Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202305649)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305649

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 the resident’s:
   1. reports of a leak in his kitchen;
   2. reports of communal loft hatch repairs;
   3. associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 17 April 2006. The property is a 1 bedroom third floor flat, and the landlord is a housing association.

Repairs policy

3. The landlord’s policy defined routine priority repairs as those that were unlikely to cause serious damage or health and safety risk if not fixed straight away. The policy said that the landlord would normally be able to offer residents an appointment when the repair is reported, and that it would aim to attend within 5 working days.
4. The policy explained what the landlord would do where it could not gain access for a repairs appointment. It stated that “a job will not be cancelled because no access could be achieved..”.

Complaint policy

5. The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage policy with an aim to respond to residents within 10, and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
6. The policy detailed how the landlord learnt from its complaint investigations. It described the recording and monitoring of its learning, and how it would use this to remedy areas of poor performance.

Compensation policy

7. The landlord’s policy stated how it calculated compensation based on its assessment of whether the issues had caused a low, medium, or high level of impact to the resident. It described a medium level of impact as, “the issues have caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve involving much time and effort”.
8. It said that for complaints assessed as medium impact, it would award £10 per week for delays, £10 per week for distress, and £3 per week for time and trouble, as appropriate.
9. It said that for complaints assessed as low impact, it would award £5 per week for delays, £5 per week for distress, and £1 per week for time and trouble, as appropriate.
10. The policy provided a list of other issues for which it said that it would make “standard payments”, which included £30 for a missed appointment.

