Sovereign Network Group (202339788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339788

Sovereign Network Homes

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of roof and gulley repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She is 79 years old and has lived at the property alone since her husband passed away in 2021. The property is a semi-detached bungalow.
On 9 February 2024 the resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she had been in contact with it “over thirty times” about repairs required to a bin store roof adjoining her property and a gulley on the main roof.
2. both issues had caused recurrent leaks in her property. This had led to her personal belongings and home furnishings getting “ruined”.
3. since 2016 she had regularly reported the repair issues to the landlord. It had carried out a number of inspections and committed to replace the flat roof and repair the gulley. It had not completed either job. She included a detailed timeline of her contact with the landlord from 2016 onwards in support of this.
The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint letter. The resident therefore asked the Ombudsman to intervene. On 17 May 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint.
On 6 June 2024 the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor found that a gulley on the main roof was in “bad disrepair”. This was “reducing rainwater flow and in turn causing water to get into the property”. He also reported that the flat roof over the bin store required replacement.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the complaint on 11 June 2024. It was of the understanding that it had already responded at stage 1.
In its stage 2 response the landlord:
1. set out a detailed timeline of its response to the resident’s reports about the bin store roof and gulley dating back to 2016.
2. acknowledged it had been aware for a number of years that the roof required replacement and that the gulley was in need of repair.
3. acknowledged it had not carried out this work.
4. explained that further to its inspection on 6 June 2024, it was seeking quotes from contractors to complete the required works.
5. confirmed that once it had received and assessed the quotes, it would advise the resident of the plan of action.
6. said it would call the resident every 2 weeks to keep her informed.
7. acknowledged that the resident’s overall experience of its service was “not acceptable”.
8. offered her £2,000 compensation for the delays, its “lack of communication”, and for the impact of the unresolved leaks on her.
By 30 July 2024 the landlord had not carried out any of the required work. It had not given the resident a date by which it expected the work to start. She therefore referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and asked us to investigate. The outcome she sought was for the landlord to complete the work.
In mid-February 2025 the landlord replaced the bin store roof and completed the gulley repair.

