Sovereign Network Homes (202231810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231810

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

11 March 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 the resident’s complaint concerning repairs including heating issues, damp, and mould.

Background

The resident holds a joint assured tenancy that began on 15 October 2001. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced house, and the landlord is a housing association.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process. It said that it would aim to respond to complaints within 10 and 20 working days, at stage 1 and 2 respectively. It explained the circumstances in which it may need to extend these timeframes.

Scope

The resident said that he had been reporting issues with damp and mould to the landlord since 2002, and issues with the effectiveness of his air source heat pump (ASHP) and heating system since it was installed in 2015. The resident made a related complaint, which the landlord handled at stage 2 of its process in June 2020. The resident’s complaint concluded with the landlord agreeing to complete various works to his kitchen, bathroom, and insulation, and offering him £400 compensation.
In April 2021 the resident told the landlord that it had not completed the works to his property that it had promised during his complaint the previous year. The landlord told the resident that it would not reopen his complaint as it had exhausted its process. It referred the resident to this Service, and advised that its relevant team would contact him regarding his outstanding works.
The landlord subsequently realised that its 2020 stage 2 complaint resolution had been made verbally to the resident, and that it had no written response on file. The landlord’s internal emails stated that it would not reopen the resident’s complaint, but asked that he be provided a written stage 2 response, and an update on his outstanding works.
During May 2021 the landlord told the resident that his works had not gone ahead during 2020 due to the restrictions from COVID-19, and apologised if it had not properly communicated this. The landlord progressed the resident’s works, and the resident raised multiple issues regarding standards of workmanship, wasted repeat visits, unorganised works schedules, and poor communications.
In July 2021 the landlord issued the resident its written stage 2 response. It offered the resident a further £1281.12 compensation in addition to the previous £400, and to also cover the £281.12 he had spent on a bathroom cabinet and mirror. It again referred the resident to this Service. The landlord continued with the works to the resident property during July and August 2021, at the end of which the resident thanked the landlord for the high standard of work completed in his bathroom.
The resident made a subsequent related complaint to the landlord in January 2022, and brought the matter to this Service in March 2023. Paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure”.
This time period is restricted for various reasons, including the availability of evidence to allow for an effective investigation, and to help to provide certainty for both parties. As such this report is focused on matters from October 2021, up to and including the resident’s further related complaint that concluded in 2023. References to matters related to the resident’s earlier complaint are for the purpose of historic context.

Summary of events

On 4 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that his new bathroom radiator did not heat the room, which he had stated would likely be the case at the landlord’s post-inspection of the works. He said that the rest of the new heating system was working perfectly. He referred to the previous issues with damp and mould in his bathroom, and asked that the landlord resolve the heating issue ahead of the winter. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report the same day.
On 27 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had attended 3 weeks earlier to size up his bathroom radiator, but that he had not heard anything since. He said that his bathroom was showing signs of damp and mould again.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that its contractor would contact him that day to book in his bathroom radiator works. At the end of the day the resident told the landlord that he was disappointed, but unsurprised, that he had not heard from its contractor.
On 6 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that, after numerous visits ahead of the works, its contractor had arrived on 14 December 2021 with the wrong radiator. He said that he had had no communication from the landlord since that time, and that his refurbished bathroom now had damp and mould again. The landlord apologised to the resident, and advised it would arrange an urgent revisit. The resident asked that his bathroom also be repainted. The landlord agreed that it would decorate his bathroom once the new radiator was installed, and the damp and mould issue resolved.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord’s internal email stated that it had logged the resident’s concerns as a new stage 1 complaint, and asked that he be contacted to discuss it further.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed its attendance at the resident’s property the previous day, and that it had been unable to install its intended radiator as it would have fouled the bathroom door. It described the alternative solutions that it had discussed with the resident.
On 21 January 2022 the local Member of Parliament (MP) asked the landlord to review the resident’s case, and advise of its intentions to resolve the bathroom damp and mould. The landlord’s subsequent internal emails stated that the matter was being handled as a formal complaint, which it would coordinate with a response to the MP.
