Sovereign Network Homes (202234046)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234046

Sovereign Network Homes

12 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Identification of a leak in her bathroom.
2. Handling of her request for a bath to be installed.
3. Response to a loss of heating in her living room.
4. Contractor’s conduct towards her.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord under a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 3 July 2017. The property is a ground floor 1 bedroom flat. The bathroom contains a walk in shower, which is the only means of bathing.
Whilst the landlord stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, a report by her Occupational Therapist (OT) identifies that she has a disability impacting mobility in her leg, causing pain and requiring her to use crutches to walk.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it does not apply to matters where “the issue of concern(s) was not raised within 6 months of said issue(s) occurring or within a reasonable timeframe of the resident becoming aware of the issue(s)”.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident confirming its contractor would be attending that day to renew mastic around her shower, regrout bathroom tiles and inspect the storage heaters in the property. It said it was awaiting a further date from its contractor for it to “remove and replace” the bathroom flooring.
On 26 February 2022, the resident reported that her shower pump was not working and had flooded the bathroom and her bedroom. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day. It reported that a new part was needed for the pump and new door seals should be added to the shower to prevent water escaping.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2022. She asked for a surveyor to inspect the shower, which she said was leaking and ruining her flooring again.
On 11 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say its surveyor had visited. She said that the surveyor had identified repairs needed to the shower and bathroom flooring and would be arranging for a radiator to be installed in the living room.
On 30 August 2022, the landlord logged a repair for its contractor to carry out the work identified on 27 February 2022. The contractor attended the same day. It reported back that the shower pump was working fine, and had just required adjusting, but the shower door seals still needed replacing.
The local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) department emailed the resident on 1 September 2022. It advised that it had asked the landlord for an update on outstanding works that had been identified during the surveyor’s inspection. EH said the landlord had advised it that:
1. It had adjusted the speed of the shower pump which should enable the water to drain and stop future blockages.
2. The resident had requested for her shower to be changed to a bath, but this was not possible due to the size of the bathroom.
3. A new storage heater was required in the living room, as the previous one had fallen off due to the wall not being strong enough to hold it.
The resident reported that the shower pump was not working again and causing the shower to overflow on 25 September 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and cleared a blockage.
On 20 October 2022, the resident emailed EH. She said she had discovered that when the landlord’s contractor had replaced her bathroom flooring it had laid this on top of the existing flooring and several layers of older flooring. She said these were “soaked” and smelled damp and mouldy and that due to this she believed there may be a leak in the shower tray. The resident said she would be contacting the landlord the following day to discuss this.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord logged a repair for its contractor to remove all flooring in the bathroom and lay new flooring. It said it had identified that there were currently 3 or 4 layers of flooring in place.
The landlord’s contractor reported on 19 January 2023 that it had taken up 3 layers of flooring in the resident’s bathroom and the floor was significantly damp underneath. It said it needed to allow the floor to dry out before laying the new flooring and had provided the resident with a protective cover to put down when the shower was in use.
The contractor returned to the property on 9 February 2023 but advised they were unable to carry out any work due to the resident’s behaviour. The contractor reattended on 27 February 2023 but found that the floor was still too wet for flooring to be laid. It provided a dehumidifier to aid the drying process.
The resident says that she was telephoned by the contractor on 9 March 2022 and 14 March 2023 during which it “demanded” to collect the dehumidifier and stated she would be charged if it was not returned. On 14 March 2022, the contractor’s offices told the resident that this had been an error and apologised.
On 16 March 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom floor and found it was still “absolutely soaking wet”. It identified that there was likely a leak under the floor and said the resident would need to be decanted so that the this could be traced and repaired. The resident says that she was also told by the landlord not to use the shower.
The resident received another call from the landlord’s contractor on 28 March 2023, attempting to arrange to collect the dehumidifier. After she notified the contractor’s offices it apologised for this, confirmed the dehumidifier was to remain until after she had been decanted and said it had taken steps to ensure she was not contacted about this again.
Also on 28 March 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. For 3 years she had raised continuous repairs for leaks and water damage from the shower. The landlord’s failure to address this had resulted in her flooring and furniture being damaged and her now having to be decanted.
2. She had been running the dehumidifier night and day in the property, using electricity and requiring help from family and friends to empty out the collected moisture.