Assessment and findings

Handling of roof and gulley repairs

The landlord is responsible under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes roofs and installations for drainage such as gulleys and guttering. Where a repair issue for which it is responsible arises, it should resolve it within a reasonable period of time. Its repairs policy states it will aim to:
1. complete emergency repairs within 24 hours of them being reported.
2. complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of them being reported.
3. complete follow on repairs, if placed on a works programme, within 6 months of the original repair visit.
The resident is required by the tenancy agreement to report any repair issues arising to the landlord “promptly”. She fulfilled this obligation by repeatedly informing the landlord from 2016 onwards of leaks in her property due to the bin store roof and, from 2021 onwards, the gulley on the main roof.
The landlord, however, took until February 2025 to fulfil its obligations and resolve both issues. This was an excessive and inappropriate delay, aggravated by the fact the resident is an older person. The leaks were damaging her possessions and allowing water into her home, increasing the risk of damp and mould forming. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider this, combined with her age, and complete the repairs as a matter of priority.
When investigating the complaint, the landlord reviewed how it had responded to the resident’s reports as far back as 2016. This was when she first reported the bin store roof was leaking. Given this, we too have assessed its handling of the repairs from this date onwards.
The resident reported that the bin store roof was leaking and water was entering a connected internal cupboard in her property. She indicated in her complaint letter that this was in March 2016 and that the landlord inspected it that month, but did not carry out any repairs. We do not know why it did not as it did not include reference to this initial report in its stage 2 response. It outlined in the stage 2 response that it attended the property in September 2016 following further reports from the resident of the roof leaking. It unblocked an outlet on the roof in an attempt to resolve the issue. However, in November 2017 the resident reported to the landlord that the roof was continuing to leak.
The landlord carried out a further inspection in December 2017. It identified that it needed to carry out some repairs. It was April 2018 before it carried out this work which involved clearing the roof of debris and applying a waterproof roof coating. That it took 5 months from the resident’s report in November 2017 before it completed this repair meant it did not comply with its repairs policy. The policy required it to complete the repair within 38 days.
The April 2018 repair did not stop the bin store roof from leaking. The resident continued to report this to the landlord. In November 2020 a roofer carried out an inspection and told the landlord a new roof was required. The landlord did not however carry out any further works. This was inappropriate given its repair obligations.
Over the next 3 years the resident regularly contacted the landlord to report leaks and concerns about the condition of the roof. It carried out further inspections in March 2021, November 2021, December 2022 and September 2023. During all of these inspections it found that the roof required replacement.
It is unclear why the landlord kept instructing further inspections of the bin store roof when it already knew what the problem was and what action was required. This was contrary to its repairs policy which states it “will do all [it] can to complete the repair at the appointed time and on the first visit”. Given its repair obligations, it was inappropriate that it did not follow through on the advice given at least 5 times by its qualified operatives and replace the roof. Its customer commitment in relation to repairs was “we get it done”. By the time of its stage 2 response, it had failed to do so.
The problems with the gulley on the main roof had a knock on effect on the problems with the bin store roof, but it was a separate repair issue. The resident first reported concerns about the gulley in October 2021. She told the landlord the gulley, along with guttering, was blocked.
The landlord’s initial response to the reports of the blockages was reasonable. It attended twice in November 2021 and checked the gulley and guttering were clear from debris. It then installed mesh to prevent any further blockages. However, when the resident reported the mesh had blown off in September 2022, it took the landlord over 3 months to attend to this. This was a further failure to comply with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
In September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that water was leaking into her property through the gulley. The landlord appropriately treated this as an emergency repair and attended the property the same day. It is not clear from its records what remedial action, if any, it undertook to stop the leak that day. However, its records show that at this appointment it identified that the gulley area of the main roof required repair. This included replacing felt, recutting tiles, and potentially replacing lead.
Despite having identified the repairs required to the gulley in September 2023, by the time of its stage 2 complaint response in June 2024 it had still not completed the work. This was a further failure to comply with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord’s failure to replace the bin store roof and repair the gulley led to the resident spending a considerable amount of time and trouble chasing it for updates. She also asked an elected representative to contact the landlord on her behalf in late 2023. Even this intervention did not result in the landlord carrying out the required works.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 11 June 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its delay in carrying out the work was “not acceptable”. It offered the resident £2,000 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £100 due to it taking “no action” for 5 months in 2017-18 to repair the bin store roof.
2. £1,000 due to it taking “no action” from 2020 until the date of the stage 2 response to complete “any works” to the bin store and gulley.
3. £400 for its “lack of communication throughout the works”.
4. £500 for the impact of the unresolved leaks on the resident.
In line with our remedies guidance, we are satisfied that this was a reasonable offer of compensation for the landlord’s failings up to 11 June 2024.
We do not find, however, that the landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint. We would only be able to make that finding if the landlord had put things right through its complaint process. In this case the landlord had not replaced the bin store roof or carried out the gulley repairs by the time of its response. The substantive issue raised by the complaint therefore remained unresolved.
The landlord committed in the stage 2 response to provide the resident with an action plan once it had approved quotes. It said that it would contact her every 2 weeks to keep her updated. We have seen no evidence it did either of these things. On the contrary, its contact records show that the resident and her elected representative made a number of phone calls to the landlord in the months that followed. We have seen no evidence that it provided her with proactive updates. It was unreasonable that it did not follow through with the commitment made in its complaint response.
The landlord took a further 8 months from the date of the stage 2 response before it replaced the bin store roof and repaired the gulley. Even if the landlord considered the work required to be ‘planned works’, in accordance with its repairs policy it should have completed it within 6 months of its 6 June 2024 inspection.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof and gulley repairs. This is due to its excessive delay in completing the required works. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and led to her spending a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates.
We are satisfied that the landlord reasonably compensated the resident for its failures up to the point of its stage 2 response. We order it to pay her an additional £250 due to its delay in completing the repairs once the stage 2 response was issued. In the further 8 months it took to complete the repair, there was another leak into the resident’s property caused by the gulley. She also spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates during this time. We therefore consider it fair that the landlord compensates her for this additional distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The resident sent her complaint letter to the landlord by recorded delivery on 9 February 2024. The tracking information suggested that the landlord received it on 12 February 2024. It did not acknowledge or respond to the letter.
The resident sent the landlord a follow up letter on 26 February 2024, also by recorded delivery, asking it to acknowledge and respond to her complaint letter. Again, it did not respond to her.
We are not clear what occurred internally that resulted in the landlord overlooking the resident’s correspondence. In addition to the postal tracking information, it is evident from the landlord’s own records that it received the complaint letter. The landlord referred to it in an internal email dated 29 February 2024.
While the reason that the landlord did not respond is unknown, that it did not do so was contrary to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The result of this was a delay in the landlord reviewing its actions through its complaints process, which likely created further delay in it completing the works to the bin store roof and gulley. It also meant a delay in the resident being able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its complaint response.
Following our intervention, the landlord responded to the complaint. It explained to us that it responded at stage 2 as it had previously issued 2 letters:
1. a letter to the resident’s elected representative in October 2023.
2. a stage 1 complaint response in November 2023.
The letter to the elected representative was concerned with the gulley repair and did not include reference to the bin store roof. Although it was sent by a complaints officer, it was not formatted or written as a stage 1 complaint response.
The stage 1 complaint response in November 2023 related to a complaint from the resident about a leaking drain from a neighbouring property. It did not relate to the bin store roof or the gulley.
The landlord should therefore have issued a stage 1 response to the February 2024 complaint. That it did not meant it did not comply with the 2 stage complaints process set out in its complaints policy and the Code. Had it done so, it would have reviewed its handling of the case twice which may have resulted in a speedier resolution to the outstanding works.
The stage 2 correspondence was on the whole a good response. The landlord set out a detailed timeline of events. It acknowledged and apologised for its delays in completing the works. It offered a reasonable sum of compensation for its failures up to that point, recognising not just the delay, but also its poor communications and the impact on the resident. However, as outlined above, it failed to follow through on the commitment made in the response to provide the resident with an action plan and keep in regular contact with her.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience this caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of roof and gulley repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of roof and gulley repairs.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
3. The above compensation is in addition to the £2,000 compensation the landlord has already paid to the resident further to its stage 2 complaint response.