Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202224501)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224501

Sovereign Network Homes

24 May 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 windows repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 15 April 2012. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a second floor flat. The resident lives on her own.
  2. The resident first reported that her windows were not closing properly on 8 December 2021. A repair was booked at the resident’s convenience, for 17 January 2022. This could not go ahead as the contractor was unwell; however, the resident was not informed of this. Two further appointments were booked for the repair, but the contractor did not attend either.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 August 2022. She said she had taken 3 days off work for the contractor to attend. She said the landlord was giving her anxiety as when she booked a day off work, no one attended.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 25 August 2022. It apologised for the delays and confirmed that the contractor had visited on 16 August 2022 to measure for the renewal of the internal storm sash windows. However, due to the property being in a conservation area, the windows could not be renewed. The landlord provisionally booked an appointment for 2 September 2022 to inspect the windows for repair. They awarded £35 in compensation for falling short of the expected service.
  5. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 23 September 2022. The landlord responded and told the resident she needed to explain why she was dissatisfied if she wanted to escalate to stage 2. No evidence has been provided to show that the resident responded to this request at the time.
  6. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 6 February 2023, in which it said it had decided to escalate the complaint for her. It gave a history of the repair and confirmed that out of 7 appointments that had been booked, only 2 had been attended by its contractor. The key points were as follows:
    1. The resident had requested all further appointments to be at the weekend due to the time she had already taken off work. The landlord said it could not accommodate weekend appointments.
    2. Its contractor could only attend on 31 January 2023. The resident had declined this appointment due to it being a weekday. The Ombudsman understands that after this date, the landlord changed to a new repair’s contractor.
    3. The new contractor was obtaining the springs required to conduct the window repair and it would ask if they could accommodate a weekend appointment.
    4. It recommended that the resident provide evidence to support her claim, made on 29 December 2022 to the landlord, that her energy bills had increased.
    5. It offered compensation to the resident of £10 for each missed appointment but had increased that to £100. It then confirmed it had increased its total award to £710 for the delay, distress, time, and trouble.
  7. An appointment was booked with the new contractor for 18 March 2023. However, on that date, they did not have the correct parts to complete the repair. The landlord advised the parts had been ordered by their previous contractor. A further appointment was booked for 29 April 2023, but the contractor did not attend, and no explanation was provided to the resident. The resident raised a further formal complaint which the landlord acknowledged.
  8. A further appointment was booked for 13 May 2023; however, no one attended. A contractor attended on 19 May 2023, but was unable to fit the new springs and it was decided the secondary glazing would need to be renewed.
  9. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. It gave a history of the repair and acknowledged the time taken to repair the windows was beyond their recommended timescale. It confirmed delays had been incurred due to lack of communication between the landlord and its contractor which led the resident chasing a repair. It offered £315 compensation.
  10. Two further appointments were booked and subsequently not attended. A contractor did visit on 23 September 2023; however, they were unable to repair the window. The resident also said the contractor attended with their child; this is not disputed.
  11. The window repair was completed on 20 October 2023.
  12. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023. It gave a chronology of the repair. It accepted that there had been multiple failings across several contractors and said it was disappointed to see the number of missed appointments and appointments where the repair was unsuccessful. It said the resident’s frustrations were understandable and the repair had fallen well outside of any expected timescale. It increased the compensation offered at stage 1 to £780, made up of the original £315 and the following:
    1. £170 for 17 weeks delay.
    2. £85 for time and trouble during the 17 weeks.
    3. £210 for 7 missed appointments.
  13. The total amount of compensation offered across both complaints amounted to £1,490.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact these delays had on her mental health to her landlord. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the resident’s mental health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damage caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she the wishes to pursue this.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for routine repairs they will aim to attend within 2 weeks of the resident reporting the repair and aim to complete the repair within 1 calendar month. For complex repairs where they may need to use a specialist contractor, carry out a survey, or do more investigation, it will aim to complete these within 90 days.
  2. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Where there is a missed appointment, it will offer £10 per appointment outside of its complaint procedure.

