Sovereign Network Homes (202234157)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234157

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

28 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 response to concerns relating to the communal grassed area and request for benches.
This report has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat. He has lived in the property since 30 March 2016.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2022. It had received an enquiry regarding trees blocking the light to his property, and the standard of ground maintenance. The landlord confirmed:
1. It had asked a tree consultant to inspect the trees. It advised this may take a few weeks, but it would act on any recommended work.
2. The grounds contractor had attended on 23 June 2022. The landlord had received photographs which confirmed work had been completed to specification. It confirmed the contractor had experienced staffing issues, but these were resolved. A visit in May had been cancelled so it could catch up. The landlord confirmed the contractor was back to its regular schedule, however, it would be giving a rebate to every site that missed a visit. This would be reflected in service charges later in the year.
On 25 August 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and then confirmed the conversation via email. The landlord told the resident:
1. The 2 trees would be removed on 1 and 2 September 2022.
2. It had asked for a broken slab to be repaired/replaced due to it being a health and safety issue.
3. It had asked the grounds contractor to either spray or pull up the weeds outside the property.
4. It had asked for a quote to re-turf the grassed area in front of the property. It advised this could take a couple of months as the contractor would wait until the weather changed and there had been some rain.
5. It had closed the complaint.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 26 August 2022. He said it was not updating him and he was the one chasing the landlord. He said the grounds team had not weeded the outside communal border. He also told the landlord he felt the paving slabs should be replaced in full.
The trees were removed on 6 September 2022.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with the complaint response. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the lack of contact. It said it was extremely busy and could not always respond via a telephone call, hence the email being sent.
2. Told the resident the brickwork outside the property on the road was not its responsibility to maintain.
3. Told the resident it had spoken to the grounds contractor who believed the seeding had a good chance of taking. An order had been raised to seed the turf and if it was not successful, it would look at returfing.
4. Confirmed the paving slab request had been raised and had been chased.
5. Told the resident the complaint had been closed.
On 30 November 2022, the landlord received confirmation from the grounds team that the grass seeding had been completed on 10 October 2022. The landlord asked for photographs of the area on the next site visit. It stated there was an area next to the resident’s property that was showing as owned, but not maintained, and it was covered in weeds. The landlord asked for a quote to remove the turf, cover with a membrane, and top with stones.
The resident remained unhappy with the communication from the landlord and on 2 December 2022 asked for his complaint to be escalated. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 December 2022, who confirmed the reasons for his escalation were:
1. The lack of communication about what was happening with the grassed area. He said he had been calling every 5 days to chase for updates and although he was told he would be contacted, this did not happen.
2. The overgrown weeds on the grassed area had not been treated. This was after the landlord had initially said it was not its responsibility, but then agreed to treat it. He advised the postman had tripped and had nearly got hurt. The resident said despite being disabled, he had removed the weeds to avoid potential accidents.
The landlord visited the site on 13 December 2022. The resident had told the landlord he may not be present for the visit. He had asked the landlord to look at the outside curve where weeds were starting to grow again. The resident asked the landlord to update him with the action it was to take, stating he did not want a quick fix. The resident was not present for the visit. The landlord’s visit resulted in an agreement as to what action it would take. It was to remove all the turf around the property and lay new paving in its place.
The resident called the landlord on 20 December 2022. He asked for a call back as he was not happy with the recent grounds work completed as some weeds had been left. The landlord’s records suggested the resident was to be told he would be responded to within the stage 2 complaint response.
On 3 January 2023, the landlord’s internal records confirmed the turf was to be removed. A membrane was to be laid and then stones laid on top. This allowed access to services below ground when needed. It agreed to include the side of the property leading to the bin store within the scope of work. The landlord received photographs of the completed work on 15 February 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2023 as he was not happy with the communication from the landlord. He said the work looked “shocking” and he had believed the grass was to be replaced, not removed. He said the stones had been laid on soft sand and were starting to sink. He said children play with the stones which go everywhere. He asked the landlord why it had not told him what it was planning. He said he and his neighbour had nowhere to sit in the summer. He asked why it could not have put tarmac down, or paving slabs. He was also unhappy as only 2 paving slabs had been replaced when he said he had been promised it would all be done.
The landlord provided the resident with its final complaint response on 21 February 2023. It confirmed the trees and roots had been removed from the property and the stones had been laid to allow access to underground services. It added that it had not contacted him about the work following the text message received on 16 December 2022. The resident had asked the landlord not to contact him and to forget about the outside of the property. The landlord confirmed the broken slabs had been replaced, with some additional slabs laid in the bin store area and to the path to the resident’s front door. The landlord agreed to supply and fit shuttering to the newly gravelled area, with bi-monthly checks to be carried out.
The landlord’s internal records evidence its request for bi-monthly checks to be completed on the area. These checks were to include an inspection for any signs of weeds, a request if any additional stones were required, and a sweep up of any stones that were on the road area.
The resident thanked the landlord for installing the border around the gravel, stating it looked much better. He reiterated that now the grass had been removed, he and his neighbour had nowhere to sit and asked the landlord to put 2 benches on the gravelled area. The landlord told the resident it would not provide these, but it did not have an issue with the resident placing benches in the area.
Although the resident had confirmed the area looked better, he contacted his MP on 28 March 2023. He said he was upset the landlord had replaced the grass with stone after it had promised to treat the lawn. He said he had told the landlord if it could not replace the grass, it must put some benches on the stones, so he had somewhere to sit.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 28 March 2023. He said the landlord had lied to him regarding the work that would be done. He said if the gravel was to stay then he needed benches to sit on.