3. She had no heating in the living room and had raised this with the landlord 3 years ago, with it still not being resolved.
4. All of this had put significant stress on her physical and mental health.
The resident says that on 30 March 2023, she was contacted again by the landlord’s contractor about removing the dehumidifier.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2023. It said that:
1. It had reviewed relevant records going back to October 2021.
2. It acknowledged that it had taken “a considerable time” to find the source of the leak but did not believe this was due to negligence – as evidenced by the numbed of inspections carried out.
3. Its contractor had also experienced difficulty in making contact with the resident and gaining access to the property, which had added to the delay.
4. It recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the decant and apologised for this.
5. If she wished to pursue a claim for damaged belongings, she should contact its insurance manager.
6. It had referred her request for heating in the living room to its surveyor and would update her on their response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2023. She said that its contractor had attended unannounced the previous day to look at the heating in the living room. She said no notice had been given, as required under her tenancy agreement, and that the landlord’s contractor had stated that no work would be done until she had been decanted.
On 17 April 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had only considered events going back to October 2021, when she said the issues had been ongoing since 2017. She said the landlord had repeatedly ignored her claims that there was a leak, instead blaming issues on the shower pump or doors, and would have identified the leak earlier had it removed flooring – rather than just repeatedly sticking new flooring down on top of it. The resident said she had been unable to use the shower since 16 March 2023.
The resident also claimed she had experienced “harassment” from the landlord’s contractor which had “caused major distress” by making “threatening” phone calls about collecting the dehumidifier. She said the contractor had attended unannounced on several occasions, including 11 April 2023 as well as leaving the property without warning on 9 February 2023.
On 24 April 2023, the resident was decanted into a temporary property to enable the landlord to carry out repairs to the bathroom and install a radiator in the living room.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 26 April 2023 that it would be installing a bath in the property as part of the works. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that, following her Occupational Therapist’s (OT) original recommendation in 2021, the landlord had previously advised it was not possible to install a bath.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor called the resident regarding collecting the dehumidifier from the property.
In an email to the landlord on 18 May 2023, the resident said that “No one has been in contact with me since I moved to discuss repairs or to collect keys. Family and myself have had access to the property as the buckets of water are still needing to be emptied that are being collected from the dehumidifier despite me not living there”.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023. It said that:
1. It had used its discretion in looking at events going back to 2021 – which was above and beyond the requirements of its policy.
2. It had reviewed some of its contractors more recent jobs at the property and found that it had not contacted the resident in advance for every appointment, which it apologised for.
3. However, the attendance on 11 April 2023 had been in response to a repair raised by the resident on 27 March 2023, and a voicemail had been left for her on 30 March 2023 regarding this.
4. It could not see any details of the conversations the resident had had with its contractor about the dehumidifier but apologised that she was unhappy with the way she had been spoken to.
5. The contractor’s notes from 9 February 2023 indicated that they left the property due to the resident’s conduct and so it would not have expected him to return but apologised for any confusion on the day.
6. Its contractor had experienced multiple issues with gaining access to the property in 2021 and 2022 which meant that it was not able to lift the flooring until 19 January 2023.
7. It could not find any record of it telling the resident that a bath could not be installed.
8. It had awarded the resident compensation of £125 for the inconvenience in not being able to use her shower prior to being decanted.
As of the date of this report, the resident has told this Service that she is still decanted from the property with works ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In examining its handling of the leak, the landlord’s complaint responses considered events from October 2021 onwards, explaining that it was “not obliged” to investigate events further back than this “as information and staff testimony are less reliable”. This was a reasonable position in keeping with both the landlord’s own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code’ –which states that a landlord is able to exclude a complaint on the basis that it concerns matters which occurred over 6 months prior. This investigation will mirror that timeframe, although due regard will be given to the length of time some issues were ongoing prior to the resident’s complaint.
Within her complaint the resident also described the “big toll” on her physical and mental health which the matters subject to complaint had caused. This Service is unable to make findings in relation to the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing – which fall within the remit of personal injury claims best decided by the courts. Instead the Ombudsman assess the general distress and inconvenience which may be caused to residents by their landlord’s actions, or lack thereof.

