Sovereign Network Group (202407108)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407108

Sovereign Network Homes

31 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

The complaint is about:
1. the impact of repair issues on the resident’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of:
  1. reports of concerns about subsidence, the kitchen flooring and a leak.
  2. the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has recorded the resident has mental health issues.
The resident told the landlord in May 2024 that her kitchen floor was bowed. She raised concerns of “water damage” underneath the flooring. Later, on 22 May 2024, the resident told the landlord of a leak from the water tank into a bedroom at the property. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended that day. After it attended it noted a new cylinder was needed. It raised this work as a routine repair.
On 4 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that a plumber had attended that day to complete work, but she was still waiting for an electrician so water could be turned back on. The landlord noted the resident was “upset” and “worried” about not having drinking water overnight. The following day the landlord recorded that work had been completed to the water tank. At this time, it raised work to inspect the bedroom ceiling following the leak. It also raised work to inspect the kitchen floor because of the resident’s concerns about subsidence.
In August 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the progress of work to resolve issues following the leak in May 2024. She also raised concerns that there was a “major issue” with water and subsidence under the kitchen and that the flooring was bowed. She said the landlord had raised work in respect of this for October or November 2024, but she was due to have a baby shortly after this. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2024. It noted the resident was concerned about the condition of the floor following a boiler leak. It said that work had been raised for 14 October 2024 to investigate the damage, and a further repair had been booked to repair the floor.
The resident responded to the landlord on 22 August 2024. She said:
1. the response to her complaint was “disgusting” and that no work would be completed until it arranged an independent survey.
2. damp was clearly from subsidence and failing brickwork.
3. she wanted compensation for past issues and damaged possessions/décor over the last 11 years.
On 20 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s concerns that she had been left without water during its handling of a repair. It said:
1. there had been a delay in this repair as the electrician had been called to an emergency.
2. its plumber should have turned water back on, especially as the resident was pregnant.
3. it upheld her concerns and awarded her £25.
4. it would share learning and the resident’s comments with the relevant team.
On 25 September 2024, the resident told the landlord that she was refusing its offer of £25 compensation. She said there had been a heating and hot water issue due to the leak and it had “ruined” the bedrooms.
Later in September 2024 an independent surveyor arranged by the landlord attended the resident’s property. In a subsequent report, of 4 October 2024, the surveyor noted:
1. they had considered concerns about possible subsidence and issues with the kitchen flooring.
2. there was no evidence of a substantial subsidence problem at the property.
3. cracks above the rear elevation could be attributed to lack of lintel, which had resulted in a small amount of downward movement in the brickwork.
4. the landlord should install masonry reinforcement to windows.
5. movement in the kitchen floor was likely due to decay or moisture in the timber and needed intrusive investigation to consider appropriate remedial action.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 October 2024. In respect of the resident’s concerns about the loss of water, and handling of the leak in May 2024, it said:
1. the leak from the water tank had resulted in the resident being without water for a day and a half.
2. it had met its repairs target response time when attending both the initial water leak and the follow-on work to replace the water tank.
3. it had offered the resident £25 for the time she had been without water, but she had declined this.
4. the issue with the water tank had left the bedroom ceiling in need of repairs.
5. its electrician would attend on 4 November 2024 to disconnect light fittings, and the ceiling would be removed. It said it would reinstate this the following day.
6. it was sorry for the resident’s experienced and could see she had made contact a number of times about work, with little contact back.
The landlord went on to consider the resident’s concerns about her kitchen flooring. It said:
1. the resident had reported that her kitchen floor had been damaged by a water leak from the boiler.
2. an operative attended on 12 July 2024 and reported further investigation of the floor problems was needed.
3. its maintenance surveyor had attended with Environmental Health to review the kitchen flooring.
4. its surveyor had raised work with a contractor, who would contact the resident directly to arrange flooring work.
5. it apologised for the delay and its poor communication to the resident.
In respect of the subsidence concerns the resident had reported, the landlord said it had raised work for a contractor to complete an independent structural survey to look at possible subsidence. It said:
1. it apologised for the stress and impact on the resident after she reported concerns about cracking in the brickwork.
2. it was sorry this issue was not considered sooner.
3. while its property team did not consider there was subsidence, this would be confirmed by the outcome of the independent survey.
4. it would consider work needed to help water drain from the building in view of the resident’s concerns about water under the kitchen floor.
The landlord said it had reviewed the stage 1 complaint response it had sent the resident. It said this did not answer her complaint and provided “very limited information” to her. It said this would not have helped her to understand what work was outstanding. It also identified poor communication in its complaint handling: It awarded the resident compensation of £550, made up of:
1. £200 for the stress, impact to the resident and her family.
2. £100 for its poor communication.
3. £150 for the delays to the repairs.
4. £100 for the delays and mismanagement of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident said that repair issues at the property had a negative impact on her health and her pregnancy. We are sorry to learn of this. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the condition of the property since the start of her tenancy in 2013. However, the Ombudsman expects complaints to be raised in a timely manner so that the issues can be investigated when evidence is available. Records we have seen show she raised her concerns with the landlord in May 2024 about a leak issue and about her kitchen flooring. We have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of leak, subsidence, and kitchen flooring issues since May 2024.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it will aim to complete emergency repairs on the same day or within 24 hours of the issue being reported. It aims to complete non-emergency (routine) repairs within 38 days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says, if it needs more time to provide a response, it will let the resident know why.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines how it aims to restore residents to the position they would have been in had the failing in service not happened. It says:
1. it may consider awards of compensation where its actions have resulted in:
  1. poor complaint handling.
  2. delays in completing repairs.
  3. temporary loss of amenity.
  4. the resident suffering distress and inconvenience.
2. claims of damage to personal possessions will usually be considered by its insurance team.

