Sovereign Network Group (202324625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324625

Sovereign Network Homes

26 March 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that his Velux window blind was broken.
   2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident was the tenant of a 2-bed top floor flat. He lived there with his daughter. The resident has since moved to another of the landlord’s properties.
3. On 29 August 2023, the resident called the landlord to report that his Velux window blind was broken. He was told by the landlord that it was his responsibility to fix or replace it. The resident disagreed with this and asked that it pass his request to a manager. He also asked to raise a complaint.
4. On 30 August 2023, the landlord sent an email to the resident to say that it had asked its maintenance surveyor to contact him, and they allow 5 working days for response. The resident chased this the following day. On 19 September 2023, the resident made a new complaint. He said:
   1. 16 working days had passed since he had contacted the landlord about his blind and was told a manager would call him within 5 working days.
   2. He asked to raise his complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had not responded.
   3. He wanted the landlord to fit a new blind.
5. On 20 September 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had passed his complaint to its complaints team. On 21 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint. It said:
   1. It was the resident’s responsibility to repair or replace the blind.
   2. It apologised for its poor communication, as it should have responded to him within 5 working days.
   3. It would feedback the outcome of his complaint back to the team.
6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2023 to say that he disagreed with the landlord’s findings in its complaint response and wanted them to resolve it. On 26 September, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that its stage 1 response was incorrect and that it was responsible for replacing the blind as it had been fitted into the frame of the Velux roof window when installed. It said it would be ordering a new blind and in the meantime a carpenter would visit on 28 September 2023 to see if they could repair it.
7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 28 September 2023 as he was still waiting for it to replace his blind and had not received any calls updating him on what was happening.
8. On 5 October 2023, the resident spoke with the landlord and thereafter the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
   1. There had been a misunderstanding about the type of blind the resident had, and it agreed that it must replace the Velux window blind as it had been installed at the same time the window was originally fitted.
   2. Its operative had taken measurements for the blind on 28 September 2023, and it had chased this order.
   3. It accepted that it did not respond to all the resident’s contact within its service level agreement times of 5 working days and it apologised for this.
9. On 17 November 2023, the resident contacted this Service to ask that we investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had not yet replaced the blind. The resident moved to another of the landlord’s properties on 18 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace his blind

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines the repairs that the landlord must complete. This includes the structure and exterior of the home, walls, floors, ceiling, window frames, external doors, drains and gutters. The landlord’s website says that its tenants “are responsible for taking care of your home, which means doing things like internal decoration, gardening, simple DIY jobs and…looking after any fittings or appliances you install.”
11. It would usually be the tenant’s responsibility to repair or replace any fittings in the property such as curtains or blinds, and, following his initial report, it was understandable that the call centre operative would reach this conclusion and advise him of this. However, when the resident provided the landlord with photographs showing that the blind was fitted to the frame and asked it to pass his request to a manager for decision, the landlord should have done so and responded within 5 working days.
12. The landlord did not respond within 5 working days despite the resident spending his time and effort in chasing it for a response. It was only after the resident had raised a complaint, 15 working days from his initial request, that the landlord responded to him. This was an unreasonable delay which caused the resident frustration.
13. The landlord’s original complaint response incorrectly said that the resident must replace the blind and the resident spent time and effort querying this. However, the landlord addressed this in an email 4 days later when it apologised for its error. It arranged an appointment for a carpenter to measure for the new blinds and to investigate whether a temporary repair was possible. Despite the communication failings, the landlord’s repair appointment went ahead within 2 days of its response. This was within its target response timescale of 28-day target from the date of report for routine repairs, which aligned with its policy.
14. Overall, the landlord’s poor communication initially led to the resident having an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs procedure and caused him to spend time and trouble chasing this up. While the landlord did attend within its target response timescales, this was after the resident had raised a complaint and disputed the landlord’s findings.
15. In deciding whether there has been service failure by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through its complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord acknowledged there has been service failings which have led to inconvenience. It apologised to the resident and outlined what it would do to learn from the resident’s complaint, which was reasonable.
16. Although the landlord did not offer the resident compensation, the Ombudsman considers that this was a fair response. Any detriment to the resident was mitigated by the landlord arranging an appointment for an operative to measure for a replacement blind and to see whether a temporary repair was possible, within its target response timescales.
17. In its complaint response the landlord explained that there had been a misunderstanding and ineffective communication and outlined that it would be providing feedback to the relevant teams to ensure that it improved service delivery in this area. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord’s apology to the resident was reasonable redress in the circumstances and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. From the information provided, the resident first told the landlord he wished to make a complaint on 29 August 2023, but the landlord did not raise a complaint at that time.
19. It was not until the resident made another complaint about the same issue on 19 September 2023, that the landlord raised a complaint. While this may have been an oversight, this led to a delay in the landlord investigating the resident’s complaint. The landlord should have record keeping procedures in place to ensure that it properly records expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint.
20. When the resident raised his complaint for the second time, on 19 September 2022, the landlord did respond promptly, and within its published response timescales. However, the information in the response was incorrect, which was unsatisfactory. This meant that the resident had to escalate his complaint for the landlord to resolve this issue. The landlord quickly apologised for its error and agreed to raise the repairs and order a new blind, which was a fair response. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its target response timescales.
21. The resident has told this Service that despite the landlord agreeing to replace his blind in its stage 2 complaint response of 5 October 2023, it had not done so by the time he moved out of the property in December 2023. This investigation can only consider the landlord’s response to issues up to the date of its final response. Further, there can be delays with suppliers when ordering bespoke items, such as a specialist blind, which are outside of the landlord’s control. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have kept the complaint open until it had raised the works to replace the blind and was satisfied it had resolved the complaint.
22. Overall, while the landlord did respond within its published response timescales after the resident complained on 19 September 2023, it should have responded to the resident’s complaint raised on 30 August 2023 and it did not address this delay in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure and orders the landlord to send a formal letter of apology to the resident.
23. 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.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace his blind, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to the start of the investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves this complaint.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write a letter of apology to the resident for the complaints handling failings outlined in this report and provide a copy to this Service.