revisited the question of compensation and increased its offer to £1,200. This was made up as:
1. £250 for the delays and poor communication replacing radiators.
2. £750 in acknowledgement for not offering support for her and her son’s health and wellbeing.
3. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
Following notification that the resident had brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a second stage 2 response 152 working days after completing its internal complaints procedure (ICP). Within its response the landlord apologised, acknowledged that it should have offered health and wellbeing support to the resident and household sooner, and offered increased compensation.
The revised stage 2 response explained that was reviewing how it communicated with resident’s with support needs. It said it was planning to improve its processes and offer colleagues additional training. Furthermore it had provided additional complaint handling training to its staff.
While it was fair that the landlord to apologise, recognise the need to revise its stage 2 response, and demonstrate some learning, it did so 152 days after its original stage 2 response. The acknowledgement of failings was an appropriate step to put things right. However this should have been done sooner and it failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman’s outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined under such circumstances.
Where there has been maladministration the remedies guidance available to us provides guidance of the appropriate level of redress. For the reasons set out above the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Review of policies and practices

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving its response to reported repairs and its complaint handling. As a result of these, a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
The landlord has been ordered to carry out a review, within 12 weeks of its practice in relation to how it responds to reported repairs and complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202200596. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total compensation payment of £4,466 (this sum includes the landlord’s offer of £1,200). This comprises:
  1. £1,583 for the loss of enjoyment of the home due to the delays in resolving damp and mould whilst paying full rent for the property.
  2. A further £1,583 for the loss of enjoyment of the home for the delays in resolving the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs over the same period of time.
  3. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by the delays in completing repairs at the property taking into account the identified vulnerabilities.
  4. £300 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
A senior member of the landlord’s management team to telephone the resident to offer a face to face apology for the findings within this report. In the circumstances it is reasonable that this should be done face to face. However the landlord should check with the resident first to see if this is something with which she is comfortable.
With the agreement of the resident, the landlord to attend the property to inspect and identify any outstanding repairs contributing to the cause of damp and mould. An action plan to be created where required which considers the household vulnerabilities. This should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident within 8 weeks of this report.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review into its handling of repairs to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
  1. Its poor communication and failure to follow up on outstanding repairs.
  2. The lack of proactive communication about delays.
  3. How household vulnerabilities are recorded and how this information is shared to ensure that the household are not disadvantaged when trying to access its services.
  4. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are aware of the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
1. The importance of formally acknowledging complaints.
2. Offering appropriate redress to the full detriment experienced by a resident.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (relationship of equals), published January 2024. This available via our website. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.
The landlord is encouraged to ensure that the wording of its complaint handling time frames at the time of this complaint has since been reviewed and in line with the recently published Code.