The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Network Homes (202325082)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325082

Sovereign Network Homes

8 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 response to the resident’s reports of multiple repairs required at her new home following a mutual exchange.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She transferred to the 3-bedroom property through a mutual exchange with the landlord’s previous tenant in December 2021.
  2. Between December 2021 and February 2023, the resident reported multiple repairs. In most cases, the landlord assessed the damage and appointed contractors to carry out the works.
  3. On 26 February 2023 the resident complained that there were repairs outstanding, some for over 1 year. She was unhappy that these issues had not been picked up on an inspection prior to her moving in. The resident advised that one of the issues, a leak through her bedroom ceiling, was contributing to damp and mould in a bedroom, and that this was affecting her family’s health. She asked for the landlord to complete the repairs.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 March 2023, it confirmed that the resident’s reports of repairs had been logged and appointment dates had been set. It concluded that there was no service failure in its handling of the repairs because it said it was still within its projected timescales for all the reported repairs.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint in mid-July 2023 because most of the repairs were still outstanding and none of the dates for the repairs provided at stage 1 had been met.
  6. In the stage 2 response dated 4 September 2023, the landlord said it had failed to meet its timescale in some repairs. It also apologised that its contractors cancelled 3 appointments and offered £30 compensation. The landlord confirmed the dates of appointments and said it would keep in contact with the resident until all works had been completed.
  7. After the complaints process ended, the resident asked the landlord to review its decision again because she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation. She asked for this to be done when the repairs were completed. The landlord carried out some of the repairs, but others were not confirmed as completed at the time of issuing this report.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because some of the repairs were still outstanding after 2 years and mould was still a problem. She was also unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered. She said that her health has been affected by the damp and mould in her bedroom. As an outcome, the resident is seeking for the repairs to be completed and for an increase in redress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident expressed concerns regarding the impact damp and mould caused to her family’s health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to make a decision on whether there are links between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health concerns. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident may want to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

