Sovereign Network Group (202327333)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327333

Sovereign Network Homes

24 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 report of a leak and subsequent request for reimbursement of costs. 

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, living in a flat.
3. On 8 May 2023 the resident instructed her plumber to investigate a leak impacting her neighbour in the flat below. The resident told the landlord on 12 May 2023 that the plumber found the soil stack was causing the leak. On 25 May 2023 the landlord told the resident that its contractor found the leak was coming from the shower mixer in the resident’s flat, and her plumber should investigate the issue further. The resident’s plumber reattended on 7 June 2023 and provided further evidence that the soil stack was the source of the leak. The landlord’s contractor repaired the soil stack on 19 June 2023. The resident requested reimbursement for the plumber’s fees and to make good her bathroom, and the landlord referred her to its insurer. 
4. The resident raised a complaint on 12 September 2023 as the insurer had denied her claim. She said that the landlord’s contractor misdiagnosed the repair issue and asked if it had taken any steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue. She also asked when the landlord would complete general maintenance of the building and the pipework.
5. In its stage 1 response on 25 September 2023, the landlord said the resident needed to refer the insurance claim to its contractor. It said all properties have stock condition surveys, but it does not check pipework unless there is a leak or cause to check for faults.
6. The resident told the landlord on 26 September 2023 and 25 October 2023 that she was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. She said she was a “bystander” in the repair issue but had incurred over £800 in costs to prove her property was not the cause of the leak. She was dissatisfied that the landlord’s contractor misdiagnosed the issue.
7. The landlord sent its final response on 26 October 2023 and reiterated the findings of its initial response. It said the insurance claim was declined as its insurance is only valid when it is negligent or found to be legally liable. It said the resident needed to refer the claim to its contractor, as they undertook the work on the landlord’s behalf. It was unable to offer compensation.
8. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She wanted £830 compensation for the plumbing costs, £350 for the insurance excess, and £395 for repairs to the bathroom. She also wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and as she was unable to use her shower between May and October 2023.

