Sovereign Network Homes (202306510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306510

Sovereign Network Homes

28 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:

a.     Repairs required to the gable end.

b.     Groundworks required to the garden.

c.      A request for replacement flooring to the property.

2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a joint assured tenant with her husband. The tenancy started on 13 September 2021. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is described as an end of terrace 2-bedroom house.
4. Within 2 weeks of moving into the property on 27 September 2021, the resident reported that an area of coving was missing to the rear gable wall. The resident explained that the wood to the gable was exposed. The landlord responded that the report would be passed to its defects team to assess if the repair should be passed to the developer. The resident was told to expect to receive a response within 20 calendar days.
5. The resident emailed the developer on 5 January 2023, requesting that they provide an update regarding garden works and the replacement of the missing section to the gable. The resident stated that the developer’s customer service manager had visited before Christmas to assess the condition of the garden. The garden had been assessed as contaminated. Since then, she had not received any further information. The resident described the garden as a “bog” and said that a substantial amount of material had been buried, resulting in the water becoming trapped. The condition of the garden was causing difficulty for her dog.
6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2023. She said that:

a.     The landlord had not addressed the exposed gable end of the property.

b.     The removal of tarmac sheets buried in the garden remained outstanding.

7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 May 2023. It apologised for its delay in doing so and said that this was due to the large number of complaints it had received.
8. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 20 July 2023. It acknowledged that the developer’s subcontractor had attended, inspected the garden and accepted that they were responsible for rectifying the defect. It was aware that the garden works and the defect with the gable was outstanding. The landlord went on to say that:

a.     It apologised that the garden had been left in an unacceptable condition with tarmac buried under the grass. It acknowledged that this caused a section of the garden to be unusable and the resident had put considerable effort into maintaining the garden.

b.     It advised that the developer’s subcontractor would be undertaking the rectification works to the garden which started on 18 July 2023. These should take around 2 -3 weeks.

c.      It was aware that there were problems with arranging the garden works and that the resident had experienced missed appointments.

d.     It agreed to stay in touch with the resident and the developer to monitor progress. Weekly updates would be provided and the landlord would take the appropriate action as necessary.

e.     The developer had advised that the works to the gable end had been completed and apologised for the time taken to rectify this.

f.        It awarded a £20 love to shop voucher for its service failures during the complaint process.

9. The following day, the resident escalated the complaint. She stated that:

a.     Over 60 tonnes of soil had been removed from the grassed area over 4 days, including slabs of tarmac. The garden had been unusable for that time and for over 18 months, it had contained illegally buried waste. She added that her dog and guinea pigs were affected for the period the garden was unavailable. In addition, flooring in her property needed to be changed.

b.     With regard to the defect to the gable, this was completed in July 2023. She felt insulted by the offer of the love to shop voucher when she had been chasing the repairs for over 18 months.

c.      Her preferred outcome was for the turf to be added to the garden, the landlord to keep her updated weekly as it had agreed to do and compensation for the distress that she had experienced.

d.     The landlord should learn from its complaints and not make excuses for the problems with its complaint handling.

10. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 25 July 2023. In summary, it said:

a.     It agreed that there had been a failure of its developer and understood the impact to the resident of being unable to use the garden for 4 days.

b.     The resident had not raised the issue regarding the condition of the flooring in her complaint. If she had, it would have arranged for the flooring to be cleaned.

c.      It would ask the developer if they agreed to the resident’s request for compensation of £1,300 for flooring damage. If the developer did not agree to make a payment, the resident could make a claim on its or the developer’s insurance. It provided the contact details for its insurers. Once it received the developer’s insurance details, it would provide this to the resident.

d.     It appreciated the time the resident had taken to get the situation resolved and advised that the £20 love to shop voucher was for its complaint handling failures and not the delays the resident experienced.

e.     It could not make a compensation award for the inconvenience experienced by the resident as she was able to use the majority of the garden despite the work being carried out.

f.        It could only make compensation awards for service failures and could not compensate for loss of earnings.

g.     The developer had advised that the turf was on order from their suppliers and was aware that the work was to be prioritised. It would maintain weekly contact until the turf was laid and a generic contact email and number was provided for the resident to use, if necessary.

h.     If there were further delays, it would consider getting an independent quote to complete the garden works. However, it had to give the developer the opportunity to complete the works in a reasonable time.

i.        It apologised if the comment about staffing levels appeared to be an excuse. However, it was being transparent about the challenges it faced.

j.        The resident’s concerns had been escalated for review. It was aware that the complaint had been escalated to this Service and would comply with any orders it received.

