Sovereign Network Homes (202314090)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314090

Sovereign Network Homes

20 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of  leaks, damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 21 October 2019. The property is described as a 3-bedroom flat, located on the 2nd floor of the building.
  2. The resident’s daughter has asthma.
  3. The landlord’s records show reports of damage to the roof valley in May 2022 and water ingress occurring through the ceiling in the living room when it rained in January 2023. On receiving reports of damp and mould in January 2023, it agreed to inspect the resident’s property and paid fuel vouchers due to heat loss in the property.
  4. The resident phoned the landlord on 15 March 2023 to complain about the damp and mould in the property. The resident was informed that major works were taking place which included loft and cavity wall insulation. The landlord agreed to chase the roof works and the resident requested assistance with her fuel bills. In response, the landlord stated that fuel vouchers had already been provided on 6 February 2023. The landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with the information she had received and raised a complaint.
  5. The landlord’s records show that cavity wall insulation to the property was completed on 14 May 2023. Around 2 weeks later, on 25 May 2023, the resident reported the presence of silverfish in the property. Following the resident’s report, a mould wash and stain block was carried out to the property on 31 May 2023. The landlord’s records show that as of 3 July 2023, the property had been fumigated on 3 previous occasions and its contractor was to be chased for its inspection report of the resident’s property on 17 June 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 18 July 2023. It explained that it was carrying out major works to the building which included cavity wall and loft insulation. As the building consisted of occupants with different types of tenures, it had to follow the Section 20 consultation process. Its legal team was handling queries raised by leaseholders living in the building which should be concluded within 3 months. With regard to the request for fuel vouchers, the resident had received the maximum amount of vouchers it could award. It concluded by stating that the complaint had been partially upheld and made a gesture of goodwill of £50 compensation for the delays the resident had experienced.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and the complaint was escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 1 August 2023.
  8. The landlord commenced the Section 20 consultation on 8 October 2023.
  9. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 6 November 2023. It acknowledged that:
    1. The resident had raised the reported damp and mould since 2019 and water ingress was occurring from the gable end of the roof. This had led to water penetration into the main bedroom and living room, causing further damp and mould in the property. At times of heavy rainfall, water ingress was also occurring. The landlord confirmed that, during that financial year, it planned to replace the roof and that, if necessary, it would carry out any interim repairs. It had provided a dehumidifier to reduce the moisture content in the property and the presence of mould.
    2. The resident experienced poor communication regarding the repairs and it listed her frequent contact between 17 November 2019 and 25 May 2023. It apologised that it had not met its service standards.
    3. It had repaired the roof on several occasions, repaired the chimney and replaced the loft and cavity wall insulation to remove the damp and resolve the mould. It had also replastered and redecorated the property.
    4. The carpets to the property had been ruined by the presence of silverfish and it agreed to replace the carpets in the living room.
    5. The resident wanted to make a claim for personal injury, therefore it would send her a claim form for her to complete and return or she could make a private personal injury claim.
    6. With regard to a transfer to another property, it advised the resident that she could register with the local authority or apply for a mutual exchange. The link to its website to allow the resident to do so was provided.
    7. It had not handled the repairs to the property appropriately and not communicated well. It made a compensation award of £450 for inconvenience and poor communication she had experienced. The landlord also agreed to pay £50 per week for the cost of the running of the dehumidifier, starting with a payment of £400 to cover the previous 8 weeks.
  10. After the complaint process ended, the following happened:
    1. The landlord decanted the resident to alternative accommodation on 8 July 2024 until the roof works were complete due to the delay with the Section 20 consultation process.
    2. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2024 to advise that it had reviewed its complaint response and, for its complaint handling failures, it had decided to increase the compensation award by a further £150.
    3. The landlord informed this Service on 9 August 2024 that it had reached step 4 of the Section 20 consultation process. This had been hampered by the completion of asbestos surveys to the building and it did not have a start date for the roof repairs.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. The resident expressed that her preferred outcome was to move from the property and said that the agreed payments for the use of the dehumidifier had not been made.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the damp and mould in the property has been ongoing for a long time. In accordance with paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from May 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to May 2022 are made in this report to provide context only.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair;
    2. put things right;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  3. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.

  1. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) gives guidance to landlords on the expected approach to such reports. It sets out that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach by being proactive in identifying potential problems. This should extend to investigations to other properties in a block and landlords should communicate clearly to residents on proposed actions.
  2. The different aspects of the resident’s repairs concerns have been assessed in turn below.

Leak

  1. Through its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported damp and mould in the property since 2019. The landlord is carrying out major works to the building which includes a roof replacement. The landlord’s records do not make clear when it decided that the roof repairs to the block fell within the major works programmes and the consultation process started after the resident made her complaint.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that it appropriately carried out repairs to the roof valley in May 2022. This did not completely address the problem as, in January 2023, the resident made further reports of water ingress through the ceiling when it rained. As the landlord planned to carry out a full roof replacement in the coming year, it was reasonable that it requested on 25 January 2023 for its roofing contractor to diagnose whether any interim works were required. Within 5 working days, the roofing contractor informed the landlord that the roof inspection had been completed, there was no sign of damage and the roofing felt was satisfactory.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s assessment of the condition of the roof and that interim repairs were not required. Two days later – on 27 January 2023 – it raised a further inspection to the property on 31 January 2023 to check its condition. Its contractor assessed that further interim repairs were not required to the roof in advance of the roof replacement and progressed the installation of loft insulation. This was reasonable as the water ingress was intermittent into the property.
  4. The landlord did subsequently carry out appropriate checks to the property to determine the cause of the water ingress. It checked the loft for water ingress in April 2023, installed insulation, checked the roof and ridge, replaced part of the flashing and valley in July 2023, and replaced missing roof tiles in August 2023. These were all appropriate interim actions.
  5. There was a gap in communication regarding the water ingress until a further roof inspection was requested on 2 June 2023 and was completed on 17 June 2023. The landlord was informed that the leak experienced by the resident was due to a defect to the chimney. It is noted that the landlord’s records refer to permissions required from neighbours for it to carry out works to the chimney and that on 12 September 2023, it was identified that the felt alongside the chimney was torn and a further inspection was required to assess whether the chimney flashing was the cause of the water ingress.
  6. The building in which the resident lives is occupied by residents of different tenures. For the landlord to carry out some repairs, it needs to consult with all residents who may need to contribute to the costs. The landlord’s records show it was aware of this from June 2023. However, the section 20 consultation process did not commence until 8 October 2023 which contributed to the delay that the resident experienced. The landlord has said that its legal team was involved in dealing with minor resident queries but this does not provide a full explanation for the delay in the process starting.
  7. The landlord’s November 2023 final complaint response stated that it had carried out repairs to the chimney to stop the water ingress. However, this is not reflected in its records, which means that it is not possible to confirm when this work was carried out and to what extent obtaining permissions from neighbours contributed to the delay. Nevertheless, there is little evidence of the landlord pro-actively updating the resident during this period and it should not have taken the landlord several months to repair the chimney.
  8. The landlord has advised this Service that the section 20 process remains incomplete and has advised that asbestos checks were a reason for this. Although the asbestos testing will have made the matter more complex, the landlord was aware of this issue at least as early as November 2023 and it is unreasonable that the timescale for roofing works slipped as much as it did beyond the assurance the landlord offered in its final complaint response.

Damp and mould

  1. Following reports of damp and mould, the gutters were cleared in March 2023 and cavity wall insulation was installed in May 2023. Following a report of condensation in the property, the loft hatch and ceilings in the property were checked in April 2023 and it was recorded that there was no evidence of mould. It was reasonable for all ceilings to be checked.
  2. A report of silverfish in the property was made on 25 May 2023. Within 6 days, the landlord took appropriate action to inspect, diagnose the cause and carry out a mould wash, and stain block. As this was the third report of silverfish by the resident, it was reasonable and resolution-focused that the landlord assessed and agreed to change the carpet in the living room.
  3. However, within days, the landlord identified that there was mould in the main bedroom that required removal near a crack to the wall. An appointment for this was not made until 5 March 2024. This was a period of 194 working days which represented an unreasonable delay in arranging for the repair to be completed. The landlord’s records do not give reasons for the delay.
  4. Through its complaints investigation, the landlord recognised the importance of good communication in providing reassurance to the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously. In its final complaint response, the landlord listed the times the resident had tried to contact its staff. It acknowledged that the resident had not been kept informed or updated and experienced a lack of contact with its staff. Consequently, the resident often had to chase to obtain information about the outstanding repairs even though the landlord was aware of the impact of the living conditions on the resident and her family.
  5. The resident advised on 29 September 2023 that she wanted to move from the property. The evidence shows that it checked with its rehousing team on the prospect of the resident moving and was informed that she did not qualify for a permanent move. The landlord’s repair policy does not set out the circumstances in which a resident can be temporarily accommodated. However, temporary accommodation was recently provided for the resident in July 2024. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord explored earlier whether the resident should be decanted and how it assessed the condition of her property as part of its decision-making.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, there were unreasonable and unaccounted for delays in the landlord’s handling of the water ingress, damp, and mould. It also failed to give sufficient consideration to the resident’s re-housing request. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time. While it is accepted that the landlord was undertaking major works to the building and there was evidence that it carried out interim works, the resident experienced excessive and unexplained delays between June 2023 and March 2024 regarding repairs required to the chimney, cracks in the bedroom and mould. There were unexplained delays with the section 20 consultation process and the landlord failed to consider during the complaint process whether the resident should be moved to temporary accommodation until the works were completed.
  2. Overall, through the complaints process, the landlord made a compensation award of £500 for the delay, inconvenience and lack of communication received by the resident. This Service’s remedies guide says that compensation payments between £100 to £600 are payable where the landlord has acknowledged failings and has made some attempts to put things right. In this case, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the £500 compensation award was insufficient given the extended delay period, the assurances offered through the complaints process that were not met and the impact of this on the resident and her living conditions.
  3. It is noted that the landlord also agreed in November 2023 to meet the running costs of the dehumidifier by a payment of £400 followed by instalments of £50 per week. It is unclear if these payments were made and the resident has advised that she has not received these.
  4. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54(f) in relation to its handling of repairs involving damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not included any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
  2. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should treat expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints. During a conversation with the resident on 15 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged that she was dissatisfied with the response she had received to her queries.
  3. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint as outlined in the Complaint Handling Code, which would have reassured the resident that it was investigating her concerns. The landlord did not respond to the complaint until 18 July 2023 – 125 working days later. This was not reasonable as the landlord’s complaint response significantly exceeded its published complaint handling targets. There is also no evidence that it contacted the resident to request an extension as it was required to do.
  4. In its initial complaint response, the landlord offered £50 for the delays that resident had experienced. This was not proportionate nor reasonable as it did not reflect the unacceptable delays or the poor communication experienced by the resident.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 28 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the final stage complaint on 1 August 2023 and provided its final complaint response on 6 November 2023. The landlord took 97 working days to provide its position on the complaint. Again, this was significantly outside its complaint handling timeframe of 20 working days.
  6. The landlord provided to this Service a final complaint response dated 31 October 2023. This response concluded with an apology for its service failures and made a compensation award of £300 to the resident. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that this response was not its final complaint response and it remains unclear the reasons why it was sent to the resident.
  7. In its actual final complaint response dated a week later, the landlord confirmed to the resident that she could make a claim for damage to her belongings, it signposted her to its insurer for any personal injury claim and explained that she could obtain her own legal advice. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether there has been negligence as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. It was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to make a public liability claim.
  8. As above, the landlord offered compensation of £500 for its repairs service failures and agreed to pay towards the cost incurred by the use of the dehumidifier. However, it missed an opportunity in its review of the complaint to consider whether it should make a further compensation award for its complaint handling failures.
  9. Around 3 months after the complaint process ended, and after the landlord became aware the resident had escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, it carried out a case review of the resident’s complaint. The outcome of the landlord’s case review was that it offered the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures at its final stage.
  10. The landlord’s late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding as it shows that the landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of  leaks, damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. apologise for the service failures outlined in this report;
      2. advise her of its planned timescales for completion of any external roofing and internal remedial works at her property, including an estimation of how long she will remain in temporary accommodation;
      3. provide her with a single point of contact who will take responsibility for giving updates on progress of works to her on a fortnightly basis.
    2. Pay the resident an overall compensation award of £1,050, inclusive of the £500 it awarded in its final complaint response, made up of:
      1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the leak, damp and mould reports;
      2. £250 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the dehumidifier related one-off payment of £400 and £50 per week from its final complaint response onwards. It should advise the resident up to when it is willing to pay the dehumidifier amount and explain its decision.
  2. The landlord must reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.