On 27 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that it had agreed to repair his upstairs floorboards at its inspection earlier that month, but that he had heard nothing since. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP, and said that it was working with the resident to resolve his heating issues, and would be attending his property with a specialist contractor on 2 February 2022. It said it was confident that this would also resolve the resident’s bathroom mould.
During February and March 2022, the resident made various reports to the landlord regarding his heating, which he said was leaking, and that his radiators would not turn off.
On 30 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that at its most recent attendance, it had drained his heating system and allowed water and antifreeze to ruin his carpets.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord arranged to visit the resident later that week. The following day the resident queried why the toilet cistern that the landlord fitted in August 2021 was not dual flush, as it was intended to be. He chased the landlord for a response over the following 3 weeks.
On 8 June 2022 the resident complained that it had taken him 3 weeks of chasing for the landlord to contact him about his outstanding works. He confirmed that the works included mould treatment and redecoration of his bathroom, repair of his unsafe floorboards, and a toilet repair that had been done incorrectly more recently. He asked that the landlord compensate him for his damaged carpet, and for its numerous unsuccessful repairs visits.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord replied to the resident, and summarised the issues it had looked at during its visit. It said that it had not agreed to many of the repairs that the resident had said were outstanding, and referred to how satisfied the resident had been with the August 2021 bathroom works. Its further key points were as follows:
1. It said that mould had not been discussed either at its inspection, or during its earlier call. It advised that if the resident was now reporting mould in his bathroom, it would raise a further inspection.
2. It advised the repairs it would raise for the resident’s airing cupboard and toilet.
3. It stated that it could raise an inspection of the floorboards that the resident felt were unsafe, but that it would be necessary to lift his carpet.
4. It said it could not agree to the resident’s request for £500 towards new carpets, as he had indicated numerous times that the carpets were old, and he was intending to replace them anyway. It offered £50 as a “goodwill gesture”.
5. It stated that it did not consider the resident’s request for £1000 compensation for unsuccessful repair visits to be reasonable. It said that it would pay the resident £25 for each arranged appointment that it had failed to attend, and asked the resident to confirm when these had occurred.
6. It asked the resident to confirm if he was happy with its proposed works, and that if he remained dissatisfied the matter would be passed to a more senior manager.
On 9 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that its call and email had both been made to him at nighttime, which he considered inappropriate. He said that he had been appalled at the aggressive way in which it had spoken to him, and the “blatant lies” in its email. He confirmed that he had been very happy with the previous bathroom works, but that the issues with his ASHP and bathroom radiator had meant that the mould had returned. He said that he was only asking for his landing and bedroom floor to be repaired, reasonable compensation for his damaged carpets, and compensation for the incompetence and time taken to resolve these issues.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident for the way that it had made him feel during its call to him, and advised that it was handling his complaint at stage 2 of its process. It said that if the resident did not want to accept its £50 offer, he could claim for any damage to his carpets on its insurance. It said it would be in touch regarding the outstanding works.
On 14 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that his complaint went back to November 2021, and that he had involved his MP. His key points were as follows:
1. He said that he had had to stay at home on numerous occasions without works being completed.
2. He stated that he had told the landlord about his heating issues when it had renewed his bathroom. He said that the heating works were now complete, but the issues had caused mould and flaking paint.
3. He said that there were still issues with his floors, despite the landlord’s repairs earlier in the year. He said that his carpets had been damaged from being lifted and re-laid so many times.
4. He highlighted the intense stress and inconvenience that he and his wife had experienced over a prolonged period due to the landlord’s poor repairs handling and communications.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord’s internal email said that the resident’s complaint was at stage 1, not stage 2 as had been stated. Its subsequent internal emails referred to the resident’s original ‘heating’ complaint, and uncertainty over whether the resident’s further issues were a continuation of, or separate to that complaint. The email expressed further uncertainty over who was picking up each element, and its need to respond to the MP.
