Sovereign Network Homes (202217522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217522

Sovereign Network Homes

21 November 2024

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:
1. Recurring roof leaks.
2. Replacing a velux roof window.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s home.
The landlord’s repair records showed that the resident had reported leaks through the roof into the loft and bedrooms from at least February 2020. The landlord had repaired the roof in March 2020 and had repaired the internal damage caused in June 2020.
The resident had reported repairs needed to the velux roof window in her bedroom from 18 June 2021. The landlord had inspected the window in July 2021 and found it needed replacing.
On 11 February 2022, the resident complained that the roof window had not been replaced. The landlord arranged for the window to be inspected again after which it said the window would be replaced.
The resident reported that part of her roof was missing on 8 April 2022. The landlord raised an order for the roof to be made safe.
Between 3 May 2022 and 4 July 2022, the resident and landlord communicated about continuing roof leaks and delays in the window replacement. The resident said she wanted compensation for belongings damaged by the leaks through the roof and window.
The landlord escalated her complaint relating to the window and logged a new complaint about the roof repairs on 4 July 2022.
The resident continued to chase for updates on her repairs and complaints from 6 September 2022. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the roof leaks on 14 December 2022.
The resident asked the Ombudsman for help and we asked the landlord to respond to her complaints.
The landlord gave its stage 2 responses to both complaints on 27 February 2023 which said:
1. It had failed to replace her velux window in a “timely manner” and failed to tell her about manufacturing delays. Its contractor had now been in touch with her to arrange the replacement.
2. It had wrongly diagnosed the problem causing the roof leaks several times. After correctly diagnosing that the tiles had become permeable, it had replaced the roof and later repaired the internal damage and redecorated
3. It was sorry for the delays and had reimbursed £2046 for the damage caused to her carpets.
4. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in repairing the roof.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate as she remained dissatisfied with the time it had taken for the landlord to fix the roof and replace the window. She felt that the compensation offered was insufficient.

Scope of investigation

When the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate, she wanted compensation for her belongings that had been damaged by leaks through the roof and window. While she had claimed against the landlord’s insurance, her claim had not been settled at that time.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s insurance company settled the resident’s claim for damaged belongings later in 2023. As such, we have not considered the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of recurring roof leaks

The landlord’s repair policy said it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its definition of emergency repairs included major roof leaks causing internal damage. The landlord’s policy said its initial visit would be to make the situation safe after which it would do any further repairs needed by agreed appointment.
The repair policy did not specify any timescales for attending to non-emergency repairs. It said the landlord would complete responsive repairs by agreed appointment and would agree timescales for major repairs with affected residents.
When the resident reported that there was a hole in the roof on 8 April 2022, the landlord raised an urgent order for the roof to be made safe. This was an appropriate response and was in line with the landlord’s policy.
Although that order was marked as completed, an attached email said that scaffolding was needed to access the roof. As such it is not clear whether the landlord had been able to do a temporary repair. We saw no evidence of other steps taken by the landlord to assess whether further repair was needed.
On 5 June 2022, the resident had reported rainwater leaking through the roof and causing damage. In line with its repair policy, the landlord should have attended to make the situation safe. We saw no evidence it did so.
The resident reported water coming through the roof again on 1 November 2022. In an email dated 3 November 2022 she told the landlord that no emergency repair had been done and that she was concerned a metal sheet could fall off the roof.
The landlord had attended on 4 November 2022 and its records showed that it had repaired a section of roof. After this the landlord had arranged an inspection but it was not clear from the evidence when this was done.
The landlord’s repair records showed it raised an order for the roof to be replaced on 12 December 2022 and that the work was done by 25 January 2023. This means that the resident had lived with the leaking roof for over 9 months during which time her belongings were damaged further and she had to chase the landlord for updates.
Once the roof had been replaced, the landlord completed internal repairs and redecorating promptly and the work was finished on 15 February 2023.
We understand that major repairs such as a roof replacement will take longer than routine repairs. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took all reasonable steps to carry out temporary repairs and provide a lasting solution sooner. Nor has it demonstrated that it agreed a timescale for the major repair with the resident, as its policy said it would, or that it kept her updated with progress.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 February 2023, the landlord offered £100 compensation for its delay in repairing the roof. The Ombudsman does not consider that the amount offered was sufficient under the circumstances.

