Sovereign Network Homes (202234968)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234968

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

21 March 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 repairs in the resident’s property.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Communication and record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 16 October 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, which he lives in with his 2 young children.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2021. He said the landlord had previously told him about a leak in the neighbour’s property. He had been assured this would not affect his property, but he now had rising damp on his wall.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident it had raised a work order for a damp survey at the neighbouring property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2021 to report blown and cracking plaster in the stair way, hall and bedrooms. He also wanted an update on the damp. The landlord had told him it was going to arrange a damp survey for his neighbour’s property. He had spoken to his neighbour who had not been informed of a survey.
A building surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 13 May 2021. It found cracks and blown plaster in the rear bedroom and landing area. The worst cracking was in the rear bedroom. The surveyor issued their report to the landlord on 2 June 2021. The following works were recommended:
1. The removal of unsound plasterwork in the rear bedroom.
2. Stitch all cracks.
3. Fine fill any slots and cracks then re-decorate.
On 17 June 2021, the resident told the landlord the contractors were on site but were not doing the work to the rear bedroom. He said they were waiting to hear from the landlord who would be removing the plaster. On 21 June 2021 he called the landlord and told them the contractors had left without telling him why, or when they would be back. After this there is no evidence to show the plasterers were back on site until June 2022.
A building contractor conducted a survey of the neighbour’s property on 2 August 2021. It determined that the most likely cause of the leak was a burst waterpipe buried in the concrete floor of the kitchen. This conclusion was based on a similar issue it had been told of which had affected another property in the street.
The landlord raised a work order for the resident’s property on 20 April 2022 for plastering works to the upstairs bedrooms, lounge, bathroom, hallway and landing.
On 13 June 2022 the resident called the landlord. He said the plastering contractors were on site, but the rear bedroom was not on their task list. He had been told by the landlord that the bedroom and kitchen would be addressed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2022, he said it was supposed to visit that week, but no one had contacted him. He followed this up with calls on 4 July and 5 July 2022. The landlord called him on 5 July 2022 and said it would be inspecting with the building contractor and water company on 12 July 2022 to identify the leak on the neighbour’s property.
The resident called the landlord on 15 July 2022 and 18 July 2022. He asked for an update as the plastering work had stopped because of the damp in the living room. He also wanted clarification as there was a difference in what works he was expecting the contractors to do and what they thought they were meant to be doing.
The landlord and plastering contractor inspected the property on 20 July 2022. After the inspection the resident called requesting an update on 25 July 2022 and 27 July 2022.
On 24 August 2022, the contractor sent the landlord a quote for plastering and tiling works. The landlord raised a work order on 8 November 2022 to “make good” plastering in the living room and bedroom and to retile the bathroom.
On 11 November 2022, the resident called to report that he was unhappy with the timescales to get the work completed. He was having to spend more money on heating because the house was damp. Contractors had come and inspected, and he did not hear back from anyone.
The landlord sent an internal email on 14 November 2022, it said that the cause of the damp in the neighbour’s property was no longer thought to be a damaged pipe in the kitchen floor. It had now asked a specialist damp contractor to visit the resident’s property.
The damp specialist conducted a survey on 24 November 2022. The surveyor identified damp on the living room wall and on the chimney breast in one of the bedrooms. They also identified a defect with the chimney and damp proof course.
On 6 December 2022, the resident called for an update on the plastering work. His living room wall had been stripped back to brick to look for a leak and had been left in that condition. He called again on 13, 15 and 16 December 2022. The landlord sent a copy of the damp report to the resident on 18 December 2022 and told him it had requested a roofing contractor to attend to quote for the chimney works.
The resident called the landlord on 12 January 2023. He told it that the plastering work undertaken the previous year was coming off the wall.
On 18 January 2023 he called the landlord, he told it that the roofing contractor had turned up and didn’t know the history of the damp issue or what they were meant to be looking at. He wanted the landlord to contact them and advise them what they should be looking for. He also wanted to know what was happening with the plastering. He was very unhappy that the carpenter had turned up to complete his work but could not because the plastering was still outstanding.
The resident called the landlord on 6 February 2023 about the plastering contractor. He had asked them to wait outside the property while he went on the school run. The contractor’s operatives were meant to be on site all week, but they had just walked off the job.
On 9 February 2023, the resident raised a stage one complaint. The landlord summarised it as follows:
1. Repair work remained outstanding, and some finished works are of a poor quality. The resident wanted the landlord to have the work completed and to a good standard.
2. He had a rescue dog which can be aggressive, which meant he could not leave it alone with the contractors when he was away on the school run. This meant the contractors could only be in the property 9am-3pm
3. The resident was unhappy with how the contractor had treated him, he felt he was being blamed for them having to re-arrange operatives because he could not be at the property during the school run. The contractor had been rude to him which had left him feeling upset.
4. The contractors were meant to be on site all week but had walked off the job on 6 February 2023. He had been unable to enjoy his home for 2 years as it had been a constant building site.
The resident called the landlord on 3 March 2023. He said he had called for an update on 22 and 28 February 2023, but no one had got back to him. He was unhappy not to have received any contact since his complaint and wanted to escalate it to stage 2.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord sent an internal email in reference to the resident’s complaint and the contractor removing its workers from the resident’s property. The contractor objected to the working hours being suggested. They had not quoted for these hours, which would make the job longer. The landlord asked the resident if someone else could be in the property during the school run or stay in the house with the dog. He did not feel this was possible. The landlord also asked if the work could take place in the school holidays. It said it witnessed the contractor telling the resident (at a previous visit) that they would need uninterrupted access to cleared rooms between 08:00am and 16:30pm. It confirmed in the email that the relationship between the contractor and resident had broken down.
On 13 March 2023 a second contractor provided a quote to complete the plastering works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. It said:
1. The resident had escalated his complaint on 3 March 2023.
2. The landlord had reviewed all communication and spoken to the complaint officer. It had visited the property and discussed the current situation with the resident.
3. To accommodate the resident’s requirements, it had decided to employ a different contractor to complete the outstanding work. It accepted the additional costs associated with this solution.
4. It hoped the resident appreciated that this was not normal practice and that it had tried to make good the situation.
The resident called the landlord on 29 March 2023. He told the landlord he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. All he wanted was for the jobs to be completed properly and a home to live in.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord raised a work order for plastering works to the bedroom, living room and hallway.
In its evidence submissions on 14 September 2023 the landlord confirmed the plastering works were complete. In a call with this Service on 1 March 2024 the resident reported the hallway in his property can not be decorated because of poor plastering work, that there are cracks in the plaster in the living room and a number of doors will not close due to the plastering around the door frames.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