On 24 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that his heating issues had been resolved, but that his redecoration, toilet flush, and floorboard works all remained outstanding.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the resident that it said regarded his complaint. It advised an appointment to repair the resident’s toilet flush. It offered to either paint the resident’s bathroom ceiling, or provide him with a decoration voucher. It advised the name of its staff member who was managing the rest of the resident’s complaint, who it said would be in touch.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s email sent on 24 June 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. It repeated its offer of the previous day regarding the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
2. It said it would arrange works for the resident’s floorboards. It asked that the resident obtain a quotation to have his carpet renewed, and said that it would cover the cost.
3. It advised that a job to attend to the resident’s toilet flush had been booked for 15 July 2022.
On 29 June 2022 the resident replied to the landlord, and said that he would prefer that it carry out the decoration to his bathroom ceiling rather than give him a voucher. He expressed his concern that he had previously been advised that the ceiling was contaminated, needed replacing, and that paint alone would not stop the mould from returning. He expressed his further concern regarding the delays and poor standard of works, and the stress of always needing to complain and chase to get anything done.
On 1 and 2 August 2022 the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding the redecoration works done to his bathroom ceiling, and the need for the landlord to again have to make repeat visits to complete it to the required standard.
On 25 October 2022 the landlord visited the resident regarding outstanding works. The resident’s email to the landlord said that he had reported a fourth heating system leak in as many months, and that his kitchen ceiling was damaged. He reiterated his complaints regarding the landlord’s communications, and service standards. He asked how and when he would be compensated.
On 3 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his previous email. He said that the heating system leak, and his kitchen ceiling repairs had been completed, but that he was still having to chase other outstanding works.
On 7 November 2022 the resident reported a fifth heating system leak. The landlord replied the same day, and said it would send someone as soon as possible.
On 18 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had progressed the replacement of his carpets as agreed. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s advice that it would discuss compensation with him once works had been booked in, and stated his expectations of what the landlord would consider. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. He said that he had been reporting heating issues since it was installed in 2015, due to the ASHP and radiators being undersized, and the lack of heating in the kitchen.
2. He stated that he had had to stay home for over 30 visits in 2022 alone, with repairs often not completed. He said that it had taken the landlord 19 years to effectively treat his damp and mould issues the previous year.
3. He said that the landlord had failed to take his repair requests seriously, and had treated him as a second class citizen. He highlighted the amount of chasing he had to do, and the landlord’s repeated communication failures.
On 6 January 2023 the MP contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, and asked for an update on his outstanding floorboard works and compensation claim.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord confirmed to the MP that its contractor had failed to attend the resident’s property on the arranged day, but that it had completed the floorboard works the following day, after the resident had chased it.
On 6 February 2023 the resident clarified to the landlord that he had agreed it could rectify its contractor’s faulty floorboard work from 22 to 24 February 2023. He said that he was not happy at having to spend a further 3 days at home for the work to be completed, and that his newly fitted carpets had to be taken up. He highlighted that he had still not received a complaint response. The landlord replied the following day, and said that its complaint response was in progress, but that it wanted to resolve his floor issues before issuing it.
On 20 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that he had again waiting in all day, but that it had not attended as agreed to repair the kitchen leak, which he had reported the previous day.
On 23 February 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord that his floorboards and kitchen leak had been repaired. The resident stated that the landlord’s electrician had advised him that his bathroom fan was incorrectly installed, and would cause, rather than remove, excess moisture. He highlighted the number of faulty fans the landlord had installed without identifying this issue over the previous years of damp and mould problems.
On 2 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that all works, apart from his bathroom fan, had been completed on 27 February 2023. He said that he had still not been advised anything about the bathroom fan. He stated that as the fan was not part of his complaint, he could see no reason why it should delay the landlord’s response any further, particularly as the matter had been “dragging on for over a year”.
On 13 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had still not received a response to his complaint, and that if that remained the case at the end of the week, he would refer the matter to this Service.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord emailed it stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident, which was dated 25 March 2023. The response split the resident’s complaint into 4 elements. It stated that it had partially upheld 2 elements, and not upheld the other 2. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that there had been 20 jobs related to the resident’s heating since 2017. It said that the majority had been completed in a timely manner, but that there had been some service failures with timescales and standards of work.