Replacing the velux roof window

The landlord’s repair records confirmed it had inspected the roof window in July 2021 and decided that it needed replacing. However, there was no order for the replacement window on the landlord’s repair records which suggests it had not ordered the work at the time.
When the resident complained on 11 February 2022, the landlord arranged another inspection. This suggests that the landlord had not checked its repair records as, if it had, it would have seen that the previous inspection had found that the window needed replacing.
The further inspection was done promptly on 17 February 2022 and confirmed that the window needed replacing. Emails exchanged between the resident and landlord suggested that the landlord had asked a contractor to give a quote for the work.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord had told the resident that the window would be replaced within 4 weeks and that it would give her weekly updates. The window was not replaced within that timescale and we saw no evidence that the landlord gave weekly updates as it had promised. This left the resident having to chase for updates from 3 May 2022.
Later emails exchanged between the resident and landlord suggested that the contractor had not been able to do the job. The landlord had arranged for another contractor to give a quote. While it was reasonable to ask another contractor for a quote, it had taken the landlord over month to discover that the initial contractor could not do the job.
The second contractor replaced the window on 7 August 2022. This means it had taken the landlord over a year from its first inspection in July 2021 to replace it.
We understand that a window replacement is likely to take longer than some other types of responsive repair. However, we do not consider that a year is a reasonable timescale for such a repair. The main cause of the delay was the landlord’s failure to order the replacement after its inspection in July 2021.
The landlord also failed to keep the resident adequately updated throughout. Its failings amount to maladministration.

Handling of the associated complaints

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is also obliged to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code in place at the time of the resident’s complaint was published in July 2020 and required the landlord to:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them.
2. Provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days or notify the resident of an extension to the timescale.
3. Provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request or notify the resident of an extension to the timescale.
While the landlord had logged the resident’s complaint about the roof window on 11 February 2022, we saw no evidence that it had acknowledged it.
The landlord should have given a stage 1 response by 4 March 2022 in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code. We saw no evidence it did so.
The resident had told the landlord that she was happy for her complaint to be closed on 30 March 2022. This was because the landlord had promised the window would be replaced within 4 weeks. It was reasonable if the landlord considered that the complaint had been resolved but it should still have given a stage 1 complaint response.
The resident asked for her complaint to be reopened on 17 May 2022 because the window had not been replaced as promised. While the landlord did respond explaining the reason for the delay in replacing the window, it still did not give a formal complaint response.
When the resident chased for a response to her complaint on 4 July 2022, the landlord had escalated it to stage 2. This was not in line with the requirements of the Code as the landlord should have given a stage 1 response first.
Having escalated the complaint, the landlord should have given a stage 2 response by 30 July 2022 but did not do so.
It took the landlord until 27 February 2023 to give its stage 2 response which was over 7 months after it had escalated her complaint. The landlord’s response did acknowledge failings and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused and to have made an offer of compensation at that stage.
The landlord logged a new complaint about its handling of roof the repairs on 4 July 2022. This was appropriate and in line with the Code given the complaint was about a different matter.
As with the first complaint, we saw no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the second complaint or gave a stage 1 response. An internal email we saw dated 3 November 2022 showed that the landlord had recognised it had not given a complaint response within the required timescale. It was not clear why this did not cause the landlord to give a response at this point.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint about the roof repairs on 14 December 2022. On this occasion the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023 which was over 2 months after the resident’s escalation request. While the landlord’s response acknowledged it had failed to correctly diagnose the cause of the roof leaks, it again did not apologise or acknowledge the impact of its failings on the resident.
In failing to give stage 1 responses to either of the resident’s complaints, the landlord prevented the resident from accessing both stages of its complaints process. Its stage 2 responses were late and did not demonstrate that the landlord had adequately investigated. For example, it did not explain the reasons for the delays in it replacing the roof window.
The inadequate investigations meant the landlord missed the opportunity to learn from the resident’s complaints.
Overall, the landlord did not follow the requirements of the Code or its own policy in handling the resident’s complaints. Its failings amount to maladministration.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Recurring roof leaks.
2. Replacing a velux roof window.
3. The associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £750. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the recurring roof leaks. The landlord may deduct the £100 it offered through its complaint process if it can evidence that it has already paid it.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of replacing the velux roof window.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord should decide if it needs to make changes to its complaint handling practices to ensure compliance with the statutory Code.