Post completion of the complaint process

It is evident that the resident submitted a further complaint on 30 June 2023, which also exhausted the full complaint process. This was after the initial complaint was accepted by the Ombudsman for investigation. The complaint was regarding a lack of maintenance and the belief that he had been lied to about the maintenance schedule. He also felt he had been lied to about the removal of the turf and requested why he was not asked for his agreement on the work. Within the escalation, the resident also raised the request for the benches.
The final complaint response was provided on 23 August 2023. The landlord confirmed the schedule was in place and he had not been lied to. It agreed that the grounds contractor had missed 3 visits; however, it had since returned to the area to complete the necessary maintenance. It confirmed it did not have a contract with the resident for grounds maintenance and if a higher end service was requested, it would involve a consultation exercise and an increase in service charges. It apologised for the lack of communication and acknowledged it should have got back to him sooner.

Assessment and findings

Grassed area and provision of benches

The Ombudsman relies on evidence provided by the landlord and resident to make its determinations on whether a landlord’s decisions, actions, and communications were fair, appropriate, reasonable and in line with its obligations, policies, and responsibilities.
According to the evidence provided, the resident first raised an enquiry about the trees outside his property around June 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this enquiry; therefore, it is not known how long the landlord took to respond, or if all the issues raised were addressed. The lack of evidence raises a concern regarding record keeping. This aside, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach to dealing with the concerns was reasonable. It raised all the necessary requests for the work to be done, confirmed this to the resident, and set his expectations that the work would not happen quickly.
The resident complained on 26 August 2022 as the contractor had not weeded the outside communal border and he was not receiving updates regarding the area. The landlord told the resident the area on the road outside the property was not its responsibility to maintain. While this may have been a reasonable response, it was later established that the land did belong to the landlord, and it had not been maintaining it. It is expected that the landlord is fully versed on the land it should maintain to the deliver the appropriate services to residents. It is a concern that the landlord was not clear on its responsibilities for this area. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The landlord told the resident it had raised an order for the turf to be seeded and it would then look at re-turfing the area if that was not successful. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a sensible approach for the landlord to take and this was explained to the resident.
Following the escalation of the complaint, the landlord visited the site. After an inspection, it made the decision to remove all the turf, lay a membrane and then cover it with stones. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s request for the landlord not to contact him. The landlord’s decision not to contact the resident may have been fair if the final complaint response followed soon after. However, this was not sent until after the work had been done a couple of months later. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay in communicating the work to the resident was unreasonable.
Upon completion of the work, the resident expressed his disappointment to the landlord. He contacted it to say he was not expecting the grass to be replaced by stones. The landlord’s final complaint response confirmed why this decision had been made. It noted that it had not updated the resident due to his request for no contact and that the paving slabs had been replaced and a maintenance programme was in place.
The landlord installed a border around the gravel and the resident confirmed he was happy with the work. He did however ask the landlord to provide benches so he and his neighbour could sit there in the summer. The landlord rejected the request as it fell outside of its repair responsibilities. It informed the resident he could purchase his own bench if he wished. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to this request was reasonable as it was not under any obligation to provide benches to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the maintenance of the communal area, and the communication to the resident. The approach to maintaining the communal area long term was reasonable and the decision making behind it was logical. The landlord acknowledged the contractor had experienced problems and it confirmed the missed site visits would be reflected in the service charges. The landlord confirmed the performance would be monitored via weekly meetings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable response from the landlord and demonstrated how it was going to monitor the contractor moving forward.
The failing was in the lack of communication with the resident. Apart from the complaint responses, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of communication to the resident in respect of the communal area. The lack of communication did not provide the resident with assurance that the landlord was listening to him and is likely to have caused further frustration. This frustration is potentially what led him to sending the message regarding the contact. Due to the communication findings in this report, it is of the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be awarded to the resident. Further detail can be found in the orders section of this report.