2. It said that after numerous inspections, it had decided to replace the resident’s ASHP and water cylinder to ensure his satisfaction with the system’s performance. It stated that these change were not due to the ASHP being undersized. It apologised for the frustration its service failures had caused.
3. It apologised that the resident had experienced damp and mould for a prolonged period of time. It accepted that there had been a high number of attendances, many of which it said were avoidable, and that it had taken longer than anticipated to resolve the resident’s bathroom issues. It described the learning it had taken from this.
4. It apologised that the resident felt it had not taken his repair reports seriously, and that he had been treated as a “second class citizen”. It said that it had not upheld these 2 elements of the resident’s complaint, but described the learning it had taken from it.
5. It stated that it had paid £1820.90 to replace the resident’s carpets. It offered him a further £500 “goodwill gesture” for its service failings.
6. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the many years of damp, mould, and heating issues that the resident had described, and formed part of his previous complaint to the landlord, would have been distressing for him and his wife. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained above, this assessment is focused on the matters that occurred from October 2021, and the resident’s more recent complaint.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord accepted that it had undertaken a high volume of attendances to the resident’s property, and that many had been avoidable. It further accepted that past failings had meant that it had taken longer than would be anticipated to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its service failures, and to offer him compensation.
However, while the landlord did accept its repairs handling failures, its final response to the resident made no reference at all to the significant failures in its complaint handling, nor considered it in its offer of redress. It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the extent of its failings, and a finding of maladministration has been made.
The resident had expressed how impressed he had been with the works completed to his bathroom by the landlord’s inhouse tradesmen, which he contrasted with that of its contractors. Nonetheless, the resident had relevant and qualified professional experience, and had voiced his concern to the landlord that his bathroom radiator would be insufficient to heat the room.
This proved to be the case, and in early October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that his bathroom was cold. Given how satisfied the resident had been with the works done to his bathroom, and its history of damp and mould issues, it was understandable that the resident urged the landlord to act with some urgency ahead of the winter. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s report the same day, and to send its contractor to size up his radiator shortly after.
However, as was the case through much of the events of the 18 months described above, the lack of updates from the landlord left the resident feeling that the only way he could progress matters was to complain and chase it. The resident described the inconvenience of the contractor’s numerous visits before it attended to replace his bathroom radiator 10 weeks after he had reported it. This was again consistent with the resident’s overall experience of the landlord’s repairs service.
When the contractor was unable to complete the resident’s radiator replacement, it was unreasonable that the resident waited over 3 weeks without receiving any update or contact from the landlord. On 6 January 2022 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of contact, and the returning damp and mould in his bathroom.
It was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) for the landlord to recognise the resident’s contact as a new formal complaint. However, from that point onwards the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with either the Code, or its own policy, and at times appeared confused as to its status.
The landlord visited the resident on 18 January 2022, and discussed the matters relating to his complaint with him. Shortly after, the landlord received a query from the MP regarding the resident’s floorboards, heating, damp, and mould issues. The landlord’s internal emails demonstrated that it was aware it was handling the resident’s complaint, which it said it would coordinate with its response to the MP. The landlord sent a brief response to the MP on 27 January 2022, which offered its assurance that it was working with the resident to resolve the issues.
When the landlord provided its information for the Ombudsman’s investigation, this Service queried various documents that it appeared to have omitted. This included the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord replied, but only advised that it had provided the resident’s complaints, escalations request, and its responses.
It is unclear whether the landlord considered its stage 1 complaint response to be the reply it sent to the MP on 27 January 2022, the inspection follow up email it sent to the resident on 9 June 2022, or one of its other emails to the resident in June 2022 that referred to his complaint. Whichever the case may be, the Code states that landlords should ensure that complaint responses confirm in clear language to the resident what stage their complaint is at, which the landlord failed to do.
The landlord further failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales stated in its policy, and the Code. As is further considered below, the landlord’s delays, and uncertainty over the status of the resident’s complaint would have been confusing, and added to the resident’s frustration.
