Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Group (202407321)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407321

Sovereign Network Homes

30 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 reports of damp and mould and various works to the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in 2019. The property is described as a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, which includes the external building (an outbuilding separate from the property for storage). The resident advised in her correspondence with the landlord that one of her children is disabled.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in various areas of the property, including the kitchen and bathroom, to the landlord on 23 October 2023. The landlord carried out an energy efficiency survey on the same day. Part of the intended outcomes of the survey was to improve the building and services that contribute to the reduction of damp and mould. The condition report noted there was condensation mould in the bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and hallway. The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 2 November 2023 and carried out a mould wash to the affected areas. It noted remedial works were needed to the windows and further investigation to the cavity and loft were required.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord for updates between 2 November and 5 December 2023 regarding the survey carried out. She asked for clarification on the works that would be carried out. On 7 December 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in providing an update. It said the property was on its retrofit programme and assured her that it would update her once it had received the proposed plan for works. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2024. She complained about the landlord’s communication and failure to meet its timescales. She said since the energy survey was completed in October 2023, the repairs promised including works to address damp and mould had not been done. The landlord responded on 11 July 2024. It apologised and assured the resident that it was waiting for the design package and would provide updates to her.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process on 15 August 2024. She was unhappy with the response and actions that had still not been put in place. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 13 September 2024. It partially upheld the complaint for the delays in carrying out the works. The landlord explained that it was unable to approve the first design due to some fundamental issues. It said a new survey had since been conducted, but if there continued to be delays with the retrofit works it would prioritise the window installation.
  5. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 28 October 2024. She said 4 windows were replaced on 21 October 2024, but the old fascia and windowsills were not replaced. She also said the landlord had not provided updates on the outstanding works and when these were likely to commence.

Events following the completion of the internal complaints process.

  1. The landlord and its contractors communicated in various emails between September and October 2024 regarding the retrofit works.
  2. The resident advised that the windows were replaced on 21 October 2024, but the old fascia were not replaced. She advised this Service during a telephone conversation on 16 December 2024 that other works commenced on 2 December 2024. She said these were not to the expected standards. The resident has been advised to raise concerns about the standard of works through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord advised this Service that the resident was using the external building to store her white goods due to the size of her kitchen. It said the building was not intended for this purpose as it is not suitable to store electrical items. The landlord said it was reviewing the kitchen to determine if it could be redesigned so the resident would have adequate storage for her fridge freezer and other white goods.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We will consider distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused due to the situation reported by the resident.
  2. While the resident said the issue was persistent and had been ongoing for years, the evidence does not support this. Therefore, our investigation will focus on events that occurred from June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works to the property