Reports of concerns about subsidence, kitchen flooring and a leak

Subsidence and kitchen floor concerns

The resident raised concerns in late May and early June 2024 about subsidence at the property and kitchen flooring issues. The landlord noted then that the resident was concerned issues with the kitchen floor were caused by subsidence. The landlord raised work to inspect the flooring and did so on 9 July 2024. It inspected the repair within timescales set out in its repairs policy for routine repairs. Following this, it raised repairs to the kitchen flooring, including for a carpenter to inspect and repair the wooden sub–flooring. But it gave no indication to the resident of when these repairs would be completed. In line with its repairs policy, she could expect work to be completed within 38 days of the report.
Records show that the resident contacted the landlord a number of times in July 2024, but she was again given no indication of when flooring work would be completed. It is clear from her contact that she was concerned about the condition of the flooring and walking on it while pregnant. The landlord should reasonably have set out when it would complete work to address her concerns. Later, after she contacted it again in August 2024, she said that work had been booked for October/November 2024. She raised concerns about the dates for this work given she would be close to the end of her pregnancy. We acknowledge the landlord contacted the resident on 10 September 2024 to attempt to arrange earlier work to the kitchen floor, and that she cancelled work at this time. The resident told us that she had not wanted the landlord to complete this work as she was concerned it was trying to “cover up” the issue without fixing the underlying problem. The landlord should have appropriately addressed and responded to the resident’s earlier concerns that issues with the kitchen floor were caused by subsidence. This would have provided her with reassurance that the issue had been considered. That it did not do so earlier was a failing.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 complaint response for its poor communication and delay in resolving the resident’s concerns about her kitchen flooring. However, it said in its response that she had reported concerns that her floor had been damaged by a leak from her boiler. That was a misunderstanding of her concerns. She had said that she was experiencing bowing to the floor and raised concerns this was caused by an underlying issue such as subsidence. Had the landlord appropriately identified this, it could then have acknowledged why she may have been reluctant to proceed with work to her kitchen floor while she was still waiting for it to consider the subsidence issue. That it did not do so was a failing.
In July 2024, the resident told the landlord of her concern that brickwork at the back of the property was affected. She said then this was “breaking” and “tiles disintegrating”. Following this the landlord attended again to inspect the property on 22 August 2024. It noted then that there were issues with external windowsills. It noted its surveyor had attended again on 19 September 2024 to attach a gauge over cracks to monitor subsidence. Records show the surveyor attended again in October 2024 to review this.
It is clear the landlord had taken some action to inspect the resident’s concerns that there may be subsidence at the property. But it did not communicate with her clearly to explain this. She had told it when she complained in August 2024 that she was concerned about subsidence issues. But in its stage 1 complaint response later that month, the landlord simply told her of the dates it had booked to investigate and repair damage to her kitchen floor. The landlord should have appropriately addressed and communicated with the resident about her concerns that subsidence may be causing the issues with the kitchen floor. Doing so would have reassured her that it was fully considering the concerns she had raised about structural issues.
After its surveyor had attended the property in August 2024, the resident asked that the landlord provide details of the repairs needed to the property, along with timescales. While the landlord wrote to her on 11 September 2024, setting out some of the repairs needed, it did not say what it was doing about external brickwork and windowsill issues it had detailed during its earlier visit. It wrote to the resident again, in late September 2024, setting out that it would be obtaining a quote for these repairs. But it again failed to let her know how it had investigated subsidence. Nor did it provide any indication of a timescale for this repair work. That was a failing.
The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response for not considering her concerns about cracking to brickwork and windowsills earlier. That was appropriate. While we have seen that it had inspected her concerns, it did not clearly set out to her what it was doing about this. Without doing so, she was given no reassurance that the issues had been fully investigated or that repairs it had outlined would fully remedy the issue.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord arranged an independent survey to consider possible subsidence at the property. That was reasonable and appropriate, given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
The resident told us of her concerns that the independent surveyor’s report said there was “no subsidence” at the property. She sent us a recording she said she made during this inspection. But it is unclear to us when this recording was made or who was being recorded. However, the subsequent report we have seen from the independent surveyor clearly sets out its findings. This outlined that there was no evidence of “substantial subsidence” at the property and recommended work to reinforce masonry. It also outlined its recommendation that the landlord complete intrusive investigation to consider the kitchen flooring issue. The resident expressed to us concerns that the landlord had directed the independent surveyor about what to say in its report. But we have seen no evidence that was the case. We acknowledge that the resident believes that a greater extent of work is required to the property, but the landlord is entitled to rely on the advice and reports from specialists.

