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

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202319943)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319943

Sovereign Network Homes

29 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 handling of the resident’s:

  1. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2.             The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, for a 2-bedroom property located above the basement car park of a building. The tenancy commenced in 2020.

3.             The resident’s son suffered from pneumonia following a chest infection, and has been in and out of hospital, which the resident has explained was due to the damp and mould in the property and has been a key concern for her. Members of the household suffer from asthma.

Summary of events

4.             In 2022 the resident reported damp and mould and the landlord carried out a mould wash and installed a vent.

5.             On 3 January 2023 the resident reported that the damp and mould had returned throughout the property and she was concerned for her 2 young children. The landlord booked an inspection for 11 January 2023, but no works were carried out.

6.             The resident telephoned for an update on 2 and 9 February 2023, and asked to be rehomed as she was not certain the issues would be resolved and they were affecting her family’s health. Further surveys in February 2023 identified remedial works, initially to repair a potential plumbing leak near the base of the wall in the bathroom and carry out a mould wash, and then to investigate and repair a leak from the concrete subfloor.

7.             The resident telephoned again for an update on 14 March 2023 and was due to receive a call back within 48 hours but this did not happen. She called again on 21 March 2023 and the landlord internally considered whether a permanent move might be possible. Its contractor advised that it was not able to carry out the required remedial works. In the absence of any updates, the resident called the landlord again on 28 March 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord providing any update, explanation or action plan at that time. 

8.             Following a further inspection, the resident telephoned the landlord on 2 May 2023, when she explained that she understood there to be rising damp in the property. As a result, she did not feel the proposed mould wash and remedial works would resolve the issues. Instead, the contractor had told her the floor needed to be lifted to investigate the subfloor. The landlord said it needed to liaise with its damp and mould team, and the resident asked for an escalated call back. A decant visit was then considered internally by the landlord, but this did not take place.

9.             The resident chased the call back on 3 and 7 May 2023 and was told the landlord was awaiting the contractor’s feedback. She reiterated that she still wanted an update on what was happening.

10.        During a telephone call on 30 June 2023, the resident submitted a complaint and repeated her concerns about the rising damp and the impact on her family. She reiterated that the damp was coming through the cement floor, and not the walls, so paint and mould washes would not resolve it. She repeated the advice given to her by the contractor, that the floor needed lifting.

11.        In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 July 2023, it explained that the identified remedial works had not been completed by its contractor and had, instead, been passed back to its own team, causing a delay and further visits being required. A more detailed survey was required to identify the main cause of the damp. It noted that the resident had declined a further visit, but explained that it needed to ensure the correct action was being taken so it would arrange this to explore the cause of the damp coming up from the basement car park. It offered £350 compensation for the delays to repairs.

12.        The resident escalated the complaint on 21 July 2023, outlining her ongoing concerns about the damp, the impact on her family’s health, and the loss of personal items. She explained that her 3 year old son had caught pneumonia from a chest infection due to damp and mould, was in and out of hospital, and she was prioritising his health now. She also had silverfish due to the damp, and she detailed the stress and difficulty in managing the repair by chasing the landlord and arranging call back requests which were not met, to get answers on what was happening.

13.        The landlord liaised with the resident in August 2023, regarding the specifics of her stage 2 complaint and the lost personal items. She provided links to websites to demonstrate the costs of damaged items and photographs of the mould-damaged items. These included a mattress, rug, chest of drawers, backpack, flip flop slippers, wicker basket and jacket. She also said that over £500 of clothing had been damaged, as well as toys which were placed under the bed, although she did not have receipts from when they were purchased. The landlord discussed the costs of the items with the resident.