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. The report reinforces the importance of focussing on an accurate diagnosis at an early stage and deciding on an appropriate course of action. The landlord advised this Service that the property was identified for the retrofit programme (due to its age).
  2. A document dated 16 June 2023, noted part of the outcomes of the project was the improvement of the building and services that contribute to the reduction of damp and mould (caused by condensation), air quality and energy rating. This is a proactive approach in line with the recommendations made in the spotlight report for landlords to assure themselves of the condition of their properties.
  3. To facilitate the works contractors surveyed the property on 23 October 2023. This appeared to coincide with the date the resident reported concerns about damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord arranged to inspect the property, treat any mould, and identify the cause. It attended on 2 November 2023 and treated the affected areas in the property. It noted further works were needed to the windows due to gaps and draught. It said an inspection of the loft insulation and cavity was required. The steps taken by the landlord at this stage were appropriate.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions for an update on the works. On 8 November 2023 she requested an update on the energy performance survey conducted on 23 October 2023 and for confirmation of works to address damp and mould in the property. The landlord re-attended the property on 10 November 2023 to follow up on works recommended to the windows and loft. While it carried out these visits the landlord failed to provide the resident timescales for any works to be done at the earliest opportunity. During this time, she expressed concerns about the ongoing impact of the condition of the property on her family’s health.
  5. Following its visit on 10 November 2023 the resident requested further updates on 17 and 22 November 2023. She asked the landlord when works to the loft insulation, windows, doors, and water tank replacement would commence. The landlord responded the same day that works to the windows had been scheduled for 15 December 2023, but not a replacement as thought by the resident. It further advised that loft insulation works had been booked for 12 February 2024. While the landlord sought to put things right, its plan of action regarding the retrofit works and works to alleviate damp and mould should have been communicated clearly to the resident without the need to frequently request updates.
  6. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It promises to carry out repairs within a reasonable time and in line with its published timescales. The landlord said it would aim to complete responsive repairs within 38 days of the repair being brought to its attention. The resident reported damp and mould on 23 October 2023, but the remedial works to the windows and loft were scheduled for approximately 53 and 71 days later respectively. This is not in line with its policy. If it anticipated there would be delays, it should have communicated this to the resident. Therefore, it did not manage the resident’s expectations.
  7. According to its repairs policy, all responsive repairs will be prioritised based on urgency and risk. It further states the landlord will always consider a resident’s vulnerability when deciding how quickly it needs to respond. In her complaint raised on the landlord’s website around 27 November 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the poor communication regarding the works. She said she was previously advised that her windows would be replaced due to the problem of damp and mould, but she had not been able to get confirmation on this.
  8. The resident also expressed concerns about her children’s health as they kept getting ill (especially her child who has a disability). She said she was unable to keep the property warm even with the heating on because of the condition of the windows and doors. In its email to the resident on the same date, the landlord advised that the windows would be added to the retrofit programme as a priority. This shows some learning as the landlord had listened to her concerns and agreed on steps to put things right.
  9. The landlord telephoned the resident on 7 December 2023 to discuss the pending works. It apologised for the poor communication and delays experienced by the resident and explained that it had just received the report from the survey the previous day. It assured the resident that it would contact her once the schedule of works had been agreed by the retrofit coordinator. It said it would aim to start the works early in the following year. The landlord appeared to have learned from its previous errors. It noted that the resident was pleased with the advice, and she agreed to close her complaint. The landlord cancelled the window repair appointment scheduled for 15 December 2023. It noted that the resident had draught exclusion tapes and wanted to see if this would help pending further works.
  10. Despite the assurances provided by the landlord on 7 December 2023 the resident experienced further delays. In an email to the landlord dated 2 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord if works to the external building could be included in the retrofit programme due to mould and damp. She also advised that operatives had attended and taken some measurements, but she needed clarification on the schedule of works.
  11. On 4 January 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It apologised for the delays and explained that there was a discrepancy in the energy efficiency survey, and it had to be amended before the report could be written. It said it should have the report back the following week and then go through it with the resident. It said this would give an indication of the proposed works including her request for works. A building report dated 12 January 2024 noted there was condensation mould in various parts of the property including the bedrooms, bathroom and hallway. It identified ventilation issues in some areas in the property and noted that works recommended under the retrofit programme would remediate the existing damp and mould issues caused by condensation.
  12. The landlord completed works to the loft insulation as scheduled on 12 February 2024. The evidence also indicates the landlord replaced an external door. On 27 February 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it would consider her request for the inclusion of works to the external building in the retrofit programme. However, the resident continued to request updates on the outstanding works. On 1 May 2024 she complained that her family members were getting ill from damp in the property. The landlord advised this Service that the resident did not raise any further concerns about damp and mould after it carried out repairs to the loft insulation in February 2024. However, we have seen from the resident’s stage 1 complaint that the issue remained unresolved for her.
  13. The evidence suggests that works planned under the retrofit programme aimed to resolve damp and mould issues long-term. While the landlord was unable to start these works, it had an obligation to ensure the condition of the property did not pose a significant health and safety risk, and to carry out responsive repairs where necessary. The resident had previously said that her family members were getting ill (from her complaint in November 2023). The landlord should have followed up with her to assess if the temporary measures put in place had satisfactorily resolved the issue. It missed various opportunities to put this right. Therefore, the landlord did not follow its policy in prioritising the repairs needed to the property given the health concerns of the occupants.