Window repair

  1. The resident raised a repair request on 8 December 2021 and the landlord appropriately arranged for the repair to take place at the resident’s convenience on 17 January 2022. However, the contractor did not attend due to sickness. While the Ombudsman understands that sickness is out of the landlord’s control, the resident was not informed of the cancellation and therefore waited in at home for the contractor. The landlord should ensure it has effective and robust systems in place so that when instances like this occur, either its contractor or itself contacts the resident at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so caused the resident to waste time waiting in for an appointment.
  2. By 6 February 2023, the repair remained incomplete. Out of the 7 appointments booked throughout 2022, only 2 were attended. The resident had taken 5 days off work, waiting for a contractor to attend to carry out the repair. This situation persisted for over a year following the first report of the broken window. The repeated missed appointments caused frustration for the resident. As per the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to make themselves available to provide access to the landlord, however, the repeated failed appointments were unreasonable. While the landlord did apologise, there was a lack of empathy which would have done little to maintain the landlord and resident relationship.
  3. By the second unattended appointment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the issue and identify where communication was falling short. No evidence has been provided to show that this happened. Landlords must ensure effective communication with their contractors. In this case, the landlord missed several opportunities to achieve a prompt resolution. As a result, the resident had to endure a broken window for over a year and spend time chasing repairs.
  4. On 31 January 2023, the landlord’s contract for repairs changed to a different contractor. The landlord had offered the resident an appointment for repair prior to this date. It set out clearly to the resident that not taking the appointment offered would cause a delay due to its repair contractor change. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s reluctance to take another weekday appointment, it was appropriate for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations that her repair would be further delayed if it was not completed with the first contractor.
  5. At the next appointment, on 18 March 2023, the new contractor attended but the parts ordered by the previous contractor were not correct and therefore the repair could not go ahead as planned. While the resident was understandably frustrated, the new contractor cannot be held responsible for the mistake by its previous contractor. The landlord appropriately contacted the contractor to ensure the correct parts were obtained. However, the failings of its previous contractor contributed to the delay and the landlord was responsible for that and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged that.
  6. However, there was then 9 further appointments that were either not attended to or they were attended, and the contractor did not have the correct parts to complete the repair. This is extremely unsatisfactory especially given the extensive time the repair had at that point been outstanding for. It is evident there were significant issues with communication between the landlord and its contractor. The landlord needs to ensure the systems it has in place to track and monitor repairs are robust and effective. It is evident that the landlord had not learned from its previous failings, which was not appropriate. Not doing so led to the resident spending further time chasing a repair and experienced further time, trouble and inconvenience waiting for a contractor to arrive.
  7. On 23 September 2023, a contractor returned to complete the repair. Accompanying the contractor was a child who inadvertently caused damage to the resident’s property. The landlord promptly investigated the allegations and confirmed that it was a sub-contractor and their child who had attended. While it was appropriate for the landlord to request the removal of this sub-contractor from all future contracts, the ultimate responsibility lay with the landlord to ensure that its contractors adhered to expected behaviours when attending a resident’s property. It is therefore unsatisfactory that such an incident occurred in the first place. Nevertheless, the landlord facilitated communication between the contractor and the resident regarding compensation for the damage, should the resident have wanted to pursue it.
  8. Following that repair appointment, the contractor informed the landlord a repair could in fact not be undertaken and the whole window unit would need to be replaced. This was 19 months after the resident had first raised the repair request. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to try to repair the unit in the first instance, it had many opportunities prior to this date to come to this conclusion. Landlords need to ensure its contractors are appropriately qualified to undertake assessments of repairs needed. Landlords also needs to ensure they have effective communications with contractors and review ongoing repairs to assess the appropriateness of a repair. This would have been particularly important in this case where the repair was unresolved for a long time.
  9. In its stage 1 in June 2023 response, the landlord said it was continually working towards improving the service it provided and it was continually in communication with its contractor about their performance. However, given the failings that occurred following that response, any learning or communication about performance that had been undertaken had not been successful. The landlord needs to ensure where it has found failings, learning from this is put into practise and performance regularly evaluated to ensure the contractor is following the right first time principle.
  10. Internal emails in September 2023 highlighted that the landlord was aware the management of the situation had become “embarrassing” for them to explain due to its duration and it requested a full response of the actions of the contractor. While that may be true, the landlord had already had many opportunities to investigate the delays in this case. Only doing so 8 months after the new contractor took over the case highlights a lack of regard to the situation the resident was in and a lack of empathy for the time taken by the resident to pursue a repair.