Summary of events

11. On 8 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he may have a leak, as the corner of his kitchen ceiling was wet. The landlord raised a job to attend on 18 November 2022. Its record said that the resident had declined an earlier appointment.
12. The landlord attended the resident’s property twice in November 2022, and again on 2 December 2022. The plumbing contractor that attended on the last of these dates fed back to the landlord that the leak was coming from the resident’s roof. The landlord raised a roof job for the resident’s property, and then reallocated the job to a different contractor 5 days later.
13. On 31 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for what he said was the seventh time since 2 December 2022. The landlord raised a plumbing job for the resident’s property, and a repair job for the communal loft hatch in the resident’s building.
14. On 8 February 2023 the plumbing contractor reported back to the landlord that the resident’s pipework was leaking, and that there were signs of water coming from a roof vent. The following day the landlord raised follow on works, which it reallocated to a different contractor on 10 February 2023.
15. On 10 February 2023 another of the landlord’s contractors reported that it had completed the communal loft hatch repair. On 14 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that the loft hatch was not secure, and remained a safety hazard. The contractor reattended on 22 February 2023, but was unable to gain access at the communal door of the resident’s building.
16. On 28 February 2023 the resident made his complaint to the landlord (the resident said that it was not a ‘complaint’ as he felt it would be a waste of time, but the landlord treated it as one). The resident’s key points were as follows:
    1. He said that a leak in his kitchen had occurred in November 2022, but that despite numerous contractor attendances, it remained unresolved.
    2. He stated that one of the landlord’s contractors had contacted him directly, and booked an appointment for 28 February 2023. He said that he had called the landlord that morning to confirm it was going ahead, and had been advised it had no record of it.
    3. He said that the landlord had booked a further appointment for 16 March 2023, which would be 4 months since he had first reported his leak.
    4. He stated that another contractor who had attended previously had caused damage to his kitchen ceiling when it accessed his loft. He said that his kitchen light sockets were no longer flush.
    5. He said that that the landlord’s contractor had broken the communal loft hatch in August 2022. He said that it remained broken despite the contractor’s claims to the contrary, and that it could fall on someone.
17. On 28 February 2023 the landlord passed on a compliment to the contractor, which it had received from the resident. The landlord thanked the contractor for attending the resident’s property that day, and resolving the leak. It said that the resident had been “extremely happy with your engineer and advised that you shouldn’t let him go because he knows what he is doing”.
18. On 6 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended for the communal loft hatch repair but could not get access at the communal door of the resident’s building.
19. On 17 March 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
    1. It stated that following the resident’s report on 8 November 2022 its plumber had attended on 2 December 2022, and diagnosed his leak as coming from his roof.
    2. It said that it then raised a roof job, which was switched between contractors, and acknowledged that the resident had chased this up in December 2022, and January 2023. It advised its contractor’s feedback from its attendance on 8 February 2023.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s statement that the contractor that it had raised works for on 10 February 2023 had contacted him directly, and agreed an appointment for 28 February 2023. It apologised that it had no knowledge or record of this, and for the inconvenience.
    4. It stated that it had raised a job for an emergency attendance on 28 February 2023, and that the leak had been resolved.
    5. It said that the communal loft hatch repair was first raised in August 2022, but that it no longer used the contractor that had attended, and its record of the outcome was unclear.
    6. It stated that it had attended again for the loft hatch on 10 February 2023, but the contractor had not provided the expected photographs of its works, which it accepted was unsatisfactory. It stated that it had not gotten access on its 2 subsequent attendances, and so would rearrange the job.
    7. It apologised for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, and offered him £196 compensation, which it said was in line with its policy.
    8. The ‘lessons arising’ section of its response stated that, “if there are lessons for us arising from the complaint – say what they are and confirm to the customer that we will be taking action to implement the service improvement”.
20. On 22 March 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 letter. His key points were as follows:
    1. He highlighted that the landlord had not mentioned the 2 plumber attendances from November 2022.
    2. He said that it had since been established that there was no roof leak, and that the issue had been misdiagnosed from the start. He stated that the operative who had finally fixed the loose pipe that was causing the leak had said that had he attended originally, he could have identified and fixed it at the first visit.
    3. He questioned the quality and standards of the contractors used by the landlord, and highlighted the 5 attendances that he said had wasted his time with no resolution of the leak.
    4. He emphasised the stress caused by having to repeatedly chase the landlord for repairs, “just so you can turn up to semi-botch it”. He said that the landlord’s apologies offered no assurance that its service would improve.
    5. He said that the landlord had been aware for months that the communal loft hatch could fall and injure someone, but had not resolved it. He described how the communal door entry system worked, and expressed his irritation that the landlord appeared to be suggesting that the contractor’s access issues were the fault of tenants.
    6. He asked the landlord how it had calculated its compensation offer. He listed the 12 dates between 8 November 2022, and 28 February 2023 on which he had chased the landlord for repairs matters, and the time he had spent on each call that totalled over 5 hours.
    7. He said that he faced further upcoming disruption, when the landlord attended to make good the damage in his kitchen. He expressed his concern that this would likely result in further nonattendances, and poor quality workmanship.
21. On 29 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, and said that it would aim to issue him its stage 2 complaint response by 28 April 2023.
22. On 18 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported back that it had put additional screws into the communal loft hatch, and left it secure.
23. On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. Its key points were as follows:
    1. It apologised that at stage 1 it had not referred to its 2 plumber attendances in November 2022, but said that this did not impact the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
    2. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused by its contractors, which it said had been considered in its compensation offer at stage 1.
    3. It stated that its contractors were reliant on tenants providing it access at the communal door of the resident’s building. It said that it had closed the loft hatch job after it did not get access on 2 occasions.
    4. It confirmed that the loft hatch repair was now complete. It apologised for the delay, but stated that it was in part due to “resident access issues”.
    5. It stated that it would have expected to resolve the resident’s leak within 1 month, and so its stage 1 compensation offer was based on ‘medium impact’ for the 12 week period from early December 2022 to the end of February 2023. It said that its stage 1 compensation offer for the communal loft hatch had been based on a ‘low impact’ 25 week delay. It broke down its stage 1 compensation offer as follows:

Leak repair

1. £120 – £10 x 12 week delay.
2. £36 – £3 x 12 weeks of time and trouble.
3. £15 – discretionary award for February 2023 appointment confusion.

Loft hatch

4. £25 – £1 x 25 weeks of time and trouble.

Total

5. £196.

6. It said that its offer was in line with its compensation policy. It explained that at stage 2 it had increased the loft hatch repair duration from 25 to 34 weeks, and increased the impact from ‘low’ to ‘medium’. It said that this had increased the £25 offered for that element at stage 1 to £102 (£3 x 34 weeks), making its total offer now £273.
7. It referred the resident to the Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

24. On 5 July 2023 the landlord raised a job to complete the making good repairs in the resident’s kitchen. An appointment was made for later that month, but rearranged at the resident’s request to 15 August 2023. The appointment was then rearranged again to 12 September 2023, but the landlord’s record did not state why. On 17 August 2023 the landlord raised a further kitchen related job with a different contractor, that its record said was appointed for 22 August 2023 but provided no other details.
25. On 20 September 2023 the landlord told the resident that its attempts to contact him to arrange his kitchen repairs had been unsuccessful, and asked that he get in touch to agree an appointment. The making good in the resident’s kitchen was completed on 17 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

26. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offers of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord took 112 days to complete what appeared to be a relatively straightforward repair to stop the leak inside the resident’s property. The resident experienced significant time, trouble, and distress chasing the landlord for updates, and progress. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, and to offer compensation. However, the landlord’s offer did not consider the resident’s distress, and it is the view of the Ombudsman that it was not proportionate to the extent or duration of its failings. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.
28. It was unclear when the resident first expressed his safety concerns regarding the communal loft hatch, but the landlord again did not dispute the failings in its handling of the matter. As a communal area repair, the detriment to the resident would have been less than that caused by the landlord’s failings associated with the leak inside his property. It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s £102 compensation offer to the resident regarding its failings in the handling of the communal loft hatch repair represented reasonable redress.
29. The resident’s complaint, and particularly his escalation request, expressed his understandable dissatisfaction with the service, competency, and workmanship standards of the landlord’s contractors. He specifically stated that the landlord’s apologies had little meaning without any associated commitment to improve services. As such, the resident’s complaint provided the landlord with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate its learning, and begin to rebuild the resident’s trust. The landlord’s failure to make any efforts to this regard meant that it also failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Leak and kitchen repairs

30. The resident reported his leak on 8 November 2022, and the landlord’s contractor first attended 8 working days later. While this was 3 days longer than the timeframe stated in the landlord’s policy, its record suggested that this was in line with the resident’s wishes, and as such demonstrated a customer focused approach.
31. It was unclear why the landlord’s contractor then needed 3 separate attendances to the resident’s property to establish the cause of the leak, which would have caused additional inconvenience to the resident. However, despite the repeat attendances, the contractor incorrectly diagnosed it as a roof issue on 2 December 2022. The landlord raised the associated works in a timely manner but, as it subsequently accepted, its communications and delays from that point onwards were unreasonable.
32. The resident chased the landlord for updates twice in December 2022, and a further 5 times the following month, before finally making progress on 31 January 2023. On 3 of these occasions the resident said that he had spent over half an hour on the telephone waiting to speak to the landlord. The resident also chased the landlord twice more in February 2023, when he said that his calls lasted almost 2 hours, and would have further compounded his frustration.
33. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 February 2023, but again misdiagnosed the cause of the leak. Further works were raised and allocated to another contractor, who contacted the resident directly to arrange an appointment for 28 February 2023. Based on his experiences to date, the resident was sceptical that the contractor would attend, and so called the landlord on the morning of the appointment to check. Landlords are expected to record and monitor the activities and performance of contractors to ensure the quality of services provided to residents. It is therefore of concern that the landlord had no record of its contractor’s actions, and was unaware that the works had been booked with the resident.
34. The resident’s frustration was entirely understandable, and he made his complaint to the landlord the same day. The landlord did then demonstrate a resolution focused approach when it sent an alternative contractor to the resident’s property the same day. The contractor completed what the records suggested was a relatively straightforward fix of a loose pipe. The resident was complimentary of the attending operative who he said, “knew what he was doing”.
35. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s compliment was at least in part intended to contrast the work of the operative, with that of the 5 prior contractor attendances that had occurred over the previous 4 months. The resident’s complaint escalation request on 22 March 2023, raised this and related issues, and questioned the quality and standards of the landlord’s contractors. The landlord’s response to this has been separately considered in the complaint handling assessment below.
36. During 1 of the 5 unsuccessful contractor attendances, the resident was further inconvenienced when an operative damaged his kitchen ceiling while accessing his loft. The resident’s complaint escalation request expressed his foreboding to the landlord at the further service failures that he anticipated when this was attended to. The landlord’s response to this, or lack thereof, has again been considered in the assessment below.
37. It is also noted that it was a further 5 months before the landlord completed the resident’s associated kitchen ceiling repair. However, it appears that the delay was not solely attributable to the landlord. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to these subsequent events via its complaint process, and therefore its handling of the resident’s ceiling repair does not form part of this assessment.
38. The landlord assessed the impact of its failings on the resident as ‘medium’. The definition of ‘medium’ impact described in its compensation policy reasonably reflected the resident’s experience. The landlord calculated its offer to the resident based on the ‘delay’ and ‘time and trouble’ that he had suffered, in line with its policy.
39. However, given the exasperated frustration expressed in the resident’s complaint, it was unclear why the landlord excluded a ‘distress’ award from its calculation, also in line with its policy. Had it done so, it would have increased its £156 offer for this element of his complaint to £276.
40. It was also unclear why the landlord offered the resident £15 for the appointment confusion in February 2023, when its policy stated £30 for missed appointments. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered that the landlord replace its £171 compensation offer for the leak element of the resident’s complaint, with an award of £306.

