Sovereign Network Group (202204683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204683

Sovereign Network Homes

29 October 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 repairs to a leak which caused damage to the resident’s ceiling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association landlord. The property is a 3-bed house. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. In October 2021, the resident noticed damp patches on the ceiling in his hallway, over the following days the ceiling started to crack. The resident cut a section out of the ceiling to see where the water was coming from and noticed a leaking pipe.
5. He reported the leak on the 1 November 2021 and the landlord sent a plumber out to repair the leak that day. It alerted the resident to the possible presence of asbestos in the ceiling and offered to arrange emergency decant accommodation for him, but he declined this. It undertook an air sample on 2 November 2021, and this was clear. It arranged for asbestos contractors to attend to take ceiling down on 4 November 2021, but this did not happen until 12 November 2021.
6. In November, there were 8 appointments for plumbers to repair the leak. Some of the appointments did not go ahead and some went ahead but did not resolve the problem. The landlord fixed the leak on 22 November 2021.
7. Between November and December 2021, the resident chased the ceiling repairs 3 times. The landlord told him that the ceiling works could not go ahead until 17 December, however this day was inconvenient for the resident, so it booked the works for the next available Monday which was the 31 January 2022.
8. The resident made a complaint on 10 January 2022:
   1. He said that he reported the leak on 1 November 2021, but it took 8 visits to fix.
   2. The landlord told him in December 2021 that works could take place 31.1.22, which he felt was an unreasonable delay.
9. The landlord replaced the ceiling on 31 January 2022, and it completed the works the following day after it reinstalled the light fitting and smoke alarm.
10. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2022 and said that in line with its compensation policy, it had offered resident £80 compensation for the failed appointments and a further £70 for the inconvenience of being without a ceiling for 3 months.
11. On 13 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 18 January 2023 and discussed his complaint with him by telephone on 25 January 2023.
12. On 31 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint about delays to the ceiling reinstatement and the number of failed visits, however it concluded that the offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with its policy. The resident referred his complaint to this Service for investigation as he was unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

13. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is fair and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Leak and associated repairs to damaged ceiling.

14. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it must maintain and keep in repair the structure of a resident’s home. It must also keep in repair and proper working order all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and space and water heating. This mirrors the obligations outlined in s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as well as the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
15. The repairs policy says that it will deal with emergency repairs within 4 hours in order to make the property safe. It aims to attend to routine repairs within 2 weeks and complete most repairs within 1 calendar month.  It says that complex repairs may take more than 1 calendar month to complete, but it will let the resident know in advance how long the repair is likely to take.
16. The landlord needed to respond to the works as an emergency. This was because the resident had removed some of the ceiling to investigate the leak, potentially disturbing asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy by arranging an emergency repair that day.
17. The landlord raised works to remove the ceiling within 3 days of receiving the report, however the works did not go ahead as planned due to a scheduling error as an electrician had to disable the light fitting and smoke alarm before the ceiling could be removed. The works went ahead 8 days later.
18. The landlord took proper steps to minimise the risk to the resident from potential exposure to asbestos pending the ceiling removal by offering him an emergency decant, which he declined, and by arranging an air test which it completed the following day. The landlord arranged for a licenced asbestos removal contractor to remove the ceiling. This Service finds that the landlord took reasonable steps to remove the ceiling.
19. The landlord’s repairs policy describes planned repair works as more complex repairs which take longer to arrange, and which may require a specialist contractor or pre-work surveys. It aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days. The works to the resident’s ceiling would meet the definition of ‘planned repair works’ and the landlord completed the works within its published timescales.
20. However, the evidence shows that some of the repairs were poorly planned, with all contractors attending on the same day when works were contingent upon completing some of the repairs first. On other occasions, contractors cancelled appointments at short notice, or they attended but left without completing the works. The resident also reported that there were 8 appointments to repair the leak and that he had to take time off work or arrange with a neighbour to allow access. Better planning and oversight would have improved the landlord’s repairs service delivery.
21. While it is not always possible for a landlord to find and resolve an issue on first inspection, in the absence of an explanation from the landlord as to why 8 appointments were needed to resolve the leak, the Ombudsman concludes that this was unreasonable.
22. The landlord repaired the leak on 22 November 2021 and there was a delay until 31 January 2022 in repairing the ceiling. The landlord had offered to attend on 17 December 2021, but the resident was not available on that day. The resident had limited availability to allow access for repairs and wanted to arrange appointments for Mondays, this being his day off.
23. This Service accepts that the resident was self-employed and may have lost work where the landlord arranged appointments for Tuesday to Friday. However, just as the landlord has obligations to undertake repairs within a reasonable time, under the terms of the tenancy, the resident had to allow the landlord reasonable access to his home on 24 hours’ notice. Where the landlord accommodated this request, it inevitably caused delays to the works.
24. The resident arranged to put the coving back up and painted the walls and the ceiling. He said that this was because he did not believe that the landlord would do this properly. He asked for compensation for this. While the resident was clearly frustrated with the response of the landlord to the issue, the landlord had agreed to raise these follow-on works with its contractor and therefore was not obliged to cover the costs the resident incurred for doing these works himself.
25. In its compensation policy, the landlord gives examples of when it will offer compensation. It says that it will pay £10 per failed appointment. It also says that it will pay compensation where issues have caused significant inconvenience and where they have taken multiple attempts to resolve involving time and effort.
26. The resident has asked for compensation for loss of earnings as he is self-employed. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings. This Service would not usually propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for loss of wages or loss of employment while a landlord carries out repairs. Although such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, it is a contractual requirement under the terms of a tenancy agreement for a resident to allow reasonable access to their home for a landlord to carry out repairs.
27. It would not be fair or reasonable therefore, for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances where the Ombudsman decides that it is right to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example, where repair appointments are repeatedly missed or do not resolve the repair issue.
28. The landlord had offered £80 for missed appointments and a further £70 as an ‘uplift’ as a ‘gesture of goodwill’. In the Ombudsman’s view, this award is not proportionate to the impact of its service failings on the resident. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. He had to spend time and effort in chasing for the landlord to complete repairs and provide information about appointments. He had to wait in for several appointments that either did not go ahead or did not progress the repair.
29. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response and orders the landlord to pay an extra £30 to compensate him for his time and trouble and £70 to compensate him for his distress and inconvenience. Had the landlord not taken steps to resolve the complaint, this Service would have made a finding of maladministration.
30. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight 
    reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on 
    Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered 
    during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that 
    recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider 
    the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord 
    can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling

31. The landlord’s policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
32. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its stage 1 complaint response. Instead, the landlord has provided a copy of a letter dated 1 June 2022 which responds to the resident’s request for compensation. This response did not follow either the landlord’s complaints policy or paragraph 3.11 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) which says that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the date of receipt.
33. Further, paragraph 3.14 of the Code says that landlord should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Paragraph 3.15 says that at the end of each stage of the complaint, the landlord should write to resident telling them of how to escalate the matter to the next stage if dissatisfied. As its letter did not contain this information, it did not comply with the Code, which was a failing.
34. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 13 January 2023 and the landlord responded within its published timescales and its response was compliant with the Code.
35. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it did not follow the Code at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. This caused detriment to the resident as the letter was issued almost 5 months after the resident’s request. It also did not give him clear instructions about how to ask the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. This delay not only resulted in the resident waiting several months for the landlord’s decision on his complaint, but also denied the resident his right to bring his complaint to this Service for investigation earlier.
36. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 for his distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a leak which caused damage to the resident’s ceiling.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident the amount of £400 which includes:
    1. £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble because of the landlord’s service failure regarding its repair of a leak.
    2. £150 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. £150 offered by the landlord at stage 2 of its complaints procedure if it has not paid this amount to the resident already.

The landlord must confirm with this Service once payment has been made.