Sovereign Network Homes (202222699)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222699

Sovereign Network Homes

31 January 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. request to carry out an asbestos survey;
2. access to the resident’s property;
3. termination of the resident’s tenancy;
4. handling of electrical testing appointments, including its communications and response.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The resident reported concerns to this Service about the landlord having made a request for it to be able to carry out an asbestos survey in his property, its behaviour around accessing his property, and the termination of his tenancy. However, there has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the resident has raised his concerns with the landlord or that it has recorded the resident’s concerns as formal complaints in line with its complaints process.
After carefully considering all the evidence provided to this Service, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s request to carry out an asbestos survey, its access to the resident’s property, and the termination of his tenancy are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident should raise his concerns with the landlord and allow it opportunity to address his concerns in the first instance. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s response, he should ask it to record a complaint in line with its complaints process. Once the landlord’s complaints process has been exhausted, should the resident still be dissatisfied he can then contact this Service, and request for an investigation into his complaint.
This Service’s investigation will therefore only focus on the landlord’s handling of electrical testing appointments, including its communications and response.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord for a fixed term of 6 months, beginning on 30 July 2021. The property was a single ensuite first floor room in shared key worker accommodation. The resident had a private bedroom and bathroom, with a shared kitchen and living facilities. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The Ombudsman notes that as of 1 October 2023, the landlord from the period of the complaint (the ‘landlord’) has merged with another provider of social housing to become a new entity (the ‘new landlord’). For clarity, the resident’s complaint was made prior to this merger, and his tenancy agreement was with the landlord. This investigation has therefore considered the landlord’s policies and procedures in place at the time of the complaint.
The new landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident’s tenancy ended on 18 June 2023. It had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that he must give all authorised employees and agents of the landlord reasonable access to the property to carry out works, maintenance, inspections, repairs, its installations, or to the building or estate in which the property is situated.
The landlord’s electrical safety policy stated that that it will carry out a full electrical condition report test, to its properties every 5 years. It also stated that electrical contractors would make every effort “to arrange a convenient time and date with the tenant for access to complete the works. Appointments will be made, and in certain situations, written notice provided. In cases where access is denied on a number of pre-arranged occasions and following several written notifications, we will consider using legal action to gain access.”
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints policy. Its policy states:
1. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
2. When “there is already an open complaint, whether group or individual, covering the same specific issue” then its complaints policy would not apply.
3. When there are “residents who display unreasonable behaviour” they may be considered under its habitual complaints policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy stated that compensation would not be considered if the complainant’s actions caused and/or contributed to the issue. It had 3 types of compensation awards: low, medium, and high. Its medium category was considered when “the issues have caused inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve, involving much more time and effort.” This covers delays, distress, and time and trouble, for each of which it would offer £10 per week. It also includes some ‘standard payments,’ such as missed appointments (£10 per appointment), poor complaint handling or late responses, and time and trouble spent chasing the matter.
The landlord’s habitual complaints policy stated that a complainant may be considered to be a habitual complainant when they made an excessive number of contacts with the landlord, placing unreasonable demands on staff.