  11. Throughout this case the resident consistently raised with the landlord the impact the delays were having on her mental health. The landlord reached out the resident and discussed with her referrals to access both internal and external mental health support. This was an appropriate response and highlights some empathy from the landlord towards how the resident was feeling.
  12. Whilst the landlord did attempt to put things right by asking for evidence of increased bills, the compensation offered to the resident was not reflective of the overall distress caused. In its first stage 2 complaint response it offered £10 per missed appointment, in line with its policy, but increased the overall compensation for the missed appointments to £100, it then appropriately offered £30 per missed appointment in the second complaint. This is reflected in the compensation order made below. Further, while it was appropriate of the landlord to offer £10 per week for the delay, it failed to consider the total duration of the delay and therefore this is reflected in the compensation order made.
  13. In summary, the resident consistently had to chase the landlord to schedule repair appointments for her windows. Additionally, the resident patiently waited on 14 different occasions for a contractor who failed to show up. There were also instances where a contractor did attend, but either lacked the correct parts or couldn’t perform the repair. The landlord missed numerous opportunities to ensure a timely resolution. Waiting 19 months to fix a window significantly exceeds the landlord’s repair policy and is an unsatisfactory duration for completing the repair. The landlord showed little empathy to the resident who was clearly frustrated at the landlord’s poor response to completing her repair.
  14. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required to her windows.
  15. Taking into account the above, a compensation order is made for £2,370, which is made up of the following:
    1. £30 for each missed appointment – 14 x £30 = £420.
    2. £10 per week that the resident waited for a repair from 21 December 2021 until 20 October 2023. 95 weeks x £10 = £950.
    3. £500 for the time taken to pursue a repair.
    4. £500 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her first formal complaint on 12 August 2022. The landlord responded on 25 August 2022, 3 days after the response deadline. While this delay was minor, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), sets out that where there will be a delay in providing a response, this should be communicated to the resident.
  2. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 23 September 2022 due to the failure to repair the window. The landlord replied on 26 September 2022 and said the resident needed to explain why she was dissatisfied for a complaint to be escalated. While that is in the landlord’s complaint policy, the resident had contacted the landlord many times prior to her escalation request to state that she was unhappy with the landlord, and it was evident that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have accepted the escalation request.
  3. The landlord then escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 6 January 2023 and stated in its stage 1 response it had done so of its own accord. The Code sets out that a complaint can be an expression of dissatisfaction and does not have to expressly be a complaint and therefore, given the residents persistent dissatisfaction, it was appropriate of the landlord to escalate at that stage. However, given the evidence that she had requested this back in September and had made repeated expressions of dissatisfaction following that, it would have been appropriate for the escalation to have been done prior to January.
  4. In its acknowledgement of the escalation to stage 2, the landlord said it would respond by 6 February 2023. This was not within the 20 working day response time as set out in its policy. However, it was right of the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations as to when a response would be given, and that it gave itself a 10 working day extension from the outset.
  5. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 21 April 2023 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged this the same day and said a response would be due by 10 May 2023.
  6. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023; 40 days after the response was due. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord communicated any delay in its response to the resident to manage her expectations. Not doing so, caused a delay to the resident receiving and outcome to her complaint and was not in line with the Code.
  7. Following the resident contacting this Service due to the length of time the repair was taking, the complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 3 October 2023. The landlord, in line with its policy, acknowledged that on the same date. It gave its final stage 2 on 31 October 2023, within its policy timescale of 20 working days.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It did not properly escalate the initial complaint at the earliest opportunity. It then did not communicate with the resident during her second complaint that its stage 1 response would be significantly delayed. The landlord needs to ensure the system it has in place to track and monitor complaints are effective. Not doing so caused a delay to the resident receiving a resolution to her issue. The landlord also missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  9. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  10. Taking into account the above, a compensation order has been made for £200, made up of the following:
    1. £100 for its failure to escalate to stage 2 at the earliest opportunity during the first complaint.
    2. £100 for its failure to provide the stage 1 response on time during the second complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of window repairs.
  2. In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £2,570, made up of the following:
    1. £2,370 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs required to her windows.
    2. £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The above total replaces the landlord’s earlier offer of £1,490. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its earlier offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. A senior member of staff at the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.