The landlord’s response to the repair reports

  1. One aspect of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord should have identified repairs during its inspection of the property prior to her moving in on 13 December 2021. But neither of the landlord’s complaints responses addressed this point. It is a basic expectation of any good dispute resolution practice that all points raised in the complaint should be addressed. It is also a requirement of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint’s Handling Code (the Code), which as a member of the Scheme, the landlord is required to follow and adopt its principles of complaint handling into its own policy.
  2. Of importance to this complaint is the difference between the process a landlord is expected to follow when a property is empty (void), and the mutual exchange process. Usually, when a tenancy starts, the property has been empty and has been allocated to the tenant. In such cases, landlords have general obligations to ensure that while a property is void, they undertake any repairs, maintenance, and cleaning necessary to bring the property to a condition appropriate for renting. However, the nature of a mutual exchange means the property is usually not empty between the turnover of tenants. In such cases, the outgoing tenant has a responsibility to either attend to repair and maintenance issues they might be responsible for or report them to the landlord.
  3. Often landlord’s carry out a visual inspection as part of the mutual exchange process while the current tenant is still living in the property. In the resident’s case, there is no record the landlord inspected for repairs, other than carrying out safety checks of the gas and electricity. The landlord advised this Service that it did not carry out inspections for mutual exchanges at that time because of COVID-19. Therefore, the lack of an inspection is not an indication of a failing in this case. However, the landlord should have included this explanation in its complaint responses, and not doing so was unreasonable.
  4. A landlord is expected to advise incoming tenants of their responsibilities and remind outgoing tenants of theirs. There was no specific reference to this in the terms of the deed of assignment the resident signed. However, the resident confirmed in an email to the landlord on 19 October 2021 that she had visited the property, was “happy with the condition and [her] responsibilities” and would accept the property in its current state. Further, there is no evidence the former tenant had reported any of the damage, apart from some kitchen units requiring maintenance. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to not inspect the property itself as it was not part of its process and there was no indication that there were problems with the property. It is also not certain that the landlord would have identified all the issues the resident reported from a basic inspection.
  5. As the landlord had not been notified of most of the repairs, its responsibility to complete them, under the tenancy agreement, came into effect when they were reported. Until August 2022, the landlord’s repairs policy did not specify a timescale that it aimed to complete routine repairs within. Even so, relevant legislation requires the landlord to complete repairs within a “reasonable” timescale, which best practice directs would be one that is proportionate to the nature, extent, and urgency of the issue. The landlord subsequently updated its policy to include timescales, and this stated a 1 calendar month response time for routine works. Both the pre and post August 2022 policies specified 90–working days for non-routine repairs and cited roof and window repairs as examples. They also explained there may be occasions on which timescales are exceeded or multiple visits may be required.
  6. In her initial complaint of 26 February 2023, the resident specified that the outstanding repairs to her home included a leak through her ceiling, issues with the kitchen tiles and units, faulty window seals causing damp, and holes in the internal doors. The records provided did not evidence all the resident’s reports but, according to the repair history, the landlord raised the repairs referenced in the resident’s complaint within 6 months of her moving into the property. The only exception was the issue with the internal doors, which appears to have been reported shortly before she complained.
  7. In its stage 1 response in March 2023, the landlord said it had investigated the resident’s complaint and had identified no failings because all the repairs were still within the timescale it commits to meet. However, it provided no explanations for how it arrived at its decision. It was also largely incorrect because the kitchen tiles, inspection of the roof, and window repairs had exceeded the landlord’s timescales considerably.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2023 because she was unhappy that the repairs were still outstanding. In its stage 2 response from September 2023, the landlord confirmed that the roof repair and mould treatment had been completed. This is supported by the repair log which indicates that both were resolved in March 2023 and August 2023, respectively, although the exact dates are unclear. The landlord advised that the majority of the repairs referred to in the stage 1 response were unresolved. Newly added was an inspection of insulation in the loft as this was suspected to be another possible cause of the mould in the resident’s bedroom. The landlord acknowledged that it had not met its 90-day timescale for some of the repairs. It also took accountability for 3 appointments being cancelled by its contractors and offered the resident £30 compensation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failings, it did not explain which repairs had exceeded the timescale. Both of the landlord’s responses were poor and did not meet the standards set out in the Code, around explaining findings and decisions.
  9. The available evidence suggests that the landlord was not responsible for some of the delays that occurred. There were occasions, for example, when pre-scheduled appointments were rearranged by the resident at short notice. In addition, some of the works could not go ahead because of difficulties in sourcing relevant materials, such as the kitchen tiles. The landlord also took some action to address the cause of the leak with repairs to the guttering in August 2022. However, the majority of the significant delays are unexplained, and it is not clear whether this is because the landlord took no action or if it had not kept adequate records. This includes, for example, what the landlord was doing to progress works after the kitchen tiles were sourced in August 2022.
  10. After the complaint ended, the records show that some of the repairs were completed, such as to the insulation in January 2024. However, it is apparent that there were added delays in carrying out some of the repairs. For example, the window contractor took wrong measurements and was therefore unable to complete the repair at a planned appointment in January 2024. At the time of issuing this report, it is unknown if the kitchen tiling, window seal, and internal doors issues have been fully resolved. The resident also advised this Service that mould was still a problem. According to the records, the landlord was aware of mould growth above the resident’s window because it raised a job for the loft insulation to be reinspected. It is not clear though if the landlord has addressed the recurrent mould as there was no reference to treatment for it in the repair log.
  11. The landlord should have taken steps to complete the repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord did this. It has taken some accountability for the delays, but it has not recognised the extent of its failings or offered sufficient redress for this. The themes identified in this report to do with delayed repairs, poor record keeping, and substandard complaint responses were also found in a previous investigation into the landlord. As a result, the landlord was ordered to conduct a review of determinations made by this Service where maladministration has been found, as is the case here. Therefore, no orders for systemic changes will be made, but the landlord is asked to consider taking learning from this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple repairs required at her new home following a mutual exchange.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the delays in resolving the repairs she reported.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm what repairs are outstanding and when they will be completed. This should include clarifying the action it intends to take with respect to the mould in the resident’s bedroom.