11. On 6 October 2023, this Service wrote to the landlord asking that it supply the resident with its final complaint response.
12. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 October 2023. It said:

a.     The work to remedy the defect to the gable end was completed on 4 July 2023.

b.     It was made aware of the garden issues on 26 April 2023 and the developer confirmed that they were responsible on 19 May 2023. Scheduled works were to start on 18 July 2023 and they were completed on 9 August 2023.

c.      That aspect of the complaint had not been upheld as it did not believe that 3 months was an excessive delay.

d.     It appreciated the time and trouble that the resident had put into her garden and acknowledged that some of the established garden was affected by the repair.

e.     It had acted within a reasonable period of time once informed of a latent defect.

f.        The resident’s comments on the complaint process had been passed to the customer specialist manager. Each year, its complaint process was reviewed and it had been updated recently.

g.     Overall, the complaint had been partially upheld. It had proactively contacted the developer to inspect, plan and carry out the work to remedy the reported defects.

h.     It could not offer compensation for the delay that the resident experienced in getting the defects remedied. It acted in a reasonable time once the issue was reported.

i.        It was informed on 21 July 2023 that the resident’s carpet had been damaged following her dog entering the property with a substance on its paws. The resident requested the landlord’s and the developer’s insurance details on 6 September 2023.

j.        The developer had refused to supply their insurer’s details and referred the resident to the landlord. The resident spoke to its insurance team on 16 October 2023 and it would provide its insurers with a copy of its complaint response.

k.      Information about the damage to the resident’s flooring was not given in the stage 1 complaint response as the resident did not raise the matter until her escalation request.

13. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Landlord policies

14. The landlord’s home user guide in association with the developer states:

a.     For the first 12 months, the developer is responsible for carrying out defect repairs.

b.     In the first instance, the defect should be reported to the landlord.

15. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy (to 2023) says that it may arrange a visit regarding reported defects in a new build home. It can also visit to diagnose an issue that may be considered a latent defect.
16. With regard to new homes, the ‘works in defect’ phase will run for the first 12 months from handover. Works in defect are the responsibility of the developer. Snagging issues will be completed at year end at the snagging review. A latent defect may arise after the 12-month defect period and should be referred to the developer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

17. As the property was within a 12-month defect period, the responsibility for all repairs and ‘snags’ was with the developer, who is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, the resident’s contractual relationship is with the landlord and we would expect a landlord to do all it can to ensure all issues are resolved. The Ombudsman will therefore assess the landlord’s handling of reported repairs and its communications with the developer but we cannot assess the actions of the developer.
18. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

a.     be fair;

b.     put things right;

c.      learn from outcomes.

19. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Repairs required to the gable end

20. The resident reported to the landlord on 27 September 2021 that a piece of cladding was missing from the gable end. The landlord reported this to the developer who advised that it was aware of the defect and it was recorded on their snagging list. The developer went on to say that the landlord should inform the resident that the property was structurally sound, the missing cladding was aesthetic and it was in the process of arranging for the work to be completed. The landlord updated the resident within 5 working days on 4 October 2021. This was a reasonable timeframe to give reassurance to the resident that the defect was known and included on the list for resolution.
21. It was reasonable for the landlord to believe that the defect had been resolved as there were no further reports about this until 13 January 2022. On that date, the resident reported the defect was outstanding. While the landlord’s records show that the resident was advised of its intention to chase the developer, there is no evidence that it did so. This is not appropriate as the landlord’s records should evidence the action taken in response to a repair request.
22. There was a further gap of about 3 months before the resident made further reports about the outstanding defect to the gable in July 2022. The landlord chased progress with the developer between July 2022 and November 2022 to get them to remedy the defect. During that period, the defect was escalated within the developer’s management team, passing from the area build manager to the area customer service manager in October 2022.
23. The landlord informed the developer that it considered this a priority and requested that they treat the matter as such. When the developer did not act, the outstanding repair to the gable was escalated to the landlord’s aftercare and quality manager. The resident was frustrated by the delay that she experienced. Though it was reasonable for the defect to be added to the snagging list, it took a further 11 months before the defect was rectified. This represented an unreasonable delay to the resident. Although the landlord was not responsible for that delay, there is limited evidence that it pro-actively kept the resident updated on any steps it was taking to ensure progress.
24. The repair to remedy the defect to the gable was completed on 4 July 2023 by the developer. During the defect period, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary co–ordinating matters between the developer and the resident. The landlord should ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard.
25. Defects can occur in new build properties and the defect liability period exists to provide lines of accountability. The resident experienced further delay after the expiry of the defect liability period despite the landlord’s attempts to get the repair resolved. In this particular case, the repair to the gable was considered a non-emergency repair and cosmetic. The resident experienced time and trouble chasing the developer and the landlord about the outstanding repair to the gable end and the landlord’s communications were insufficient. For those reasons, a finding of service failure has been made