14.        In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 29 August 2023, it detailed the chronology of the resident’s damp and mould reports and the action it had taken in response since January 2022. It noted that it had tried to arrange another surveyor for 1 June 2023, but the resident had declined due to the number of visits, so this was rebooked for 30 August 2023. It acknowledged delays in completing the required works and failures in its communication and offered £1,555 compensation, as follows:

  1. £10 x 15 week delay (between 21 February 2022 to 10 June 2022) (£150)
  2. £10 medium distress x 15 week delay (£150)
  3. £3 medium time and trouble x 15 week delay (£35)
  4. £5 low delay x 29 weeks (between date initial work was carried out on 10 June 2022 to reports of continued damp and mould on 3 January 2023) (£145)
  5. £20 high distress x 25 weeks (between 3 March 2023 when works were quoted to 30 August 2023 when the inspection was arranged) (£500)
  6. £10 medium delay x 25 weeks (£250)
  7. £5 high time and trouble x 25 weeks (£125)
  8. £200 towards cleaning/replacement of personal belongings

Events after the end of the complaints process

15.        In September 2023 the landlord was reviewing the scope of works and getting quotes for the remedial work for rising damp, after its contractor explained that it could not do them. In January 2024 the landlord confirmed quotes and assigned a contractor. The resident was 6 months pregnant at the time and had 4 year old twins, and explained that this was a stressful time as she had to make sure everything was cleared in the property and manage the household while being decanted. The resident was decanted in February 2024, during the period of the repairs to the floor.

16.        Remedial works were completed on 24 February 2024. During this time the resident maintained regular communication with the landlord about the floor and the costs associated with the decant, which the landlord reimbursed.

17.        Following continued correspondence about the associated costs and impact the resident experienced, in July 2024 the landlord revised its offer of redress to £4,925, taking into account its original offer and timescale, and extending this to include the completion of the works. It calculated a period of 105 weeks from 21 February 2022, when it concluded a previous complaint about damp and mould, to 26 February 2024, when it completed remedial works. It offered:

  1. High delay (calculated as £20 x 105 weeks) (£2,100)
  2. High distress (calculated as £20 x 105 weeks) (£2,100)
  3. High level time and trouble (£5 x 105 weeks) (£525)
  4. £200 for cost of damaged items.

18.        The resident accepted the compensation offer. She also explained that she was investigating her son’s health, and was worried that the damp and mould would return in the winter months, though she accepted that the landlord had resolved it at that time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

19.        The resident has stated that the matters complained of have negatively affected the health of her family, particularly her young son. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, and sympathises with her position, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and their ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her family experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports

20.        The landlord must keep in good repair the structure of the property, communal parts, walls, and drains, gutters and pipes under its Tenancy Agreement and Repair Policy. It must carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale of being made aware of the issue. Under the Repair Policy, it must respond within 4 hours for emergency repairs (those which pose a risk to health and safety), and under a target of 2 weeks and by appointment for routine repairs (those which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems if not fixed straight away). The landlord has not disputed its repairing obligations or timescales.

21.        Under the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy it aims to:

  1. Undertake effective investigation and implement reasonable remedial repair solutions to manage damp.
  2. Keep the fabric of the property protected from deterioration and damage from damp.
  3. Remain in regular and effective communication with residents following the report of damp and providing progress updates from beginning to end, especially where investigations of a case may be complex.

22.        The Ombudsman’s Spotlight On: Damp and Mould It’s Not Lifestyle report recommends that landlords should:

  1. Ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
  2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage, and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
  3. Where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage

23.        The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp in January 2023 was appropriate initially as it arranged an inspection within 8 days, in line with its repair timescale for routine repairs under its Repair Policy. However, there were subsequently delays in its repair service and unreasonable levels of communication with the resident. The resident accommodated multiple inspections, without clear progress being made in remedial works, or being told what was happening despite repeatedly asking for updates. This was not reasonable.

24.        The landlord’s communication was not in line with the standards set out in its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy. It did not regularly or effectively update the resident and, instead, she chased it on numerous occasions for updates between February and May 2023. It would have been reasonable and resolution focused for the landlord to have acknowledged the time and effort she put into chasing repairs, and proactively communicated with her about what was happening, particularly as it was aware of her concerns for her household’s health.

