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

Sovereign Network Homes (202343795)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343795

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

30 January 2025


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 reports of:
    1. Repairs to a bedroom light switch.
    2. Leaks in her home which caused damp and mould.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 will not be investigated.

Repairs to a bedroom light switch

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to a switch in the bedroom is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint escalation of 22 February 2024 that she had reported problems with the switch to the property developer on the day she moved in, in September 2019. There is no evidence of a complaint about this issue to the landlord prior to February 2024. As such the complaint was not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of the matter arising, and in accordance with paragraph 42.c. will not be considered in this report.
  3. The landlord asked the resident for current details about the light switch problem so it could arrange repairs if necessary. It is not apparent what happened following that. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequently handling of any repairs it is open to her to make a formal complaint to it. She can then bring her complaint to the Ombudsman if her concerns are unresolved.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed-term tenancy with the landlord for the property. The tenancy began in September 2019.
  2. On 30 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord her bath leaked whenever she used it. On 2 November she reported her bathroom flooring had been damaged as a result of the bath leak. The landlord completed a repair to the bath on 6 November. It replaced the mixer tap, regrouted the tiles, replaced the silicone and secured the bath panel. It removed and replaced skirting boards on 10 November and resecured the linoleum. It also painted areas stained by the leak.
  3. The resident reported a further leak from her bathroom on 17 January 2024. She said the landlord failed to rectify a leak into her child’s bedroom on the previous visit. She asked for it to inspect her property. The landlord raised a repair job on 24 January. It inspected, found an issue with the bathroom tiles, and completed work on them on 20 February.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 30 January 2024. She said she had experienced leaks from her balcony and bathroom which she had reported over several years and which had still not been resolved despite multiple visits by the landlord. She said the leaks had caused damage to her home and damp and mould.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. It explained the different work it had done to resolve the issues the resident had reported with the balcony and bathroom and concluded it had acted appropriately and in line with its procedures. It explained it had not received a report of a balcony leak since 2022. It raised an inspection to assess the property and said it would contact her to arrange an appointment.
  6. On 22 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she could see the landlord “took action within its timeframes.” However, she said she had been contacting the landlord for “years” and it had “not dealt with the repairs sufficiently. The bathroom had continued to leak, and the repair of 20 February 2024 had failed to resolve the issue. She said water was still leaking through and causing damage.
  7. The landlord inspected the property on 5 March 2024. It found there was a leak from the bathroom running into the hallway and an emergency repair needed to be raised. It also found there was damp and mould on the hallway walls, bathroom, and windows. It believed this was a result of the leak. The landlord attempted to arrange a repair appointment with the resident on 27 March. However, she said she wished to speak with a solicitor before this took place.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 April 2024. It said many of the issues raised by the resident were “historical” which it was not “addressing or commenting on.” However, it was willing to investigate outstanding tasks if the resident could provide “specific details regarding repair requirements.” It was sorry its initial repair did not resolve the bathroom leak and explained the next steps it would take.
  9. At the same time the landlord sent its final complaint response the resident’s solicitors sent it a pre-action protocol in regard to the condition of her home. She also brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair issues and with the impact on her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained that her family’s health has been impacted by the repair issues and damp and mould in her home. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
  2. In her complaints to the landlord and Ombudsman the resident explained that the leaks she was currently experiencing related to previous similar problems several years prior to her complaint to the landlord. These included a leak in her living room and on her balcony in 2019. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Because of that this investigation centres on repair issues reported to the landlord in the months leading up to her formal complaint in January 2024. The landlord’s handling of repairs prior to that will not be assessed.

Leaks causing damp and mould.