Summary of events

On 3 October 2022, the resident received a text message from the landlord’s contractor advising it “will be testing all electrical appliances from the communal kitchens” in the resident’s building on Tuesday 4th October 2022. The resident contacted the landlord to advise that he would not be available on that date and asked it to ensure its contractor did not attend without his consent.
The landlord responded to the resident on 12 October 2022 and said that it had ‘logged a case’ following his contact, and its contractor would contact him again should the works need to be rearranged. However, the landlord was not clear in confirming the type of case it had logged. The landlord sent another email to the resident around 40 minutes later, where it advised that the inspections were mandatory and refusal could result in legal action being taken.
In the resident’s response to the landlord on 17 October 2022 he raised dissatisfaction with its second email response. He said that he had never refused an inspection. He said that he felt the text message sent to him about the original appointment had been “disrespectful” and it was unreasonable to send it the day before the electrical test was due to be carried out. The landlord responded the same day and said that its response in relation to his tenancy agreement was to make him “aware” and “avoid any further issues down the line.” It said that the resident’s “response was confusing” as the member of staff had not sent the resident a text. It went on to advise the resident that he needed to arrange an appointment with its contractor.
On 22 October 2022, the resident sent the landlord 4 emails, predominately asking for help to make a complaint about both the landlord and members of its staff. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails on 24 October 2022. It asked the resident to provide further information about the complaint he wished to make.
There were multiple emails sent by the landlord and the resident following the landlord’s email on the 24 October 2022. In the resident’s further communications with the landlord he raised concerns about complaints that he said he had made via the landlord’s portal. He asked the landlord why they had been deleted. There has been no evidence provided to this Service of the 8 complaints the resident said he had made via the landlord’s portal. The landlord advised the resident that his additional complaints were in in relation to the complaint they were already investigating; and so it had cancelled these complaints.
In the landlord’s communications during this time, it also asked the resident not to “excessively raise cases and complaints regarding the same things when you have received a response.” It also said that his communications in relation to the electrical test were “getting excessive.”
On 26 October 2022, the resident confirmed details of his full complaint to the landlord. He said that:
1. His complaint was about a missed appointment for an electrical test that had been arranged with its contractor for 22 October 2022. The resident said that he had not been contacted to cancel the appointment.
2. He also said that he had been waiting for an update to confirm when the test had been rearranged for.
The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint and acknowledged this on the same day. It advised that it would carry out an investigation and provide its response to him by 9 November 2022.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord contacted its contractor to enquire why no-one had attended the appointment for an electrical test on 22 October 2022. Its contractor said that it had tried contacting the resident “multiple times” to cancel the appointment but he had not answered the calls. This Service has not been provided with evidence to confirm its contractor had attempted to contact the resident. The resident disputed that the landlord’s contractor had done this and he asked the landlord to confirm the date and times of when it made its attempts to contact him.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 27 October 2022 to advise that it had tried to call him to discuss his complaint, but that it had been unsuccessful in speaking with him. It advised that its contractor had confirmed a further appointment for an electrical safety test to be carried out in the afternoon of 31 October 2022. It asked the resident to confirm that the appointment was convenient. The resident responded on the same day and advised the landlord that he would only be available in the morning of 31 October 2022, before 9.30am.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022 as he had not heard anything further, following his communication regarding his availability. The landlord advised that its contractor was in the process of collating dates and times for alternative appointments. It said its contractor would be in touch with the resident directly.
On 7 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he was still waiting for the times and dates that its contractor had attempted to contact him, in relation to the original appointment. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email or that he was provided with the information that he had requested.
The resident sent the landlord 2 further emails on 9 November 2022 asking for advice on where he could go, to seek help about his concerns. He also expressed his continued frustrations with the landlord and its behaviour. The landlord advised that its formal complaint response would be sent to him that day. It also asked the resident not to include “so many individuals especially those unrelated to your complaint” when sending emails. The resident responded by saying that he would “email as many people as I can until I find someone with listening ears.”
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2022. It stated that its investigations had found:
1. Its contractor had attempted to call the resident on the day of the appointment to advise that they would not be attending. This was due to staff sickness. It said that it had not been successful in speaking with the resident.
2. Its contractor had arranged a new appointment to carry out the electrical testing in the afternoon of 31 October 2022, and it had called the resident on 27 October 2022 to confirm this appointment and acknowledge his complaint. It said that the resident had advised that the appointment for 31 October 2022 was not convenient, and that the resident had become “quite irate”, and the call was ended by him.
3. It received a call from the resident following the previous telephone conversation. He had asked to be provided with the dates and times that its contractor had “supposedly” called him to advise it could not attend the appointment of 22 October 2022. The resident had also asked to rearrange the appointment in this call. Its contractor had advised that it would supply this information as soon as it had received this from its internal IT team.