Groundworks required to the garden 

26. The landlord’s records show that in December 2022, the developer’s customer service manager carried out an inspection of the resident’s garden. The resident chased the developer in January 2023 and she was informed that the developer was waiting for feedback from its subcontractor regarding the condition of the garden. An appointment was made for the developer to assess the condition of the garden on 24 January 2023 with its sub-contractor. The landlord’s records do not hold any information about what occurred at the visit. This represents a failure by the landlord as it should have requested that the developer provide the outcome of the inspection.
27. Once a landlord is given notice of an issue with its property, it should take action in line with its policy timescales. Between January 2023 to April 2023, the available information shows a gap in communication regarding the condition of the garden until the complaint was made at the end of April 2023. The resident informed the landlord that when it rained, pools of tar rose to the garden surface. This meant that she had restricted use of the garden and could not let her dog out. When she did, the dog had muddy paws which he brought into the property. It was reasonable that the landlord chased the developer the same day to ascertain the action it was taking to resolve the garden defect.
28. The landlord subsequently received information about the garden condition from the developer. They advised that before the garden works could be progressed, a technical solution was required. The developer went on to say that they were waiting to receive a solution from their technical team regarding the land drainage to the garden. Until this was received, they could not start the rectification work.
29. The landlord appropriately updated the resident and suggested that if the work was not progressed in a reasonable timeframe, it would consider getting these completed and paying the contractor out of the developer retention account. The rectification works required the installation of a land drain and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information that it had received from the developer when communicating with the resident. It was also reasonable for the landlord to consider different options if the developer did not provide a solution within an acceptable period.
30. When the repairs had not started by June 2023, the landlord appropriately contacted the developer to understand the reasons for the delay. The questions posed by the landlord about the length of time this had taken, the involvement of the technical team, whether it had considered allowing the resident to undertake the works and the schedule of works required were reasonable. This was necessary for the landlord to establish whether the developer had given the repair the appropriate priority and ensure they were not allowing the situation to drift. This also enabled the landlord to assess whether its intervention was required and to understand the reason for delays.
31. Good communication from a landlord is imperative to provide reassurance that an issue is being taken seriously and treated with the appropriate priority. The landlord’s records show that it communicated with the resident and promptly raised concerns with the developer. The resident has said that the landlord did not communicate with her weekly as set out in its initial complaint response. While the landlord’s records show it responding to the resident’s queries, its communication was rarely proactive. Commitments made in complaint responses should be kept to build trust between the resident and the landlord. The landlord’s communications were insufficient.
32. The schedule of garden works was shared with the landlord and the resident and consisted of the removal of top soil and tarmac, installing land drainage and the replacement of the top soil. The re–turfing of the rear garden was to take place later. The schedule of work allowed the resident to understand the scale of the works required to the garden. An appointment was arranged for 10 July 2023 for the garden works to start. The garden works could not be progressed on that date as the subcontractor appeared unaware of the works to be undertaken. It was appropriate that the landlord contacted the developer to inform them of the resident’s report and to arrange for the appropriate action to be taken. This minimised further delays to the resident.
33. The garden works started a few days later and were completed on 20 July 2023. When the developer’s subcontractor installed the land drain, a section of the resident’s garden was cordoned off. The garden was turfed on 9 August 2023. The resident was unable to use the whole of her garden for around 20 working days while the garden works were taking place. The landlord repair policy does not give a timescale for non-emergency repairs. However, the industry standard for a non-emergency repair is around 20 working days. It is appreciated that part of the delay experienced by the resident was caused by the developer obtaining technical advice regarding the installation of the land drain. This was outside the landlord’s control. While the resident experienced frustration due to the delay in the completion of the garden works, these were completed in a reasonable timeframe once the schedule of works was created.
34. In summary, the developer was responsible for remedying the defect to the garden. It is noted that the repair affected a section of the resident’s garden which was cordoned off. While it was correct that the landlord gave the developer time to put things right, the resident experienced a delay in getting in the work being completed. The landlord did not proactively keep the resident updated and informed. Given the above, a finding of service failure has been made.