25.        Following the original inspection of January 2023, a further inspection was completed in February 2023. This identified the potential rising damp, and the resident then chased the landlord numerous times for updates on remedial works in the following months. The landlord did not provide clear and regular communication and failed to explain at the time the action it was taking, the reason for delays, or to explore any interim measures to mitigate those delays.

26.        Contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report recommendations, the landlord did not consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it was reasonable to move them out of the home at an early stage. The resident was ultimately decanted in February 2024 for the duration of the remedial works.

27.        Evidence indicates that the landlord ultimately awarded the remedial work to contractors who completed the repairs, over a year after the resident’s reports and the surveyor’s findings of rising damp, in February 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have expediated the repairs given the circumstances of the household, or offer interim steps to mitigate the continued risk posed by the outstanding damp repairs.

28.        The resident explained on multiple occasions her growing concerns for her children’s wellbeing, including her son who had breathing problems. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 the landlord must ensure that the property was safe and free from hazards which could cause the resident or her household serious harm. In the circumstances of this case, it was not disputed that there was damp in the property, following the surveyor’s report of February 2023. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken quicker and more proactive measures to resolve this to ensure that the property was free from hazards and safe to live in.

29.        Having established that failures in service occurred, it is then for the Ombudsman to consider whether the landlord’s response to those failings, through the operation of its complaints process, was sufficient to put things right.

30.        In this case, the landlord openly acknowledged that it had not completed the repairs in an appropriate timescale and had not communicated effectively, and it apologised for this. It proactively reviewed its offer of compensation to include the earlier repair period of 2022 up to the completion of the repairs in 2024. It considered the extended period of delays, the time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, which was resolution focused. The landlord’s final offer of £4,925 compensation demonstrated that it recognised the failure of its repairing service and the impact in the detriment caused to the resident’s household, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle ‘to put things right’.

31.        The landlord’s offer of compensation included a breakdown of its calculation which aligned with the levels set out in its Compensation Policy for low, medium and high level impact. It included within its redress a payment towards the resident’s loss of belongings, after it discussed this with her, which was appropriate. The landlord’s offer reflected the extended impact of damp and mould associated with its delayed repair service, and contributed towards putting this right. The levels of compensation which the landlord offered were reasonable in the circumstances.

32.        In consultation with this Service’s own remedies guidance, it is found that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment caused by the identified service failures. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman has made recommendations for learning and improvement in addition to upholding the redress which the landlord offered.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

33.        The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must respond to complaints within a reasonable timescale, specifically within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.

34.        The resident raised her formal complaint on 30 June 2023 and the landlord’s response of 14 July 2023 was provided within 10 working days, in line with the Code. However, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 July 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. This was 7 days over the prescribed timescale for stage 2 responses, and therefore beyond the reasonable timescale set out in the Code.

35.        The landlord also missed the opportunity in its stage 2 complaint investigation to address the resident’s report of silverfish from the damp, which was escalated in 21 July 2023. The evidence suggests that there were some pest proofing works at one stage, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this appropriately within its complaint response.

36.        Overall, a finding of service failure is made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint, and an order is made for £50 compensation for the associated time and trouble. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures in service with a limited impact on the resident.

37.        The rest of the complaint handling was reasonable as the landlord provided a holistic approach in responding to the reports of damp and mould in the property, with reference to the entire timeframe of the repairs including earlier resolutions in 2022 and final works in 2024. This was resolution focused and fair, in all the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

38.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

39.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 in respect of its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

41.        It is recommended that the landlord should:

  1. Include risk assessments when responding to reports that involve both damp and mould and household vulnerabilities, so that staff may take this into account appropriately.
  2. Update its records to reflect the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities in respect of the health risks of damp and mould. 
  3. If it has not done so already, pay the resident the compensation it offered (£4,925), as this recognised genuine elements of service failure.

42.        Given the circumstances of this case, the landlord is asked to confirm compliance with the above recommendations and order within 4 weeks, for the Ombudsman’s records.