Leak

It is evident from the landlord’s repair records that on at least 2 occasions in 2022 the resident’s shower overflowed causing flooding into the bathroom. Based upon this, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe that issues with damp had likely been caused by this. The landlord took steps to address this in adjusting the shower pump, renewing mastic around the tray and later clearing a blockage.
The landlord’s email of 13 January 2022 established that it had ordered for its contractor to “remove and replace” the bathroom flooring in the property. Although it is unclear exactly when this work was carried out, it is clear that the contractor failed to remove the existing flooring – instead laying new flooring on top of several layers of old.
Had the contractor completed the job as specified and removed the previous flooring, then it is likely the leak could have been identified far earlier. Although the resident made this point in her request to escalate her complaint, the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to acknowledge or respond to it. The landlord is responsible for the actions of the contractor, which was acting on its behalf – although some mitigation is identified in the fact the landlord had appropriately requested for the existing flooring be removed.
It was only after the resident identified that there were several layers of damp flooring within the bathroom, and raised this with the landlord, that it arranged for all flooring to be removed. This led to the discovery of the leak and decision to decant the resident on 16 March 2023.
Whilst the landlord’s complaint responses referred to issues with arranging access which delayed it in identifying the leak, this was only with regards to the order raised on 15 November 2022 for its contractor to remove the flooring. There is no evidence that the landlord had considered lifting the flooring for investigative purposes prior to this, so any delay caused by difficulties in arranging access appears to have been limited to this 2 month period – with the flooring being removed on 19 January 2023.
It is not possible for this Service to determine whether the resident would still have needed to be decanted (and experience the associated distress and inconvenience) if the contractor had appropriately removed the existing flooring when renewing it in 2022. However, due to the fact that the leak was identified as being underneath the floor – which therefore needed to be ‘taken up’, it is likely that the decant would still have been required.
The resident has said that she was told by the landlord, on 16 March 2023, not to use the shower in the property until she was decanted – which did not occur until 24 April 2023. Although this instruction is not documented within the records supplied by either party, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not dispute it and offered compensation of £125 for the resident being unable to use the shower. However, this amount did not represent reasonable redress for the inconvenience cause to the disabled resident by being unable to bathe in her own home for such a prolonged period.
It is of concern that, as documented in the resident’s email of 18 May 2023, almost a month after she had been decanted from the property the landlord had not provided any update on the repairs, or even collected the keys in order to access the property. Temporary decants upend a resident’s home life and can cause significant distress and inconvenience. In recognition of this, every effort should be made to ensure that works are carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimise this disruption. However, it is noted that the resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord, after the events considered here, which centred on the delays in carrying out works following her being decanted. As a result, this report will not assess this any further.
In summary, this Service does not dispute the landlord’s position that leaks can be difficult to detect, or consider it unreasonable that the landlord initially believed issues to be caused by flooding from the shower. However, the landlord’s contractor missed the opportunity to identify the leak significantly earlier by failing to carry out the replacement of the flooring in accordance with the landlord’s instructions. Although the landlord did acknowledge and offer some redress for the resident being unable to shower at the property for an extended period, this did not reasonably reflect the inconvenience caused. This represents maladministration.

Bath

The resident has provided this Service with a copy of her OT’s report dated 7 January 2021. This recommended that a bath is installed in the property as the resident experienced difficulty getting in and out of the shower, as well as standing within it. It said that being able to soak in a bath would ease the symptoms of her disability. The resident says a copy of this report was provided to the landlord at that time.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had no record of telling the resident that it was not possible to install a bath in her bathroom. However, within the email from EH to the resident, dated 1 September 2022, it was clear that the landlord had advised EH that this was the case.
The landlord confirmed, on 26 April 2023, that it was able to install a bath and would do so as part of the decant works. This means that the resident lived in the property for a period of approximately 2 years during which the landlord failed to appropriately assess or complete the adaptation recommended by her OT. The resident told the landlord that this had “caused years of complications and pain with my disability”.
The landlord’s ‘Aids and Adaptations Policy’ contains the option for it to carry out a “feasibility assessment” following an OT report to establish “the feasibility of the adaptation in relation to the layout and structure of the property”. Had such an assessment been appropriately carried out in relation to the request for a bath, a great deal of distress and inconvenience for the resident could have been avoided over the subsequent years.
In summary, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident, via EH, that it was not possible for it to install a bath in the property as recommended by her OT. However, this was subsequently found to be incorrect, meaning the resident experienced several years of distress and inconvenience in using the shower which could have been avoided. This represents maladministration.

Loss of heating

It is unclear from the information available exactly when the storage heater fell off of the living room wall in the resident’s property, but she advises that this occurred in 2018. This was the only source of heating within the room and ceased to function.
The landlord’s records indicate that it arranged for an electrician to inspect all storage heaters in the property on 13 January 2022. This Service has not been provided with any outcome in relation to this inspection, however it is apparent that the living room storage heater was either not raised as an issue, or not appropriately followed up on.
The issue was identified by the landlord’s surveyor during their inspection on or around 11 August 2022, as confirmed by EH in the email of 1 September 2022. However, the matter had still not been resolved at the point that the resident was decanted from the property – some 8 months later. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this unreasonable delay.
In summary, the landlord’s lack of action meant the resident was left without heating in her living room for over a year after the issue should have first been identified and resolved (within the timeframe considered by this investigation). This represents maladministration.