In the intervening period between February and June 2022, the resident continued to report issues with his heating, floorboards, and damaged carpets. He described the stress caused by the landlord’s lack of progress, despite its multiple attendances, and his frustration with the need to chase the landlord to get updates on his outstanding works.
The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property in May 2022, and it was unreasonable that the resident continued to find it necessary to chase it for updates on his outstanding works over the following weeks. He expressed his continued dissatisfaction with this on 8 June 2022, and asked that he be compensated for his damaged carpets, and the landlord’s service failures.
On 8 and 9 June 2022, the landlord called and emailed the resident, both of which were done well outside of normal working hours. The resident highlighted how inappropriate he considered this to be to the landlord, and stated how “appalled” he had been at the “aggressive” way he had been spoken to, and what he described as the “blatant lies” in its follow up email.
It is neither the role of, nor possible for the Ombudsman to assess the landlord’s handling of its call to the resident. Nevertheless, the resident made the distress it had caused him very clear to the landlord, and it was appropriate for it to apologise for how it had made him feel, which it did on 14 June 2022.
However, as above, the landlord’s internal emails from that time demonstrated its uncertainty over its own complaint handling. Its apology to the resident also advised him that his complaint was at stage 2 of its process. Its internal emails later the same day contradicted this, and demonstrated uncertainty regarding the overall status and ownership of the resident’s complaint. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord ever clarified its uncertainty to the resident, nor provided appropriate assurances or expected timeframes to formally respond to his complaint.
Over the remainder of the year the resident continued to report repeated heating and repairs issues, and to chase the landlord for updates on his outstanding works. He reiterated his complaints regarding the landlord’s communications, numerous unproductive attendances, and general service standards. It was again unreasonable that the landlord failed to provide the resident any form of clarity, formal response, or otherwise progress his complaint.
It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to cover the cost of the resident’s damaged carpet. However, at various points through the year, including in November 2022, the landlord deferred discussing compensation for its service failures with the resident until it had booked in or completed works. While this may have been appropriate in the very earliest stages of the resident’s complaint, it was unreasonable that the landlord was still taking this position a year after he had made it.
In January 2023 the resident’s MP again took the matter up on the resident’s behalf, and asked the landlord for an update of his outstanding works and compensation claim. The landlord provided the MP with a works update. However, it was unreasonable that a full 2 months later the resident was still chasing the landlord for progress with his compensation claim, and a response to his complaint.
The landlord issued what it said was its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 4 April 2023, over 64 weeks after he had made it. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the prolonged period of issues the resident had suffered, and to apologise for its repairs service failures. However, the landlord’s apologies appeared to be somewhat undermined by its stated position of not upholding 2 elements of the resident’s complaint, and only partially upholding the other 2.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was otherwise broadly in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It highlighted its efforts to be fair and put things right, by paying to have all the resident’s carpets replaced. It detailed the learning and intended improvements that it had taken from his complaint. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation for its repairs service failings was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, but the time it had taken to reach it was not.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman’s expectation is that the landlord handles the overall complaint in line with the Code, and Dispute Resolution Principles, rather than just its final response to the resident. It was unreasonable that the resident had spent around 14 months pursuing a resolution and response to his complaint, and further unreasonable that the landlord offered no explanation, apology, or redress for this failing. The Ombudsman has made a compensation order to this regard.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving disrepair. 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 of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs. 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 (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning repairs, including heating issues, damp, and mould.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its repair handling failures, which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and his wife, but then compounded this by failing to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Code, or with its own policy.
The landlord’s complaint handling lacked clarity or ownership to the point where the landlord itself appeared uncertain of its status. It was unclear whether the landlord issued a formal stage 1 response to the resident. The 64 weeks that the landlord took to conclude the resident’s complaint, and the time, and trouble he went to in pursuing it, would have further added to his distress. The landlord’s final response to the resident did not address any of these issues, and failed to offer appropriate redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident a total of £1100 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its repairs handling;
  2. £600 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation award of £500 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £1100).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.