From the evidence provided by the landlord and discussions with the resident, it is clear that there have been a number of repair issues in the resident’s property. Several of these repairs including the removal of a tree stump, fencing and a breeze affecting the box bedroom, are currently going through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and will not form part of this report. This investigation has focused on the complaint relating to damp, defective plaster and resulting repairs.
The resident has reported that his mental health has been impacted by the condition of the property and the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, this Service is unable to make a determination about the causal link between the repairs and the resident’s mental health. An investigation of any impact on the resident’s health is best suited to the courts and/or an insurance claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

When failings are identified, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident’s tenancy agreement specifies the landlord is responsible for the structure of the home, including walls, skirting boards, chimneys, chimney stacks and major indoor plasterwork. The landlord recognises its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in its repairs and maintenance policy. The policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint outlined a 28 day timeframe for responsive repairs to be completed. If a pre-inspection was required, then the inspection and any works would also be completed within 28 days.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property with damp and/or high humidity can lead to threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the property

It is evident from the resident’s first call to the landlord it was already aware of the damp in the neighbouring property and had told the resident it would not affect his property. When the resident reported damp in his property it should have inspected instead of focusing its investigations solely on the damp affecting his neighbour. The landlord’s building contractor conducted two inspections at the neighbouring property. The first on 25 June 2022 and the second on 2 August 2022. It was unacceptable that it took the landlord 6 months to arrange an inspection to investigate the cause of damp it suspected was affecting 2 of its properties. An aggravating factor that must be considered alongside the delay is that the landlord was aware there were 2 young children present in the resident’s property.
In the report from the first inspection in June 2022, the building contractor said they were aware there was damp in the resident’s property, which they thought could be due to the moisture from his neighbour’s property. This shows the landlord and building contractor were not certain of the cause of the damp in the resident’s home. While it is acknowledged the landlord had assumed inspecting the neighbour’s property was the correct course of action, it was unacceptable not to have also arranged a damp inspection of the resident’s property.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, published in October 2021 required landlords to ensure its contractors have the appropriate expertise to properly diagnose and respond to damp and mould. The landlord told the resident on 6 April 2021 that it was appointing a damp specialist to inspect the neighbour’s property. However, it was not a damp specialist, it was a building contractor. When this contractor realised that the damp in the neighbour’s property was not caused by the buried pipe in the kitchen, they themselves appointed a damp specialist to conduct the investigation. This was a failure on the part of the landlord. It should have instructed an organisation with the necessary skills and experience from the outset. Not doing so extended the timescales considerably.
It was not until 24 November 2022 that a damp surveyor visited the resident’s property, this was 434 working days days after he had reported the problem. This was an unreasonable delay that was significantly beyond the 28 days required by the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The damp specialist was able to diagnose the cause of the damp by a simple inspection of the attic. They noted works to the flashing on the chimney were required to resolve the issue. However, it took almost 2 months before roofing contractors were onsite to undertake the remedial works. This was another unreasonable delay that left the resident and his young children living in a damp home for a second winter, that he had told the landlord was costing him more money to heat.
The landlord failed to adequately investigate the cause of the damp in the resident’s property, in doing so it allowed an avoidable and unnecessary damp hazard to persist over a prolonged period of time. The order below reflects the impact of damp on the resident’s living conditions during the period of the unreasonable delay.

The landlord handling of repairs to defective and cracking plaster