Contractors

The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had contacted her on both 9 and 14 March 2023 attempting to collect the dehumidifier and stating she would be charged if it was not returned. The resident contacted the contractor’s offices to discuss this, stating that it had caused her significant distress. The contractor appropriately apologised for this, explaining that it had been an error.
However, this error was subsequently repeated on both 28 and 30 March 2023 and again on 27 April 2023 (after she had been decanted). In her request to escalate her complaint the resident described this as “harassment” which had caused her “major distress” due to the contractor’sinternal miscommunication.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord appropriately apologised if the resident was unhappy with the way its contractor had spoken to her, but advised it was unable to see any details of her conversations with it.
The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the contractor left the property on 9 February 2023 without informing her that it would not be returning. The contractor’s notes indicate that it left due to the resident’s behaviour, which it is reasonably entitled to do. However, it would have been reasonable to expect either it, or the landlord to communicate this to the resident – even if this was via a phone call after it had left the property. The resident has advised that this alleged behaviour was not discussed with her by the landlord at any point, and she still remains confused as to why the contractor withdrew.
The landlord also reviewed “a number of the more recent jobs” that its contractor had carried out at the resident’s property as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. It confirmed that these supported the resident’s complaint that she was not always contacted in advance of appointments – as required under the terms of the tenancy agreement. It offered an appropriate apology for this.
In summary, the landlord’s contractor’s failure to effectively communicate internally led to it repeatedly attempting to collect the dehumidifier and caused the resident “major distress”. The landlord and its contractor also failed to appropriately make clear to the resident that the contractor had withdrawn from the property due to her alleged behaviour, and to raise this with her and give her a right of reply. Although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for some failings, in its contractor attending unannounced, it did not recognise the full extent of the issues, or the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Identification of a leak in the resident’s bathroom.
1. Handling of the resident’s request for a bath to be installed.
2. Response to a loss of heating in the resident’s living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its:
1. Contractor’s conduct towards the resident.

Reasons

The landlord’s contractor missed the opportunity to identify the leak significantly earlier by failing to carry out the replacement of the flooring in accordance with the landlord’s instructions. Although the landlord did acknowledge and offer some redress for the resident being unable to shower at the property for an extended period, this did not reasonably reflect the inconvenience caused.
The landlord incorrectly advised the resident, via EH, that it was not possible for it to install a bath in the property as recommended by her OT. However, this was subsequently found to be incorrect, meaning the resident experienced several years of distress and inconvenience in using the shower which could have been avoided.
The landlord’s lack of action meant the resident was left without heating in her living room for over a year after the issue should have first been identified and resolved (within the timeframe considered by this investigation). This represents maladministration.
The landlord’s contractor’s failure to effectively communicate internally led to it repeatedly attempting to collect the dehumidifier and caused the resident “major distress”. The landlord and its contractor also failed to appropriately make clear to the resident that the contractor had withdrawn from the property due to her alleged behaviour, and to raise this with her and give her a right of reply. Although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for some failings, in its contractor attending unannounced, it did not recognise the full extent of the issues or distress and inconvenience caused.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,435 composed of:
  1. The £125 offered in its stage 2 complaint response – if not already paid.
  2. A further £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the resident being unable to use the shower in the property prior to being decanted.
  3. £360 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in identification of the leak.
  4. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in handling of her request for a bath to be installed.
  5. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in responding to a loss of heating in her living room.
  6. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its contractors conduct towards her.
2. Write to the resident:
  1. Apologising for the maladministration and service failure identified in this report.
  2. Providing an update on the works ongoing at the property, including works that have been completed, works that remain outstanding and an estimate of when these will be completed.
3. Update its records to ensure it has appropriately recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities and any reasonable adjustments required by her.
4. Take steps to remind its contractor of the expectation that it removes existing flooring prior to laying a replacement to enable timely identification of any defects within or below the subfloor.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord meet with the resident to discuss whether (due to the time elapsed) it would be preferable for her to be granted a tenancy at, and remain in, the ‘decant property’ rather than returning to her original property once works are complete.