4. It had advised the resident in a second call on 27 October 2022 that a supervisor from its contractor would call him to discuss an appointment directly. Its contractor did this and a new appointment had been arranged for the morning of 9 November 2022.
5. Its contractor’s operative reported that they attended the resident’s property on 9 November 2022 at 8.30am and “knocked loudly on the door”, but they had not been able to gain access to the property.
6. It had reiterated the importance to the resident of the mandatory electrical tests as being required every 5 years for the safety of its residents. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange another appointment for the test to be carried out and stated that it had evidence to support an injunction order “as per policy.”
7. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with its contractor having not attended the appointment arranged for 22 October 2022, and apologised that this had led to the resident making a complaint. It also apologised for any distress this caused to the resident. It offered the resident £10 compensation for the missed appointment of 22 October 2022.
On the 9 November 2022, following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to the next stage, as he remained dissatisfied. He said that he found its response to be “abhorrent, full of lies, and very incompetent.” He disputed its response and said that he had been at his property between 7am and 12pm and no-one had called or knocked on his door that day. The landlord provided a photo of the resident’s front door to confirm that it had attended his property. The resident provided the landlord with further details of his dissatisfaction on the same day.
Following further communications from the resident on 10 November 2022, the landlord advised him that “upon further digging” it had found that his property was not due for an electrical test for another 3 years. It said that the resident had contacted its contractor directly in early October 2022, to arrange an appointment following a text message that he had received from it. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had a copy of a text that had been sent to him by its contractor. It said that it was a “standard text message that was issued to you on 3/10 to attend on 04/10 to advise of communal testing and that’s it.”
The landlord also stated in its email to the resident on 10 November 2022 that it had asked him for a copy of the text he said that he had received, and without a copy of this, it “was unable to investigate the matter further.” It also said that it would review the resident’s escalation request and respond to him within 5 working days (17 November 2022).
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and disputed what the landlord had advised. He said that its contractor had contacted him to “book and appointment to test the electric systems in the room.” There has been no evidence provided to this Service by either the landlord or the resident to confirm this. He advised that two members of staff had told him that the test needed to be done as a matter of urgency, and advised of possible court action if this was not done. The resident said that the landlord was “completely getting the information wrong” and he said that it had “inflicted pain and suffering” on him with “purpose and intent.” He said that he would like “to see the truth.” The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments and said:
1. It was aware that he had raised a new complaint request on its portal.
2. It had previously asked the resident not to do this, and “cases would continue to be deactivated” due to him having a current complaint about the same issue raised in his new complaint.
3. It was unable to accept multiple complaints cases about the same issue.
4. It had asked the resident previously to “refrain from including colleagues who have no involvement” in his complaint in his emails that are sent.
5. His level of contact regarding the matter of missed appointments was excessive and this causes “detriment to the service it provides to other residents.”
6. It asked the resident to await its next email about the stage 2 complaint before making further contact to it regarding that issue.
7. It provided the resident with a copy of its habitual complaints policy.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it had escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It said that it would provide its response by 15 December 2022.
The landlord’s internal communications between its staff on 17 November 2022, asked for confirmation that the resident’s electrical testing for his property was still valid for another 3 years. The landlord’s staff advised that the communications from its contractor were referring to the communal kitchen, and these communications had been sent to the residents in error. It said the confusion had been caused due to the resident having advised the testing was for his room. It said that its initial response to the resident when it advised of legal action, had been a result of the resident’s initial contact. It also said that there had been “massive miscommunication.” This Service has not been provided with any evidence of communications sent by the landlord’s contractor to the resident, other than the text message of 3 October 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 December 2022. It said:
1. It had come to light that the communications sent to the resident by its contractor had been sent in error, and the electrical certificate for the resident’s room was not due for “a few more years.”
2. That the electrical test needed was for communal area checks and all rooms had been notified of this. It apologised for the mistake made by its contractor. It made a commitment to work with its contractor to put measures in place to ensure that same mistake did not happen again.
3. When the resident had called the landlord and advised that the test was for his room, confusion was caused. This confusion caused the landlord’s member of staff to proceed “to give legal spill [sic].”
4. It could see that all the confusion and stress this had caused the resident had been unnecessary and down to miscommunication.
5. It felt that the resident’s reaction and level of contact in relation to the missed appointments was “disproportionate to the issue at hand.”
6. It offered a total of £70 compensation, broken down by:
  1. Missed appointments x2 (£10 per appointment) = £20
  2. Stress and inconvenience (discretionary payment) = £50
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident brought his complaint to this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