Leak issues

The resident told the landlord on 22 May 2024 of a leak from her water tank that was affecting her bedroom. The landlord’s records show that it attended this appointment the same day, and within its target timescale for emergency repairs. Later it attended the follow up repair to replace the cylinder. This was also attended within its target timescales for routine repairs. However, the resident later raised concerns that she had been left without water for a day and a half due to the electrician not attending. In responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September 2024, the landlord said its plumber should have turned the water back on the same day particularly as the resident was pregnant. It awarded her £25 in recognition of this.
When the resident requested escalation of this complaint later in September 2024, she outlined that she did not consider the award reflected the heating and hot water issue she had experienced during the repair. But in responding to the complaint at stage 2 in October 2024, the landlord did not consider the resident’s concerns about this. That was a failing. It should have addressed all the points she had raised so that it could fully consider the impact of any failing. Records show that she contacted the landlord on 28 May 2024 to express her concerns that she had no heating or hot water throughout the property. Records also show that heating and hot water was not reinstated until 5 June 2024, 2 weeks after the initial leak. We acknowledge that the eventual repair to the water tank was completed within the landlord’s repairs timescales, but it was appropriate for it to consider whether there was any action it could take in response to the resident’s concerns that she was without heating and hot water during this time. That was particularly so given that she had told the landlord she was pregnant.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about heating and hot water (published in February 2021), outlines how a lack of heating or hot water can cause discomfort and can also be a risk to health and well-being. It says that when problems with heating and hot water cannot be resolved quickly, landlords should ensure that residents have access to temporary heating and that they are given a clear timeframe for the repair. It also recommends that landlord should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents, and respond accordingly. But there is no evidence that the landlord appropriately considered anything further it could do after the resident made contact on 28 May 2024. Nor did it provide her with any timeframe for the repair. That was a failing. While we note the loss of heating and hot water came during the spring months, it still would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether action could be taken to alleviate issues, such as by offering temporary heaters. That it did not consider any action in respect of this was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord review whether it has adequate processes and guidance to staff about temporary practical help it can offer to residents during periods without heating and hot water.
After remedying the leak, the landlord raised work to inspect damage to the resident’s bedroom ceiling. That was appropriate. But while it did so on 19 June 2024, and raised work to remove the ceiling, it gave no indication to the resident at this time when the work would be completed. That was a failing. In line with its policy, the resident could expect such repair work to be completed within 38 days. But there is no evidence she was provided with any date for the work until she contacted the landlord in August 2024. At this time, she was told the work was booked for the beginning of November 2024. The landlord should have provided the resident with earlier confirmation of when work would be completed to repair her bedroom ceiling. We acknowledge that waiting for this repair to be completed would have caused the resident concern, particularly as she was expecting to give birth soon after the scheduled repair.
The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord for confirmation of the date for the repair or wait so long for the landlord to complete this work. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had poorly communicated with her about this work. But the landlord should have gone further to explicitly acknowledge the delay in completing work. This would have been outstanding for 5 months by the time of its scheduled appointment, and well beyond its target for completing routine repairs. In addition, the landlord made no attempt to complete any temporary repair of the ceiling until after it completed an inspection of the property with Environmental Health in late September 2024. Following this, it completed some work to tape cracks in the ceiling to make it “safe” until the ceiling was removed. But it should reasonably have considered whether temporary repairs were needed at an earlier stage, given the delay in fully completing repair work. That it did not was a failing. We have ordered the landlord to remind staff to consider temporary repairs when a repair cannot be fully completed after its first attendance.
The landlord noted it attended the resident’s property on 5 November 2024 to reinstate the bedroom ceiling. However, it said it found at this time that work to remove the existing ceiling, which had been scheduled for the previous day, had been cancelled by the resident. The landlord told us this work had now been rebooked for April 2025. We are aware the resident will be away from home until March 2025, following the birth of her child. But she has previously confirmed to the landlord that her adult son will be at the property while she is away. As such we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to establish whether work can be completed sooner than April 2025.
Work has been completed to install a French drain to the rear and to repair an external windowsill in November 2024. However, the landlord has been unable to complete work to the kitchen flooring as the resident has refused this work. She told us that this is because she does not consider it has investigated the cause of issues. But, as noted earlier, the landlord is entitled to rely on the reports and inspections of the independent surveyor and its own surveyor. It is appropriate, and in line with her tenancy agreement, for the resident to allow it access to complete this work.
The landlord wrote to the resident at the end of October 2024 to confirm that its contractor would complete work to address cracks at the property. But there is no evidence it has told the resident when this work will be completed. While we acknowledge the work to install masonry reinforcement to windows may take longer to arrange, it should reasonably have kept the resident updated about this so that she was reassured that work was being planned. That the landlord did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord review whether it has adequate processes in place to keep residents informed about the progress of longstanding repairs. We have also ordered that the landlord contact the resident to update her about when this work will be completed.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence, the kitchen flooring and a leak.