Handling of the associated complaint

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and did not comply with its complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord provided a complaint response to the resident on 25 August 2022; however, the resident’s complaint was not provided as evidence. As the Ombudsman has not seen the complaint, it is difficult to determine if the landlord complied with its policy in terms of responding in timescale and responding to the complaint in full. The landlord is expected to have an effective contact and complaint management system so it can record and respond to resident enquiries within timescales. The lack of evidence raises concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping.
A further complaint was made on 26 August 2022. The complaint policy provided by the landlord does not confirm if an acknowledgement will be sent upon receipt. As per the Code, all complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. This is to ensure the landlord fully understands the complaint, and to confirm the outcome the resident is seeking. It is recommended that this practice is incorporated into the complaint process.
The landlord responded to the complaint via email on 20 October 2022, 38 working days from receipt. This was more than the policy’s 10-working day timescale, and more than the extension allocated for complex cases. There is no evidence of any contact with the resident whilst the complaint was ongoing. In line with the Code, the landlord should keep the resident updated regularly even if there is no new information to provide.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delay, nor did it include an apology or explanation. The response addressed the issues raised, but lacked in detail, timescales, and outcomes. For example, the landlord said it had chased the team regarding the paving slabs but did not include any further information. This did not provide an outcome to the resident. The Ombudsman finds the lack of detail unreasonable. This is particularly pertinent when the complaint was in connection with the lack of communication. This is likely to have frustrated the resident further and was a contributing factor to the escalation of the complaint.
The complaint was escalated on 2 December 2022. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 December 2022 and visited the site on 13 December 2022, however the final complaint response was not sent until 21 February 2023. This was 55 working days from receipt and more than the policy’s timescale of 20 working days (plus the 10 additional days for cases where more time is needed). The landlord’s response addressed the issues raised, but it did not acknowledge the delay or offer an apology or explanation to justify this. Due to the time the landlord had taken to respond, the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There are concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and customer focus regarding communication. The landlord did not comply within the complaint policy timescales or the Code, and the responses lacked detail. The landlord did not acknowledge, apologise, or explain the reasons for the delay at any stage and did not communicate sufficiently with the resident while the complaints were ongoing. In respect of the findings and to address the delays in responding to the resident, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be offered to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to concerns relating to the communal grassed area and request for benches.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 compensation. This is made up of the following:
  1. £50 for the failings associated with the communal work.
  2. £100 for the failures identified with the complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider complaint refresher training to ensure all staff dealing with complaints are aware of landlord’s policy timescales, and the expectations and recommendations from within the Code. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of when it expects to complete and supply its self-assessment against the updated Code.
In May 2023, this Service published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Although this was published after this complaint, the landlord should consider the recommendations from within this report to identify if any improvements can be made to its record keeping practices.
The landlord should reply to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations.