Sovereign Network Homes (202320450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320450

Sovereign Network Homes

25 July 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:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Repairs to the windows in the property.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a joint tenant on a fixed term assured tenancy. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat in a low rise block. She lives with her partner and 2 children. She has lived at the property since June 2018.
3. The landlord’s records show the resident first reported issues with the window seals and mould growth on 1 February 2021. The COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were in place and the landlord said that it was only attending emergency repairs at the time. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and was concerned about the impact mould could have on her child (who was 2 years old at the time). The landlord gave some advice on how she could treat the mould growth herself.
4. In February 2022 the resident reported that her windows were in a poor condition. Her child was having repeat illnesses which she attributed to the cold air coming through the windows. She was concerned about damp and mould in the kitchen. The landlord said it would arrange for its damp and mould contractor to visit.
5. The resident asked for an update on her repairs on 8 March 2022.
6. The resident reported issues with mould on the ceiling and windows in December 2022. She was concerned about the overall condition of the windows, as they were allowing draughts into the property. She said there had been no follow up repairs to any inspection of the property. The landlord offered to conduct a mould wash as a temporary measure to reduce the impact of damp and mould. The resident was unhappy with this solution and did not want the landlord to arrange this. The landlord scheduled a mould inspection for 6 January 2023 and the installation of a draught excluder around the windows for 1 February 2023.
7. Following an inspection on 6 January 2023, the landlord recommended draft excluders be installed around the windows.
8. On 26 July 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the delays to resolve the repairs. The same issues with damp and mould were outstanding.
9. The resident complained on 11 September 2023. She said she felt the landlord did not “care at all” about the impact damp and mould had on her and her family. The landlord offered to inspect the property on 13 September 2023. It apologised for the time taken and agreed to update the resident within 5 working days.
10. During its inspection on 13 September 2023 the landlord noted that the window trickle vents were not functioning properly. It suggested the resident kept the windows open on lock until it could repair the trickle vents on 15 January 2024. It planned to replace the windows in a 2030 programme.
11. The resident asked for an update on the repairs to the windows on 2 November 2023. The landlord replied the same day and said an inspection was scheduled for 15 January 2024.
12. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in December 2023. We wrote to the landlord on 18 December 2023 and asked it to consider the resident’s complaint. We summarised the complaint as being about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of damp and mould within the property.
    2. Response to the resident’s request to replace the windows and install an extractor fan in the bathroom.
13. The landlord replied the same day and said it was unable to find the resident’s initial complaint. It said that it would issue its response within 10 working days.
14. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had inspected the property and found no evidence of damp and mould. The only areas that were affected were around the windows in the property. It believed the cause was a build of condensation on the windows because the trickle vents had been painted shut. A repair was raised to overhaul or replace them on 11 January 2024.
    2. It would inspect the windows on 26 February 2024.
    3. The extractor fan in the bathroom was working, but not connected to a roof vent. It would arrange for a roof vent to be installed.
    4. Each of the repairs were conducted within the 90 day service level target.
15. The landlord’s records from 9 January 2024 show that it considered the issues with ventilation to impact other residents in the block. It noted that scaffolding was required to resolve the issues.
16. The resident sought assistance from her local council’s Environmental Health department in February 2024. The Environmental Health team wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2024. It had conducted a Housing Health and Safety Rating System report (HHSRS) and found a category 2 hazard present. It found damp on the ceilings in the main bedroom. Likely to be caused by rainwater affecting the loft installation. There was evidence of water damage to the ceiling in the hallway which suggested water ingress into the roof space above the property. The landlord was required to:
    1. Engage a qualified damp specialist to thoroughly investigate the cause of the damp ceiling. Provide the Environmental Health department with a copy of the report. Outline the identified problems and recommend remedial action.
    2. Provide a detailed schedule of works to address the issues.
    3. Ensure that any moisture generated by the bathroom extractor fan was released into the atmosphere, rather than accumulating in the roof space.
    4. Inspect the windows in the bedrooms and replace any missing seals. Repair or replace all nonfunctioning trickle vents.
    5. Complete these works by 1 March 2024.
17. The landlord conducted its own damp survey on 19 February 2024. The report shows:
    1. No excessive moisture levels to the walls or ceiling in the master bedroom.
    2. There was no mechanical extraction in the kitchen.
    3. High moisture content in the kitchen ceiling. Evidence of a leak which was attributed to a section of the rear of the property exposed to driven wind and rain. Further investigation was required.
    4. The bathroom showed no signs of damp or mould. There was no natural ventilation. There was an extractor fan fitted to the ceiling that was not connected to any exhaust vent. This was believed to be a contributing factor to high humidity levels throughout the property. It was noted that it could cause issues with excess condensation/moisture to roof space and structure.
    5. Recommendations were made to:
       1. Erect scaffolding to access the rear elevation. To access the vent tile and strip back the roof to check for water ingress. Install a new tile vent to the roof and connect internal ducting.
       2. Once the leak was resolved it should stain block internal ceiling and walls and treat any mould.
       3. Install an extractor fan in the kitchen.
       4. Ease all trickle vents to window frames.
18. The resident complained on 27 February 2024. She said she was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord. She had no update following the inspection on 19 February 2024. She was concerned about the impact the issues had on her children’s health. The landlord replied to say that repairs were booked for 1 May 2024.
19. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 4 March 2024. She was unhappy with the appointment offered for 1 May 2024. She was concerned that there had been hazards identified by specialists that impacted her family’s health.
20. The landlord asked the resident to clarify her request to escalate her complaint on 6 March 2024.
21. The resident sought updates for the repairs on 12 and 15 March 2024. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She had waited “weeks” for repairs to begin and nothing had happened. She highlighted the impact the issues had on her children.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. It partially upheld the complaint. It apologised for the service provided. It provided a summary of the repairs and said:
    1. An appointment was arranged in February 2023. It assessed the property. It found that the trickle vents on the windows required overhauling after being painted over. This was booked 15 March 2023 but there was no access for this appointment. A further appointment was arranged for 4 April 2023 but was again no accessed.
    2. During its inspection in August 2023, it found mould on the windows. This was caused by condensation. An order was raised for the vents to be overhauled or replaced. All other rooms were inspected and there was no other sign of mould growth.
    3. It planned to inspect the windows for renewal in 2030.
    4. The trickle vent repair was not raised following the attendance in August. It apologised for the delay this caused. The works were scheduled following the resident’s call in November 2023.
    5. After its visit in December 2023, the materials were ordered in January 2024. It scheduled the repair for 21 February 2024. When it visited, the resident did not want the works as she had just had a baby and needed to reschedule the appointment.
    6. The trickle vents were replaced on 6 March 2024. The resident said there was still a draft from the windows. It scheduled an assessment for 2 April 2024, which was conducted on 12 April 2024.
    7. After Environmental Health wrote to the landlord it surveyed the property on 19 February 2024. Recommendations from this survey included the venting for the bathroom extractor fan and an investigation into a roof leak. Scaffold was required to access the roof safely.
    8. It changed the extractor fan on 28 April 2024 but determined that the ducting in the loft had to be reviewed. This was arranged for 14 June 2024. The resident changed the visit to 14 July 2024. It installed the ducting but noted there no suitable vent tile to connect to vent externally.
    9. The scaffold was booked for a provisional installation date of 29 April 2024.
    10. It was discussing the installation of an extractor within the kitchen to help prevent future condensation build up in the property. With the scaffold erected, it planned for the roof to be repaired and the installation of a vent tile to allow the ducting for the bathroom extractor fan to be installed.
    11. Once the external works were resolved it would arrange the internal works to make good as necessary.
    12. The resident said she wanted to move property during her escalation request. It gave details on how to move via mutual exchange or bidding for another property. It arranged for the relevant department to contact her and discuss this further.
    13. It reviewed its follow-on procedure to ensure that works were raised correctly following attendances.
    14. If offered compensation of £250 for delays to raise the works following its attendance in August.
23. The resident refused the offer of compensation on 1 May 2024. She complained to the landlord again on 28 May 2024. She said that the scaffolding and roofing contractors had visited the property, but she had no appointment or prior knowledge of the appointment.
24. In June 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that the repairs to the windows and ducting were unresolved. She continued to seek assistance with rehousing from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

25. During the complaint journey, the resident stated the impact of outstanding repairs were having on her and her family’s mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the impact these had on the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages are more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
26. In contact with this service, the resident has also advised that she would like to be moved. The resident has been advised it is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a person. We can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process. However, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

Policy and procedures

27. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out timescales to attend to repairs. This is dependent on the severity of the issue. It should resolve routine repairs within 42 working days from date of report. Where there are complex repairs it will provide residents with an estimated completion date. It aims to complete complex and planned repairs within 90 days.
28. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (effective from December 2022) states that it will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp and mould. It would remain in “regular and effective” communication with residents once reports had been made. It provides residents with comprehensive advice and guidance to manage damp, mould and condensation.
29. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Reports of damp and mould in the property.

30. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 1 February 2021 was dismissive of the potential risk present in the property. It is accepted that there were restrictions on its service caused by the COVID- 19 lockdown. However, the landlord still had a duty to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
31. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. The landlord is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
32. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. “Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
    2. “Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner”.
    3. “Ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound we have seen, and this needs to be reflected in the tone and approach of the complaint handling”.
33. The landlord’s records from February 2022 onwards show that its responses had improved. It often responded to the reports of damp and mould by scheduling appointments and offering to conduct mould washes. However, most repairs were closed following failed attempts to visit, ending with cards being left. It is unclear from the evidence available if the landlord gave reasonable notice of repairs, or if this contributed to the missed appointments.
34. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that could have been shared with the resident.
35. It is unclear why the visit in January 2022 was unsuccessful. However, it was only after the resident reported the same issues on 24 February 2022 that a further appointment was made. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that the landlord followed through with this visit after it agreed to assign the work to its contractor. This caused the resident additional time and trouble as she had to seek updates on 8 March 2022. The landlord should have had greater oversight of this case. Instead, its inaction allowed the repair to go unresolved for an unreasonable period.
36. The landlord’s first recorded damp inspection occurred on 6 January 2023. This was more than 12 months after it agreed to inspect the property. It is unclear from the records if there was evidence of damp and mould found during the inspection. However, it was fair to arrange a follow up survey for 30 January 2023. This visit was also unsuccessful. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy was in place from this point. It should have had “regular and effective” communication with the resident. After its failed attempt to contact the resident no further action was taken until the resident complained in July and September 2023. There were substantial delays to conduct surveys or understand the causes of the issues present in the property. This would have caused undue distress and inconvenience to the resident. She also took considerable time and trouble reporting and chasing the landlord for the outstanding repairs.
37. The landlord’s inspection 13 September 2023 identified a fault with the bathroom extractor fan. However, there were no repairs appointed to resolve the issues identified. It should have provided a timeframe to resolve the issues with the resident.
38. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 2 January 2024 did not fully address the delays to resolve the repairs. It did not give a date that it planned to resolve the issues with the extractor fan in the bathroom. This was nearly 4 months after it had identified the issues with the ventilation during the 13 September 2023 inspection. It failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues. There were continued delays which contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
39. The repair did not go ahead on 15 January 2024. The issues with the ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen remained unresolved. The delays to rectify this routine maintenance issue are unreasonable. This caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
40. The Environmental Health HHSRS inspection in February 2024 found a category 2 hazard present. It believed that the issues were caused by water penetration through the loft space. The landlord’s response to the HHSRS inspection was reasonable. It promptly organised a detailed survey of the property, which found no evidence of damp and mould. However, this should have occurred much earlier in the timeline. There were missed opportunities to identify and rectify the causes of damp and mould in the property. These failures caused the resident time and trouble chasing appointments and involving third parties.
41. Environmental Health recommended several repairs. The landlord took around 56 working days to attend and replace the extractor fan on 28 April 2024. As a routine repair this should have been resolved within 42 working days. These delays contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
42. In its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024, the landlord considered the initial report of damp and mould to be December 2022. It recognised that there had been errors with its follow up appointments for repairs. It demonstrated learning from outcomes and set out how it had changed it procedures to prevent future issues occurring. However, it did not reflect on the overall detriment caused to the resident. Throughout the timeline she frequently raised concerns about the impact the damp and mould had on her family. It should have addressed these concerns in its response. It should have assessed the risks to the resident and her family. It should have considered any reasonable adjustments that may have been necessary to reduce the impact on the resident.
43. During its visit on 28 April 2024 the landlord found that the ducting for the ventilation was not connected externally. Its records show that it had identified wider issues with the ducting at least as early as 9 January 2024. It should have taken steps to resolve the wider issues with ducting much sooner. It eventually scheduled the repair for 14 June 2024, which was then changed to 14 July 2024. It did not seek to resolve these repairs in a timely manner, or reflective of the impact these issues had on the resident.
44. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. It did not fully address the delays in its handling of damp and mould in either response to the resident. It did not offer reasonable redress for the considerable delays to resolve the substantive issues causing damp and mould. The ventilation issues are likely to have been a contributory factor to the damp and mould experienced by the resident. Had the landlord surveyed the property earlier in the timeline, it could have identified these issues and prevented much of the distress and inconvenience caused. When considering compensation, the Ombudsman has reflected on our own remedies guidance. This framework sets out compensation for maladministration where the detriment caused to the resident is serious. We have considered the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the time and trouble incurred throughout the timeline. We have also considered the impact these issues had on the resident and her family. The landlord should pay the resident £800 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £400 for time and trouble
    2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.

Repairs to the windows in the property.

45. The landlord’s repair history shows that it was aware of issues with the windows from 30 November 2021. Its first visit to assess the issues was arranged for 20 January 2022. This was around 34 working days later. The landlord’s repair policy at the time set out that it would respond to routine repairs within 15 working days. This response was around 19 days above the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord did not consider this delay in either of its stage 1 or 2 responses.
46. When the resident was unavailable in January 2022 it was reasonable for the landlord to leave a card for her to rearrange. However, it took around 4 months to inspect the windows after the issues were raised again in February 2022. The landlord closed the repair on 9 June 2022 and raised an order to install draft excluders to the windows. It then added this to its complex and planned repairs to resolve by 12 September 2022. The resident reported the lack of follow up repairs in December 2022. This repair remained incomplete until 1 February 2023. This was nearly 8 months after it inspected the windows, and above the 90 day timescales in its policy. The delays to resolve these repairs contributed to the time and trouble taken by the resident contacting the landlord. The issues with drafts coming through the windows caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she had highlighted throughout her contact with the landlord.
47. On 28 February 2023 the landlord found that the trickle vents on the windows required overhauling after being painted over. The landlord scheduled its repairs for 15 March and 4 April 2023, which were within the 42 working days timescale to resolve routine repairs. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why the resident was unavailable for these appointments.
48. In September 2023 the landlord said that the windows in the property had been included in its 2030 programme for replacement. The landlord is reasonable to use its planned maintenance programmes to upgrade or replace windows that are at the end of their lifecycle. However, this should not be used as a reason to delay necessary repairs. It still has its obligations under Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It must ensure that works are conducted to ensure that the property remains in a good state of repair.
49. The inspection on 13 September 2023 raised the same issues with the trickle vents. There was a failure to schedule the trickle vent repair following the inspection. The landlord later scheduled the repair for 15 January 2024. This was nearly 4 months later, which is an unreasonable delay to resolve a routine repair and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
50. The landlord recognised these failures in its stage 2 response. It was fair to apologise for this failure and its offer of £250 compensation was reasonable for in the circumstances. However, it did not consider the wider delays to conduct the repairs, or the time and trouble taken by the resident.
51. The landlord was fair to reschedule the repairs in February 2024 around the resident’s availability. It was appropriate to take the resident’s personal circumstances into account.
52. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows in the property. The landlord was fair to apologise for the delays between August 2023 and January 2024 in its stage 2 response. It was appropriate to offer some redress for its failures to schedule an appointment. However, its offer of redress did not reflect the detriment caused. It did not consider the overall delays to conduct repairs. It failed to proactively manage appointments. There was a delay of around 13 months to repair the trickle vents, which it knew were not functioning from February 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the window seals have been repaired. The resident took considerable time and trouble reporting and chasing appointments. The landlord should offer the resident compensation of £400. This is comprised of:
    1. The £250 offered in its stage 2 response for delays between August 2023 and January 2024.
    2. £150 for time and trouble.

The associated complaint

53. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
54. The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were outside those timeframes.
55. The landlord took around 6 months to issue its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay above the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 26 July 2023. It also did not respond to her complaint made on 11 September 2023. She had to seek assistance from the Ombudsman in December 2023 for it to consider the resident’s complaint. These failures to consider the complaint, or the additional time and trouble taken by the resident were not acknowledged its response on 2 January 2024.
56. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 27 February 2024. The landlord should have acknowledged this request by 5 March 2024. She made a second request on 4 March 2024 to escalate her complaint. Although its response on 6 March 2024 was outside of its timescales, it was not substantially so. However, its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024 was around 29 working days after it issued its acknowledgement. This was above the 20 working days and was also not reflected on within its response.
57. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord throughout the complaint journey. The landlord failed to treat the resident fairly, it did not make any reasonable offers of redress that reflected the detriment caused. It should pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

59. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Conduct an inspection of the windows throughout the property to determine if the seals or draft excluders require replacement. It should schedule any necessary works with a suitably qualified contractor within 4 weeks of its inspection.
    3. Schedule any necessary works with a suitably qualified contractor to resolve the issues with the extractor fans and ducting in the kitchen and bathroom. It should ensure that these repairs are resolved within 12 weeks of this report.
    4. Pay the resident £1,150 compensation. It may deduct the £250 already offered in its stage 2 response if this has already been paid. This sum is comprised of:
       1. £400 for time and trouble caused in its handling of damp and mould.
       2. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of damp and mould.
       3. £250 for delays to schedule repairs to the windows in the property.
       4. £150 for time and trouble caused in its handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
       5. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
60. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.