Compensation awarded by the landlord

The landlord awarded the resident a total of £475, for issues relating to her leak, kitchen flooring and subsidence concerns. This goes some way towards recognising the impact of its failings. However, it does not fully recognise the impact of the failings we have identified in this report. We have found delay and communication failings. We have found that the landlord failed to fully consider and recognise the resident’s concerns that she was left without heating and hot water for 2 weeks following the leak. We found that it failed to fully acknowledge the delay in arranging work to address repairs to the resident’s ceiling or consider temporary repairs it could complete in the meantime. We also found that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about when work would be completed to address cracks at her property. With consideration to the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an increased award of compensation to the resident in order to fully recognise the impact of its failings.

Complaint

While the resident raised concerns with the landlord on 4 June 2024 about being left without water following the leak, it did not provide her with a stage 1 response to this matter until 20 September 2024. That was significantly outside the 10 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. It is unclear what led to this delay. However, the landlord later acknowledged the delay and mismanagement of the initial complaint and awarded the resident £100 for this. That was appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged that its initial response to the resident’s complaint of August 2024 did not answer her concerns. In her complaint, the resident said she was chasing work following the leak in May 2024. She also said she was concerned there was an issue with subsidence under the kitchen. But in its response, the landlord simply told the resident that work had now been raised to the kitchen floor. It failed to identify or address the resident’s concerns about subsidence, or about outstanding repairs following the leak in May 2024. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord should have ensured the complaint response appropriately addressed the concerns raised. If it was unsure about the resident’s concerns, it should reasonably have checked these. It is clear from her response to this that she felt her concerns about subsidence had been ignored. The landlord provided an inadequate response to the resident’s complaint. As a result, it missed an opportunity to put things right for her at an earlier stage.
We have identified other failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Despite her raising it in her escalation request, the landlord failed to give any consideration to her concerns that she was without heating and hot water following the leak. It should have done so. Without considering the points she had raised, it could not fully explore the impact of any failings and the resident would be left feeling her concerns had been ignored.
In her escalation request the resident told the landlord that she wanted compensation for damaged possessions/décor. Given this, and in line with its compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for it to direct the resident on how she could submit a claim to its insurer. That it did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim. We have also ordered that it remind its staff of the appropriate action when residents claim for damaged possessions.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. So far it has awarded the resident £100 for the delay and mismanagement of her complaint. This does not adequately recognise the impact of the failings we have identified. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an increased award aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the impact of repair issues on the resident’s health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence, the kitchen flooring and a leak.
2. maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings we have identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £825, made up of:
  1. £475 already awarded for failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence, the kitchen floor and a leak.
  2. £150 further payment for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence, the kitchen floor and a leak.
  3. £100 already awarded for complaint handling failings.
  4. £100 further payment for the impact of complaint handling failings.
3. contact the resident to update her about when work to address cracks at the property will be completed.
4. provide the resident with details of how she can submit a claim to its insurer for damaged possessions.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review whether it has adequate processes and guidance to staff about considering temporary practical help it can offer to residents during periods without heating and hot water.
2. review whether it has adequate processes in place to keep residents informed about the progress of longstanding repairs.
3. remind staff about the importance of considering temporary repairs when a repair cannot be fully completed in the first instance.
4. remind its staff of the appropriate action when residents claim for damaged possessions.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, contact the resident to establish whether work to repair her bedroom ceiling can be completed sooner than April 2025.