  1. The landlord did not dispute it was responsible for resolving the leak the resident reported. Its repairs policy classifies repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency repairs, a temporary fix to make safe. It aims to carry this out within 24 hours. Examples include severe flooding, water running into electrics or a major roof leak that is causing internal damage.
    2. Routine repairs are those not classified as emergencies. It aims to complete these in 42 days. When this is not possible it will keep the resident “fully informed.”
    3. When a resident reports damp and mould it will carry out an assessment within 10 working days and agree on the best course of action with the resident.
  2. The resident initially reported a leak from her bath on 30 October 2023. The landlord attended the following day to inspect the leak. This met its timescale, and it appropriately investigated as if the issue was an emergency. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy timescale by completing repairs on 6 November. It then completed work to make good the property on 10 November. In total the full work took 11 days to complete well within the 42 days allowed in its policy.
  3. Following this the resident contacted the landlord again on 17 January 2024. She reported her bathroom was leaking “badly” which was affecting her child’s room and the corridor. She chased the issue on 19 January 2024. The landlord raised a work order for the leak on 24 January and attempted to arrange an appointment to attend and inspect the issue on 30 January. That was within its timescale for routine repairs but, given that she had reported the leak was a bad one, the reasonable action would have been for the landlord to at least attempt to inspect promptly to reassure itself and the resident the issue was not an emergency. Because of that, the 9 working days the landlord took to arrange a visit was an unreasonable first response to the report.
  4. The inspection of the leak on 30 January 2024 was rearranged for 7 February. During the February inspection the landlord found the tiles in the bathroom needed to be repaired. It completed the tile repairs on 20 February, which was within the landlord’s 42-day timescale in its policy. Nonetheless, as explained, the time taken to arrange the initial inspection was not reasonable given the resident’s description of the problem.
  5. Along with the resident’s complaint about the leak she said it had caused mould in her home. In its first complaint response the landlord explained it had not had any recent reports of mould from the resident but confirmed that it would arrange an inspection of the problem. The landlord’s records support its explanation, and the resident did not dispute it when she escalated her complaint. Its initial response to the mould aspect of the complaint was therefore reasonable, given that a landlord must be notified of a repair issue in a tenant’s home before it can be expected to take action in response to it.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord followed up on the mould report with a survey on 5 March 2024 which confirmed the bathroom leak was still occurring and causing damp. It attempted to arrange further work, but its records state the resident did not want to do so until she had spoken with her solicitor. The landlord subsequently received her solicitors’ housing condition pre-action protocol on 2 April. The repair issues listed included the leak and the mould the landlord was working to resolve at the time.
  7. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 3 April 2024. It appears to have crossed paths with the pre-action protocol received the previous day. It apologised for its previous efforts not resolving the bathroom leak and explained the next steps it would take. Its response did not show it was aware the resident had refused further access for that work the previous week.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted on the resident’s complaint that the bathroom leak was ongoing and was causing damp and mould and other damage by appropriately arranging inspections to consider and resolve both the leak and its impact. That was in line with its repair responsibilities, but the time taken to arrange the initial inspection of the leak was not reasonable and was a failing.
  9. The resident’s decision not to allow the landlord to continue with its intentions to further assess and resolve the leak and damp was understandable in the circumstances of her pre-action protocol intentions. Nonetheless, it also meant the landlord could not proceed to resolve the issue as it had said it would in its final complaint response. The evidence shows the bathroom leak and the mould were listed in the pre-action protocol, and that the leak was eventually resolved later in the year.
  10. The resident has recently told the Service that she has a new (or continued) mould problem. The pre-action protocol effectively took over from the end of the complaints process as the resident was at that time dealing with the landlord through her solicitors. Any concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repair issues in that pre-action protocol would need to have been raised through the protocol process. If that is no longer possible, or if the issue is a new one, the resident needs to report it to the landlord and then raise a formal complaint with it if she is dissatisfied with its actions. As with the light switch issue, once she has done that and received the landlord’s final response to her complaint she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to undertake a new investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her bedroom switch is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her home which caused damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident a total of £150 for its initially slow response to the resident’s report of a leak.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord told the Ombudsman it holds no details of vulnerabilities for the resident or her family. However, on a number of occasions the resident informed it about the health issues for her children. As such the landlord should consider updating its records to ensure any vulnerabilities reported by the resident about her family, are recorded on its system.