Assessment and findings

9. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the exterior, structure, and roof of the building in good repair and the resident is responsible for repairs and decoration in the interior of the property. The landlord’s website states it aims to complete repairs within 42 days.
10. The resident said that the flat below identified a leak on 7 May 2023. She inspected through her bath panel but was unable to identify the source so arranged for a plumber to attend on 8 May 2023. The plumber’s invoice showed that he investigated the leak using a sewer camera and could see a lot of moisture around the pipe and fittings. The plumber subsequently cut an access panel in the neighbour’s property on 12 May 2023 and found that the leak was coming from the soil pipe between the resident’s property and the flat above. He recommended removing sections of the wall to access and repair the leak on the soil pipe. The invoice shows the plumber charged the resident £560 for these visits.
11. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord until 12 May 2023. As the resident did not inform the landlord of the leak prior to hiring her own plumber, it would not be responsible for reimbursing these costs. This is because it did not have the opportunity to complete its own investigations into the leak. Once the resident notified the landlord that her plumber found the leak originated from a communal pipe, in line with the lease agreement, it was obliged to take further action to investigate and resolve the issue.
12. The landlord’s repair records on 15 May 2023 noted the leak was in a hidden soil stack which it could not access. The landlord postponed the follow-on works while it established whether there was asbestos present, which was an unavoidable delay. In the resident’s timeline of events, she said the contractor attended on 25 May 2023 and “focused their time and attention on my 7 ½ year old bathroom, which they claimed looked ‘new’ and therefore made an assumption that the leak was coming from behind the tiled wall from my shower mixer tap”.
13. Although the landlord’s repair records confirmed it attended on 25 May 2023, it is of concern that the records do not provide information on the outcome of the appointment. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
14. The landlord subsequently told the resident that she needed to arrange the repairs with her plumber, which the resident disputed. As there was a disagreement regarding the responsibility for the repairs, both parties should have provided documentary evidence to confirm the steps taken to ascertain the cause of the leak. The resident provided clear evidence from 2 visits by her plumber to confirm that the soil stack was the cause of the leak. As noted above, the Service has not seen any clear or conclusive evidence from the landlord to support its findings. The resident also told the Service that the landlord did not provide its repair records supporting its conclusion when she requested them. While landlords are typically entitled to rely on the opinions of their appropriately qualified contractors, in this case it does not appear it has given fair consideration to the counterevidence provided by the resident, and it placed greater reliance in the findings of its own contractor without providing clear reasons for its decision.
15. The resident’s plumber reattended on 7 June 2023 to cut a section of the shower tiles to provide access to the leaking soil stack and on 14 June 2023 for a joint inspection with the landlord’s contractor. The landlord then accepted that the soil pipe was the cause of the leak. As a result, the resident incurred an additional £270 in costs for her plumber that would not have been necessary if the landlord completed proper due diligence when she initially referred the repair.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider losses from alleged negligence, including from its contractors, through its insurance rather than its compensation policy. It notes that when damage has been caused directly due to its (or its contractor’s) actions and the facts are not in dispute, it can consider a reimbursement payment. In this case, it is evident the landlord’s contractor misdiagnosed the repair which caused the resident to incur additional plumber’s costs to further prove that the repair fell within the landlord’s remit of responsibility. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to pay this element of compensation without referring it to its insurance. The landlord is therefore ordered to reimburse the resident £270 for the costs she incurred from the plumber after she notified the landlord that the soil stack was the source of the leak.
17. In its complaint responses, the landlord referred the resident to the contractor’s insurers to consider whether they were liable for the costs. It is understood that the landlord acted on the advice of its contractors which led to the failing. However, this was inappropriate as the resident has a contractual relationship with the landlord, not its contractor. If the landlord deems the contractor was responsible for the failing, it should seek to reimburse the costs from them separately.
18. The resident is also dissatisfied that the landlord did not make good the hole in the shower. Her plumber needed to remove the tiles to provide further evidence that the leak was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord also used the hole as an access point to complete the repairs to the soil stack. In line with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure in good repair, which includes communal pipes, and the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior and decoration. However, if the landlord damages the interior to complete repairs that fall within its remit of responsibility, it will often complete make good works.
19. The landlord told the resident on 26 June 2023 that as interior repairs are the resident’s responsibility and she obtained her own contractor to investigate the leak, it would not be responsible for repairing the bathroom. It said she could make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance if she thought it had been negligent. It is important to note that the Service cannot determine liability as this requires a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. In this case determining liability for the damage to the bathroom is complicated as the resident’s plumber cut the hole, but that may not have happened if the landlord had initially correctly identified the cause of the leak. Therefore, due to the variable circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer her to its liability insurer as they are best placed to determine liability on complex issues. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord boarded up the hole in the interim to make the area safe.
20. The landlord’s liability insurance declined the resident’s claim. The insurer said that the landlord took prompt action once it was notified of the leak, recognised that it was initially misdiagnosed, and once it established it was responsible it took reasonable steps to resolve the issue. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist with the cost of negligence claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for negligence outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the handling or outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this further in our investigation. It is noted that the resident was also provided the opportunity to claim on the contractor’s liability insurance. 
21. The landlord also referred the resident to the building or contents insurance. The landlord would not be responsible for paying the insurance excess as such policies would be the resident’s responsibility to pursue. The landlord also signposted the resident to seek advice from an independent legal service, Citizens Advice, or the Leasehold Advisory Service. This was reasonable to ensure the resident was aware of all the available options.
22. The resident also requested compensation for distress and inconvenience for the time she was unable to use her shower. The resident informed the landlord of the leak on 12 May 2023 and the landlord repaired it on 19 June 2023, so it took 25 working days, which was within its repair’s timeframe, despite the delay caused by the misdiagnosis. The landlord then promptly advised that it was not responsible for the internal repairs and signposted her to the relevant insurance. As such, there is no evidence that the landlord’s actions caused any significant delays in allowing the resident to complete the repairs to her bathroom. The landlord would not be responsible for any delays caused by the time taken to progress the issue through the insurance process or while she was disputing the repair responsibility. There is also no evidence that she informed the landlord at the time that she was unable to use her shower so it would not have had the opportunity to address the matter.
23. In her complaint the resident asked whether the landlord had taken steps to prevent any further misdiagnoses of repair issues. The landlord did not address this element of the complaint. In line with the Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord must respond to all points raised in the resident’s complaint. As it failed to do so, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to address the matter.
24. In view of the evidence, there was a failing by the landlord when the resident initially referred the repair as its contractor misdiagnosed the cause of the leak and it did not appropriately consider the evidence provided by the resident. As a result, the resident incurred additional unnecessary plumber’s fees. However, once it accepted responsibility for the repair, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations. It is understood that the resident felt she was a bystander to the repair issue, but as a leaseholder, there is an element of risk that sometimes means that the resident will have to refer to an insurer. In relation to this element, the landlord acted appropriately by encouraging her to do so. 
25. In addition to reimbursing the additional plumber’s costs, the landlord must pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience and additional time and effort caused to the resident due to it misdiagnosing the repair. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance which states such awards are appropriate in cases where there was a service failure for a short duration of time which impacted the resident and delayed resolving matters.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and subsequent request for reimbursement of costs. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £270 compensation for the costs she incurred for hiring a plumber after she had provided evidence to the landlord that the leak was not her responsibility.
    2. £50 compensation for the inconvenience and additional time and effort caused to the resident due to the misdiagnosis of the leak.
28. The landlord must provide evidence of the total payment of £320 to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should contact the resident and confirm whether it has taken any steps to prevent any further misdiagnoses of repair issues.