Communal loft hatch

41. The landlord accepted that its records related to the loft hatch repair attendance of its former contractor in August 2022 were unclear. The Ombudsman has also seen no record of any reports made by the resident to the landlord regarding the loft hatch prior to 31 January 2023, when it raised a further repair. Nevertheless, the resident’s complaint escalation request in March 2023 described his safety concerns regarding the loft hatch since August 2022, which he believed was at risk of falling on someone. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident may have raised the matter during at least some of the 10 calls that he made to the landlord regarding his leak from 8 November 2022 to 31 January 2023.
42. The landlord’s contractor claimed to have repaired the loft hatch on 10 February 2023, but the landlord accepted that it had failed to provide the expected photographs of its work. The contractor reattended the job later that month, and in March 2023, but on both occasions failed to gain access at the main communal door to the building.
43. Landlords will commonly ensure that arrangements are in place for contractors to access communal building areas to undertake repairs. This avoids contractors needing to rely on residents being available to let them in, and the waste of resources when they are not. In either case, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident stated that it had closed the job as a result of the no access visits. The landlord’s policy specifically stated that jobs would not be closed for this reason, and therefore the landlord failed to act in line with its own policy. The landlord’s explanation of this to the resident has been further considered in the assessment below.
44. The contractor completed the loft hatch repair on 18 April 2023, and the landlord acknowledged the resident’s time and trouble spent pursuing the matter. The delays, and the resident’s need to chase the landlord would have been frustrating to him, particularly given his safety concerns.
45. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that any detriment caused to the resident by the delayed repair would have been reduced by the fact that it was communal, rather than directly impacting his property. The landlord’s offer to the resident of £102 compensation for this element of his complaint was therefore in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer to the resident represented reasonable redress for the failings in its handling of the loft hatch repair.

Complaint handling

46. As above, the resident’s complaint provided the landlord with an ideal opportunity to review what had gone wrong in its service delivery of the resident’s repairs, and to learn from the outcomes. It also provided the chance to put things right, and begin rebuilding the resident’s trust by relaying to him how it would seek to prevent those failings going forward. Instead, the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident, but gave little explanation of why its delays and other failings had occurred, and no indication of how it would avoid a reoccurrence.
47. The failure of the landlord to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles was all the more notable, as the resident had specifically highlighted its failure to offer any assurance that its repairs service would improve. He referred to his forthcoming kitchen ceiling repair, and his fear that this would involve further nonattendances, poor communications, and substandard workmanship.
48. The landlord’s stage 2 response offered no appropriate assurances, or indeed even referred to the resident’s forthcoming ceiling repairs. Its stage 1 letter contained the generic wording of its complaint response template, designed to prompt it to include its learning and intended service improvements, which it still failed to do.
49. The one limited area of explanation provided by the landlord in its complaint responses to the resident concerned the communal loft hatch repair, which attributed the delays in part due to “resident access issues”. As above, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure it had arrangements in place to ensure access for contractors completing communal repairs. The landlord opted not to do this, and instead took a chance that somebody would be available to allow its contractor into the building. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to imply that the delays were partly the fault of tenants, and it was understandable that the resident expressed his annoyance with this.
50. Added to the landlord’s failures to provide reasonable explanations and assurances, this meant that rather than put things right, the landlord’s complaint responses further compounded the resident’s frustration and distress. The landlord’s complaint handling was therefore unreasonable, and the Ombudsman has made a further £150 compensation order to this regard.

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his kitchen.
52. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for any failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of communal loft hatch repairs.
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

54. The landlord did not dispute the delays and failings in its handling of the resident’s leak, but its offer of compensation was only partly in line with its policy, and was not proportionate to the duration or impact of its failures on the resident.
55. Similarly, the landlord also accepted the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a broken loft hatch. However, while frustrating for the resident, as a communal repair the detriment was less than that caused by his property repairs, and the landlord’s offer of compensation represented reasonable redress.
56. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, even after the resident had highlighted its lack of appropriate explanations or assurances. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcomes, nor how it would seek to prevent reoccurrences. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to put things right, and its complaint handling would have compounded the resident’s frustration.

Orders

57. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Reviews its lessons learnt from the resident’s complaint, and writes to the resident and the Service with its findings.
    3. Pays the resident £456 compensation, made up of:
       1. £306 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak.
       2. £150 for the frustration and distress caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
58. This amount is separate from the landlord’s compensation award of £102 regarding the loft hatch, and replaces its offer of £171 regarding the leak (if the £171 award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £456).
59. Additional compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears on the resident’s rent account should they exist.
60. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.