Request for replacement flooring to the property

35. The resident informed the landlord on 25 July 2023 that her flooring was affected by the damage to her garden. In response, the landlord said in its escalated complaint acknowledgment that the resident had not raised this when she made her complaint. If she had done so, it would have passed her concerns to the developer for them to find a resolution. This was reasonable as the developer was responsible for rectifying the defect to the garden and would also be liable for damage that occurred as a consequence of the defect.
36. The landlord subsequently informed the resident that she could either make an insurance claim to its insurers or to the developer’s. The landlord provided the resident with its insurer’s contact details. This was reasonable as insurers are the appropriate body to make an assessment of liability for any alleged negligence by the landlord or developer.
37. The resident tried to obtain the details of the developer’s insurance to make a claim. The developer refused to provide the details of their insurers, advising that the damage to the resident’s carpet had not been reported as a defect and did not appear on the defects list. The resident made an insurance claim on 19 September 2023 against the landlord’s insurance and the landlord has said that the claim is being progressed.
38. The assessment of damaged items is the duty of insurers to determine. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine the validity of the resident’s insurance claim as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident as to the correct process and refer her to make a public liability claim.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling

39. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will investigate complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
40. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 May 2023. The complaint investigator experienced delays obtaining information from the developer and in June 2023, escalated those concerns to her manager. It was appropriate to identify the barriers to the landlord’s complaint investigation and to escalate those concerns as the lack of information would affect the quality of the complaint response.
41. Nevertheless, the landlord did not provide its complaint response until 20 July 2023. It therefore took 58 working days to respond which represents an unacceptable delay for the resident to obtain the landlord’s position on the complaint. Redress of £20 love to shop vouchers was awarded for the complaint delay. This compensation award was insufficient recognition for a delay of almost 2 months.
42. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that “as a charitable organisation, it rarely offers compensation”. This is out of step with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and Remedies Guidance. An order has not been made for the landlord to review this element of its complaint procedure as the procedure was due for review in July 2024. Further, a new statutory Complaint Handling Code was introduced in April 2024 and the landlord’s compliance with the Code will be monitored as part of this.
43. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 July 2023. Through the escalation request, she raised a new issue of damage to the flooring.
44. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 July 2023. The acknowledgement provided the landlord’s understanding of the resident’s concerns and the action taken it had taken so far. This was reasonable as this allowed the resident to clarify any issues that the landlord has misunderstood.
45. However, this Service had to contact the landlord on 6 October 2023, requesting that it provide its final complaint response. This was a failing as the landlord was required to provide its final response within 20 working days of the resident escalating her complaint – which should have been in mid–August 2023. The landlord should have ensured a timely resolution to the complaint to minimise any distress and uncertainty to the resident.
46. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 October 2023 – 63 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. This was not reasonable as its response exceeded its complaint policy timescales and represented an unacceptable delay to the resident. It is noted that the landlord experienced difficulty receiving the communication from this Service which may have impacted its ability to respond to the resident’s complaint.
47. In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that the £20 love to shop vouchers were offered in recognition of its complaint handling failures. The landlord did not take the opportunity to review whether the amount offered was appropriate for the further delays experienced by the resident through the complaints process. This was not reasonable as it did not recognise the impact of the delayed complaints responses.
48. In summary, the landlord did not meet its complaint handling targets outlined in its published complaint procedure at both stages of the complaint process. Effective complaint handling processes are fundamental to maintaining resident’s trust and satisfaction. It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to put things right by escalating the lack of progress with the repairs to respective management teams for itself and the developer. However, the landlord’s compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs required to the gable end.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about groundworks required to the garden.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a request for replacement flooring to the property.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

53. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should:

a.     Send the resident a written apology for the failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident £350 compensation (this includes the £20 love to shop vouchers it awarded during the complaint process). This is broken down as:

1. £100 for the for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of the concerns about repairs required to the gable end;
2. £100 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her concerns about groundworks required to the garden;
3. £150 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by its complaint handling failures.

54. The landlord is to reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders in line with the required timescale.