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

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202313416)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313416

Sovereign Network Homes

25 April 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 about;
    1. The landlord’s decision to take legal action against the resident due to allegations of subletting her property and accruing rent arrears.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she was experiencing domestic violence.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. This Service is aware that she no longer resides in the property.
  2. Between February and April 2022, the resident communicated with the landlord on several occasions about moving to a different property. The resident advised that the move was necessary due to her health conditions, as well as experiencing ongoing domestic violence therefore she was not safe in her current property. The landlord advised the resident about available properties, as well as signposting her to it’s website where available properties were advertised. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s domestic violence concerns.
  3. On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as she had received a Section 21 notice. A Section 21 notice starts the legal process for a landlord to end an assured shorthold tenancy. The resident explained that she had left the property for her own safety due to ongoing domestic violence, and a friend had stayed in the property in the meantime. The landlord informed the resident that it was investigating her for subletting the property, as well as seeking possession due to rent arrears.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 April 2023. She said that she had sought support and assistance from the landlord due to domestic violence, but it had ignored her. The resident was disappointed that she had not been signposted to appropriate agencies and charities for support and felt that the landlord lacked human empathy. Due to receiving no response or acknowledgment to her complaint, the resident sent a chaser email on 9 May 2023.
  5. On 30 May 2023, the landlord issued a stage one response. The landlord said that the emails in which she raised domestic violence as a concern did not contain evidence or police-supportive recommendations to manage the issues. It raised that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the lack of support had only been raised after the landlord had started legal proceedings against the resident. The landlord acknowledged that it could have potentially followed up with the resident to advise what evidence it would need.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. On 12 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said that it had reviewed previous communications between the resident and staff, and she had referred to being the victim of domestic violence, and the landlord failed to respond appropriately. It acknowledged that it should have listened to the resident’s concerns, completed risk assessments, and provided her with support and guidance. The landlord offered an apology and £300 compensation. It also confirmed that it had arranged a review of its policies to ensure that all staff were aware and able to deal with issues raised by residents, including domestic violence.
  7. The resident remains dissatisfied because she does not agree that £300 compensation is sufficient in recognition of the significant mental impact that the landlord’s inaction had on her.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
  3. The landlord issued a claim for possession of the resident’s property due to subletting and rent arrears. The matter was heard, with an order being issued by the Court on 11 September 2023. The resident did not attend court and is dissatisfied with the evidence presented, which she does not believe to be truthful.
  4. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s decision to take legal action against the resident due to allegations of subletting her property and accruing rent arrears sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This Service cannot consider complaints about issues which have already been considered in court.  If the resident remains dissatisfied, it is recommended that she refer the issue to the court, as it falls properly within their remit.
  5. With this in mind, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she was experiencing domestic violence, as well as the landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she was experiencing domestic violence.

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experiences throughout the complaint have been distressing. In circumstances where there are allegations of domestic violence, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether domestic violence has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord took reasonable action upon being made aware of the incidents. While this can be frustrating for victims, it does not diminish the experience of those involved.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that it does not have a specific domestic abuse policy, albeit it is in development. However, its ASB policy states that regarding domestic abuse, it is committed to offering victim-centered, accessible, and flexible assistance to any of its residents who are suffering from domestic abuse. It states that victims of domestic abuse would be given the relevant advice and support by the landlord at the earliest possible opportunity.
  3. This Service has seen evidence of the resident referencing being a victim of domestic violence on 5 different occasions between February and April 2022. In those disclosures, the resident referenced not being safe, fleeing domestic violence, being ‘terrified’, and staying in hotels on the advice of the police. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to any of the references that the resident made about domestic violence. The landlord failed to ask the resident for more information and did not provide advice or signpost the resident to the appropriate support agencies available. This was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to the fact that unreported allegations of domestic abuse will not prejudice advice given regarding signposting victims to relevant organisations or offering support.
  5. During email communication with the resident on 27 January 2023, the landlord said in reference to the resident’s claims of domestic abuse “I advised you although that you had mentioned this to us there was no supporting police evidence”. This was inappropriate, and an unhelpful comment made by the landlord. It is unreasonable that the landlord placed the onus on the resident to provide evidence of police involvement when its policy makes a clear reference to this not being necessary for them to address concerns and provide guidance and support.
  6. The landlord may wish to reflect on this and ensure specific training is provided to staff surrounding the complexities of domestic abuse, and ensure staff are well equipped to respond and deal with cases that have not resulted in police involvement appropriately and sensitively.
  7. This Service is also concerned by the language and tone of the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord made reference to the resident’s domestic violence concerns being raised when she was enquiring about her deposit and moving properties. Furthermore, the landlord’s suggestion that the resident’s dissatisfaction was only raised after legal proceedings had been instigated was highly inappropriate. The language and tone of the response could without doubt be perceived as dismissive and sceptical of the resident’s experience.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that it could have “potentially” followed up in writing with the resident about what evidence it required in order to consider domestic violence as a factor of moving the resident out of the property. The landlord using the word ‘potentially’ sounds unconvincing and diminishes the landlord’s attempts at highlighting an area for improvement and learning. Also, the landlord failed to take the opportunity to use its complaints response to offer the resident advice and signpost her to the appropriate agencies and authorities if she was experiencing domestic abuse. This was inappropriate.
  9. The landlord may find it beneficial to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights”. The report highlights the importance of exercising sensitivity to residents and ensuring that an individual’s language and tone does not make residents feel like their lived experiences are being dismissed. If a resident feels like they are not being listened to due to receiving hostile responses from the landlord, this could erode their trust in the landlord, causing a relationship breakdown.
  10. Positively, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage two response. It appropriately recognised that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns and failed to offer advice, support, and guidance. The landlord offered a sincere apology, highlighted learning, and offered the resident £300 compensation for its failings.
  11. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. Overall, this Service has seen evidence of maladministration by the landlord. However, the landlord has made appropriate efforts to put things right by offering an apology and compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer that was in accordance with this service’s guidance where there is evidence of maladministration and proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
  13. As the landlord has already offered this amount, a recommendation has been made for it to make the payment (£300) if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage two response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 12 April 2023. In accordance with its policy and the CHC, the landlord ought to have issued a response on 26 April 2023. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason.
  4. The landlord issued a stage one response on 30 May 2023; 32 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This is outside the 10 working day response timescale outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord advised that the delay was due to an oversight and miscommunication internally and it apologised. While reasonable that it apologised, the delay was significant and the landlord failed to offer any form of redress to compensate the resident for the delay, which unreasonably prolonged the complaints process.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2023. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have issued its stage two response on 28 June 2023.
  6. A stage two response was issued on 12 July 2023; 31 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. Again, this was outside the 20 working-day response timescale outlined within the CHC. The landlord did not explain or apologise for the delay, nor did it compensate the resident for its complaint-handling failures.
  7. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure, which prevented the resident from being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for an unreasonable length of time. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of its failures, and the inevitable frustration caused to the resident. There were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42e of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to take legal action against the resident due to allegations of subletting her property and accruing rent arrears is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she was experiencing domestic violence satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation within the next four weeks for the identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reiterate to its staff the importance of effective communication with its residents, emphasising the importance of staff being polite, respectful, and empathetic in their approach. The landlord may benefit from referring to this Service’s spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” and the recommendations contained within the report.