The resident first reported the crumbling plaster to the landlord on 10 March 2021. Having not had a response he contacted the landlord again on 6 April 2021. The building contractor visited on 13 May 2021 to carry out a survey and determine what works were required. The landlord has not provided dates when the plastering works started. However, on 17 June 2021 the resident called the landlord to inform it that the plastering contractors were not doing work to the rear bedroom. They were waiting to hear from the landlord on what they should be doing and then left the site.
The building contractor’s report identified the rear bedroom as the room showing the worst cracking. It was clearly documented in the quote logged on the landlord’s system on 8 June 2021 that the rear bedroom was on the list of works. It was unacceptable that the contractors were not aware of what works they were responsible for before attending site. It was frustrating for the resident to have to deal with this situation and unreasonable for him to have to chase the landlord to update the plastering contractors.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21, 22 and 23 June 2021 as he had not had an update. The contractors had not returned to complete the work. There is no evidence that the landlord got in touch with the resident to explain what had happened or what actions it was taking. This was frustrating for the resident as he was left with partially completed work and no information on when the situation would be resolved, which was unacceptable.
There was then a period of 10 months until the landlord raised a work order on 20 April 2022 for plaster work in the bedrooms, hallway, lounge, bathroom and landing. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 June 2022 as the contractors were on site to start the work, but the rear bedroom was not on their task list. For the plasterers to have been absent for a year and then to come back on site and again not know what work they were supposed to be doing was further evidence of the landlord failing to communicate with its contractors. The resident was faced with this same situation again which was unfair and demonstrated the landlord’s failure to learn from its earlier mistakes.
On 15 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and told it that all plastering work had stopped because of the leak and a discrepancy in what work they thought they were supposed to be doing.
The landlord visited the property with the contractor on 20 July 2022. It has not submitted any evidence detailing what it inspected, discussed or agreed during this visit, which is evidence of poor record keeping. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 and 27 July 2022 asking for an update from the inspection. He spoke to the call centre who raised tasks for him to be called back but no one returned his calls. He told the landlord the work had been going on for so long it was affecting his home relationships. The landlord’s failure to provide a timely update was unreasonable and shows that it was not considering the impact of the ongoing works on the resident and his family.
The landlord raised an additional work order for plastering to the living room and bedroom on 8 November 2022. The plasterers were then back on site on 6 February 2023. It was during this visit that the resident had asked the contractors to wait outside the property while he went on the school run. The landlord reported internally that the resident was expecting the contractors to work between the hours of 9am-3pm. However, this is disputed by the resident. He said he had asked the contractors to wait in their van while he went on the school run. The school was at the end of the street, which meant he would only be away for 5-10 minutes. The contractors had refused to do this.
When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the particulars of a case, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence to support its decision making. The landlord has not provided any notes or inspection records to identify what working times the parties had agreed. The resident had informed the landlord on 25 July 2022 that his partner no longer lived in the property, and he was a single parent with no other support. His request to the contractors was made due to his circumstances. Given the time the works had been going on, and the frustration he had had to put up with, it was unacceptable that he felt blamed rather than supported.
Due to the breakdown in the relationship between the initial plastering contractor and the resident, the landlord appointed a new contractor and a work order for the outstanding plaster work was raised on 24 April 2023. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the work is now complete, however the resident has said that there are cracks appearing in the living room plaster and that the hallway is of such poor quality he cannot decorate.
The landlord failed to comply with the timescales outlined in its repairs and maintenance policy. The plastering works were ongoing for a period of 3 years, which left the resident living in what he called a ‘building site’ that caused him ongoing distress and inconvenience throughout the period. He had to deal with the frustration of the contractors walking off site on two occasions, leaving unfinished work, because of the landlord’s inadequate communication. The order below reflects the impact on the resident’s living conditions during the period of unreasonable delay.