  14. The resident expressed to the landlord in an email on 7 June 2024, that she was being ignored despite her frequent requests for updates. She said the mould was spreading in her children’s bedroom and was concerned this would get worse in the colder months. She asked if the windows could be replaced while she waited for the other works to be started. In its stage 1 response dated 11 July 2024, the landlord apologised for the delays and lack of communication. It said an officer would follow up on the matter and provide updates on the retrofit works. It said it would also improve the level of communication with its residents in future.
  15. However, the landlord failed to follow through on the promises made and the resident raised a stage 2 complaint due to this. In its response sent on 13 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged there were significant delays to the works in the property. It explained the reasons for the delay and accepted that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It said the resident’s experience was not acceptable. It assured her that the windows replacement would be prioritised. The landlord offered a total of £115 for the inconvenience caused at the end of its complaints process.
  16. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould advises landlords to ensure that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Though the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial report, it did not follow up the recommended works in a proactive way or listen actively to her concerns. This left the resident feeling unheard and unsupported. The landlord demonstrated some learning, but this did not go far enough to address the distress and inconvenience to the resident. From the evidence seen the resident first raised a concern about damp and mould in October 2023, but the issue remained unresolved as of September 2024. Due to this she incurred time and trouble in requesting updates.
  17. The landlord did not recognise the impact of the delays on the resident despite her concerns about how the damp and mould was affecting her family’s health. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in progressing the major works. However, we identified periods where it failed to manage the resident’s expectations due to poor communication. A clear action plan would have helped to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the resident’s reports and in managing her expectations and minimising the overall distress and inconvenience to her.
  18. We have seen from the evidence that she repeatedly expressed concerns about the adverse effect of the damp and mould on her family for over 11 months. The delays and uncertainty about the works needed to resolve the issue also caused her some concern. The landlord’s offer of £115 does not reflect the distress, frustration and time and trouble incurred by the resident. An order has been made to address this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will always try to put things right by getting the resident back to the position they should have been before they had a problem. Where it takes longer than it should to resolve an issue or if the problem keeps happening it may offer a small gesture of goodwill. There was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaints at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process.
  2. The landlord took approximately 52 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint. It did not comply with the 10 working days timescale stated in its complaints policy. The resident raised the complaint on 1 May 2024 and the response was sent on 11 July 2024. According to its policy, it will let the resident know if it needs more time to respond to a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy by requesting an extension. This was not appropriate.
  3. We have seen from the evidence that the resident sent various emails to the landlord (including an email to this Service on 5 June 2024) where she expressed the distress and frustration she was experiencing for the continued delays. In its response the landlord acknowledged that the services provided regarding the repairs fell below the expected standards. However, it failed to identify the prolonged delays in responding to the complaint or apologise for the inconvenience caused. While it assured her that it would monitor the outstanding actions to completion and improve its communication, it failed to follow up its commitment to do so.
  4. There were also delays with its handling of the stage 2 complaint. The resident told the landlord on 13 August 2024 that she wanted her complaint taken to stage 2. She said the actions agreed at stage 1 had not been carried out. She followed this up with a full explanation of why she remained dissatisfied in an email dated 15 August 2024. The landlord did not register the complaint until 16 August 2024 which led to some delays (2 working days) as it responded on 13 September 2024. While this was a short delay, there was evidence of some frustration on the resident’s part as she requested our intervention in getting a quicker response.
  5. This Service notes the landlord acknowledged the complaint by phone call. Providing the likely date for the response would have helped in managing the resident’s expectations better. This Service contacted the landlord on 6 September 2024 and asked it to respond to the complaint within the expected timeframe. The landlord responded that it did not receive the complaint until 15 August 2024, but we have seen from the evidence that this was not the case.
  6. Overall, there were delays at both stages of the complaints process which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right as stated in its complaints policy. This caused the resident some distress. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord followed up actions agreed in the stage 2 complaint. However, failure to address the impact caused by the delays in responding to the complaints amount to maladministration. An order has been made to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and various works to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £815 broken down as:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the reports of damp and mould and various works to the property.
      2. £115 previously offered through its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses if it has not been paid.
      3. £200 for the inconvenience due to its handling of the associated complaints.
    3. Any compensation awarded should be paid directly to the resident.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident to gain further information due to her reports that works remain outstanding, including any concerns about damp and mould in the property.
    2. Where issues have been identified, the landlord should agree an inspection and action plan, with dates for any outstanding repairs. This should be confirmed to the resident in writing and a copy provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. We have seen a copy of the landlord’s self-assessment conducted around January 2022 against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021). The landlord should develop a damp and mould policy as set out if it has not already done so.