In investigating this complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.
The landlord’s electrical safety policy states that that it will carry out a full electrical condition report test to its properties every 5 years. In cases where access is denied on a number of pre-arranged occasions and following several written notifications, “we will consider using legal action to gain access.” Its service recovery and complaints policy states that residents who display unreasonable behaviour may be considered under its habitual complaints policy.” Its service recovery and complaints policy does not cover a resident raising a complaint about a specific issue when there is already an open complaint about the same issue. Its compensation policy provides clear guidance on what when it would consider financial redress and the sums that it would offer.
In the resident’s initial communication to the landlord at the beginning of October 2022, he said that he had received a text that advised an appointment had been arranged for an electrical test to be carried out the following day. He said that he would not be available for the appointment. The landlord’s initial response confirmed it would advise its contractor and the resident would be contacted again should there be a need to make another appointment. The action taken by the landlord at this point was the appropriate action for the landlord to take.
The landlord’s second email on the same day advised the resident that the electrical test was mandatory, and by not allowing an inspection he would be in breach of his tenancy. There has been no evidence seen by this Service to show the resident had cancelled any previous electrical test appointments with the landlord or its contractor, prior to 3 October 2022. While this would have been reasonable action for the landlord to take had the resident cancelled other appointments, it was later identified that the appointments should not have been made with the resident. The landlord’s approach at this time was unreasonably robust. Its communication caused distress, the situation to escalate and led to a complaint being made.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. There is a disagreement between the resident and landlord as to whether the contractor had contacted the resident on 22 October. When its contractor was unable to attend the appointment on 22 October, it would have been reasonable for the landlord or its contractor to have contacted the resident by email or text to inform him of this. It also failed to provide timely responses to the resident’s communication. This caused the resident frustration and he was put to time and trouble in following this up.
From the resident’s communication on 3 October 2022 the landlord believed that the electrical test being carried out, was to the resident’s private room. It continued to believe this during its stage 1 complaint investigation and provided its response accordingly. While it apologised for the appointment not being kept on 22 October 2022 and offered the resident financial redress for this, its investigation at stage 1, was not a thorough one. From the landlord’s response it was clear that it had not reviewed the communication sent to the resident by its contractor. Had it carried out a thorough investigation, the landlord would have identified that the text from its contractor referred to the electrical test being carried out to the communal kitchen, and not the resident’s private room. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to fully investigate the matter and resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord did not take full ownership for the continued mistakes that had been made by either itself of those of its contractor. The landlord’s contractor works on its behalf and the landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractor acts reasonably. It should ensure that its contractor and its staff have the correct information that is needed to carry out any work or investigations on its behalf. Any contractor that carries out work on behalf of the landlord is ultimately its responsibility. The landlord should take full responsibility for any errors or mistakes they make. The landlord did not show a willingness to accept full ownership when it should have.
Following the complaint being escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, it identified that its contractor had sent the resident the text by mistake. It did not dispute that confusion had been caused as a result of its actions. However, it also said that confusion was added by the resident’s communications following his receipt of the text. The landlord should always be aware of the works being carried out by its contractors, as well as the communications being sent to its residents. Its systems should be robust enough to ensure a high standard of record keeping, monitoring of repairs and compliance testing, and communications between it and its contractors.
The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. The documents provided to this Service by the landlord have shown that it had been unable to quickly identify the communication that its contractor had sent to the resident, during the resident’s initial contact. Its stage 1 complaint response also indicated poor record keeping as it missed a further opportunity to identify the mistake that had been made by its contractor. If the landlord had a good level of record keeping it would have supported it to have quickly clarified with the resident that the text had been an error. It may have also enabled the stage 1 investigation to reach the right conclusion. The poor record keeping hindered an early resolution and added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
During its stage 2 investigations it was clear that the landlord had reviewed its data and systems before providing its stage 2 response. In its stage 2 response it identified the error that had been made and it committed to looking at way to ensure the mistake made by its contractor did not happen again. This was a positive step from the landlord that showed a willingness to learn from the resident’s complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it apologised for the error its contractor had made, and for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also increased its offer of financial redress, this time including financial recognition for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also included offers of financial redress for the appointments made with the resident by its contractor. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and it showed an acceptance for its failings and distress and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident. The landlord’s increased offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. The apology and financial redress offered by the landlord was of the appropriate level in response to the resident’s complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that it had felt that the level of the resident’s communications had been “disproportionate to the issue at hand.” The landlord identified the resident had sent multiple communications by email and via its online portal. It asked the resident on 3 occasions, to reduce the number of his communications and the people he sent these to. These were reasonable actions taken by the landlord before considering the implementation of its habitual complaints policy.
In summary the landlord did carry out further investigations at stage 2 of its complaints process. It identified the error that had been made by its contractor and acknowledged the confusion that this had caused. It apologised to the resident and increased its offer of financial redress as a result of its findings.
While this was an appropriate response from the landlord, its offer of financial redress was not proportionate to the failings identified in this Service’s investigation. It did not consider its poor complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not have easily accessible records or detail from its contractor check to see if the resident’s property was due to have an electrical test carried out. In not doing this it missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity. As a result this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrical testing appointments, including its communications and response. It is ordered to pay the resident £170 compensation, inclusive of the £70 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response. This has been broken down by:
1. £50 for its complaint handling.
2. £50 for its record keeping.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
4. £20 for the appointments arranged that were not required.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman considers the following areas of complaint to be outside of our jurisdiction. The landlord’s:
1. request to carry out an asbestos survey;
2. access to the resident’s property;
3. termination of the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its handling of electrical testing appointments, including its communications and response.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The landlord did not review the communication sent by its contractor as part of its initial investigations.
It did not have easily accessible records or detail from its contractor check to see if the resident’s property was due to have an electrical test carried out.
The landlord offer of financial redress was not proportionate to the failings identified in this Service’s investigation. Its offer did not consider its poor complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaints process or its inadequate access to records or detail by its contractor.

Orders

The landlord must comply with the orders below and provide evidence to this Service of its compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must pay the resident directly £170 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £70. If the landlord has made a payment to the resident of £70, it must make an additional payment of £100.
Following the landlord’s commitment to ensure the same mistake did not happen again, it must provide evidence of having identified the reason for its contractors mistake as well as providing details of any measure or changes put in place as a result.
The landlord should take steps to remind staff of the importance of thorough complaint investigation to enable it to resolve a complaint at the earliest opportunity. It must provide dates or commit to a plan to provide additional training for staff that investigate complaints.
The landlord must complete a review of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). It must provide a plan of any actions it will be taking as a result of its review.