The landlord’s communication and record keeping

This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process.
There is extensive evidence throughout this case of the resident having to chase updates on the works. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that he regularly called the customer care team who then raised tasks for officers connected to the case to call him, but this regularly did not happen. He called 9 times between 5 July 2021 and 21 July 2021 asking for an update but did not receive any return calls in this period. In another period he called the landlord on 7 April 2022 for an update on repairs, having not had a callback he had to chase on 19, 20 and 22 April 2022 before the landlord spoke to him.
He called on 23 June 2022 and was told nobody was available. He then called on 30 June 2022 to follow up on an inspection that the landlord had said would happen that week. He had to chase this again on 4 and 5 July 2022 before the resident managed to speak to someone. The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on numerous occasions, and the lack of response likely added to the frustration and distress he experienced.
The evidence provided by the landlord contains screen shots of its work order schedule. It has not provided any inspection records to show when its own operatives visited the property. The resident has complained a number of times about the quality of the plaster work and discrepancies in works to be carried out, however the landlord has provided no evidence or records to show if this work was inspected and what conclusions were reached. It has also been difficult for this Service to understand the sequence of events as there are no records to show when contractors were on site and for what periods. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not display accurate record keeping and management to show it was fulfilling its repairing obligations. Overall, the landlord’s communication and record keeping throughout the case amounts to maladministration.
Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs and complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states that it will respond at stage 1 in 10 working days and stage 2 in 20 working days. If it was unable to respond within the required time limits it would let the resident know why. The policy also states that a resident can ask for a review if it is unhappy with its stage one decision.
The resident made his complaint on 9 February 2023. He called the landlord on 3 March 2023, 23 days after making the complaint to express his frustration at not having had any communication and to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. Since the landlord only issued one response to the complaint and directed the resident to the Ombudsman, there was no option for him to have the complaint reviewed by the landlord. This was a failure. According to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via a review process.
In its stage 2 response the landlord focused solely on the contractor leaving site on 6 February 2023. It did not respond to a number of the resident’s complaint points, including the poor workmanship, the length of time the works had been ongoing or the way he had been made to feel by the contractor. According to the Code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Failing to do so leaves residents feeling unheard and as in this case, unhappy with the response.
The landlord made clear in its stage 2 response that it was going out of its way to help the resident and was taking on the burden of expense for these actions. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for its failures for the length of time it took to diagnose and fix the damp. Neither did it apologise for its communication failures, or the extensive and unreasonable delay associated with the plastering. It did not recognise or comment on the impact of its actions on the resident, as a result, it missed the opportunity to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord did not follow its own complaints process or adhere to the Code in handling the resident’s complaint. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Communication and record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the Chief Executive for the failures detailed in this report.
1. Pay the resident £1,700. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £1200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the resident’s property.
  2. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. £200 for the distress inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
1. Visit the resident’s property with a suitably qualified operative. Inspect and assess his current concerns with the plastering works and determine if there are underlying issues and identify if any additional remedial work is required to bring the work up to standard. The landlord must provide written confirmation to this Service that the inspection has taken place.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must complete a self-assessment against the recommendations set out within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits set out.