Sovereign Network Homes (202318926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318926

Sovereign Network Homes

1 August 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of problems with the property including with the cavity wall insulation, the levels of formaldehyde in the air, and damp and mould.
2. Request for a move.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that started in 2015. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In late 2021 the landlord commissioned an occupational hygiene contractor to carry out an indoor air quality assessment of the property. This identified no major concerns within the property in relation to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide; bacteria, yeast and fungi both airborne and on internal walls and in the loft space; as well as the property’s temperature and humidity. The contractor made no recommendations noting there were no areas for improvement.
On 8 December 2021 the landlord told the resident that it had found no damp in the property following several damp inspections. It said it had also completed air testing in October 2021; a cavity wall inspection in April 2021; and an inspection of the facias and loft in November 2021. It said these inspections had not identified any issues. The landlord said, as it could not link the property to the resident’s allergies, she did not meet the criteria for an internal transfer for medical reasons.
In early February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord saying she could not live in the property any longer. She cited problems with the cavity wall insulation as well as damp and mould and gave details of her allergy issues.
In July 2022 the Ombudsman issued a report about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an allergen in the property. We did not find maladministration. We recommended that the landlord, if it had not done so already, check the property for the presence of damp and mould; check its air quality; and the cavity wall insulation. We said that, if any issues were identified, then landlord should produce a plan of action to resolve them.
Also in July 2022, the landlord’s damp contractor carried out a damp survey. They found no mould or excessive condensation-related issues throughout the property. Although it did find there were inadequacies relating to the ventilation systems and some poor ventilation practices. They recommended the installation of continuous operation humidity-controlled extraction fans within each of the wet rooms, as well as ensuring that the loft space was adequately and evenly insulated.
In August 2022 the landlord noted it had received a disrepair claim from the resident. No further details were given to this Service. We note this claim was withdrawn about a year later.
In November 2022 the landlord carried out a survey of the cavity wall insulation. It noted it had opened up a section of the internal gable end wall which clearly showed the cavity wall insulation and noted the blockwork was “bone dry and double insulated”.
At the end of 2022 and the start of 2023, the resident reported that the property was cold, and a radiator was not working. The landlord repaired the radiator on 6 January 2023. She said that both her and her son were dramatically affected by the property which she believed was becoming more structurally unsound with each passing day. She said the cause of her poor health was environmental, but the landlord had ignored that.
In May 2023 the resident commissioned a report on the level of formaldehyde in the property. This noted that there were no requirements set for formaldehyde concentration limits in homes; however, many government authorities suggested this should not exceed 50-60 mg/m³ for longer term exposures. The report found the level of formaldehyde to be 38 mg/m³ which was below this limit. The report also noted that most homes measured by this air test had concentrations in the range of 30 to 70 mg/m³. It is not clear if this report was shared with the landlord.
The resident subsequently told the landlord that damp in the property was causing numerous health issues. She said the walls were now disformed through damp. The resident said a recent report had confirmed formaldehyde was in the air of the living room. She said the problems had started after the landlord had installed cavity wall insulation. (It is not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord when this had been installed.)
In early July 2023 the landlord carried out a damp survey and noted no damp or mould was visible. In a letter around that time from her GP, they noted that it was “extremely challenging” to directly attribute the resident’s symptoms to formaldehyde. Also in July 2023, the landlord fitted vents to the eaves.
On 26 July 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she wanted the cavity wall insulation removed because it had failed and there was damp. She said she believed it contained formaldehyde which was in the air. She said she and her son were experiencing coughing, sneezing, and were struggling to breathe. She wanted the landlord to remove the cavity wall insulation or give her a management move.
In its stage one complaint response of 24 August 2023 the landlord explained that it had visited the property on a number of occasions to investigate the damp and issues reported and had been unable to find any traces of damp. It said it understood the council’s environmental team was not taking any action and it had been satisfied with the works it had completed (such as replacing the insulation and venting the eaves). The landlord asked the resident to send it photos of the damp so it could investigate.
In relation to the management move, the landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s case against its transfer banding criteria, and it did not meet the band one priority for an urgent move. It added it had suggested a mutual exchange to her; however, due to the rent arrears, this was not an option at that time. The landlord added it had also suggested that she apply for a discretionary housing payment to be put towards the arrears. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 1 September 2023. She said the house was still damp with formaldehyde in the air.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that it had visited the property over 70 times since the start of the resident’s tenancy in 2018 of which 11 visits had related to damp and mould, with no evidence of it being found. It said it had instructed an indoor air quality assessment in 2021 and the contractor had confirmed there were no areas of concern in relation to the air quality in the property. It added the council had confirmed the previous month that there were no property condition issues it was concerned about.
The landlord said it had offered to assist the resident with an application for a discretionary housing payment which would help clear some arrears, but it understood this application had not yet been completed as the resident had been unable to provide bank statements to support it. It added that her case had been considered by an assessment panel, but they had decided that she did not meet the criteria for a move as the property did not have damp and mould. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 23 February 2024 the landlord inspected the property. This inspection found no evidence of damp or mould in the property. It noted that all humidity levels were very low which indicated no structural issues with damp, condensation, or water ingress. The surveyor noted that it was unlikely mould would occur as the internal structure was above the ‘dewpoint’ needed for condensation to form.
The landlord subsequently spoke to the resident about the findings of this inspection. It noted that it was fast-tracking a mutual exchange for the resident and would support her with a move.
On 16 May 2024 the resident moved to a new property. The landlord agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, it would credit her rent account with £400 which it noted she was satisfied with.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

A previous report by this Service (which was issued in July 2022) looked at matters up to 15 April 2021. We have therefore investigated matters from 15 April 2021 until the landlord’s final complaint response of October 2023.
The resident mentions that both her health and that of her son had been affected by living in the property and they both had had significant allergic reactions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the property including with the cavity wall insulation, the levels of formaldehyde in the air, and damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it offers a 24-hour a day repairs policy. It explains that a responsive repair is work that is generated from contact with a resident, or other interested party, identifying an issue that it has an obligation to repair within the property. The policy says that the landlord will offer customers the first available appointment it has or an appointment ‘slot’ to suit them.
The landlord carried out the recommendations we made in our previous report by taking the following action. It commissioned an independent survey in July 2022 which did not identify any issues relating to damp and mould. We note the landlord also carried out another damp inspection in July 2023 which did not identify damp or mould.
The landlord had tested the air quality in the property in late 2021, prior to our recommendation. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to try to rule out the concerns that the resident had in relation to what was causing her allergies within the property. This survey identified no problems with the air quality within the property. In November 2022 the landlord checked the cavity wall insulation and identified that it was intact with no issues.
We note that previous inspections of the property had taken place for damp and mould (in March and October 2021) and for the cavity wall insulation (in April 2021). The landlord’s decision to re-inspect for these issues following our report demonstrated its commitment to trying to resolve these matters for the resident.
The damp report of July 2022 identified inadequacies relating to the ventilation systems and some poor ventilation practices. They recommended the installation of continuous operation humidity-controlled extraction fans within each of the wet rooms, as well as ensuring that the loft space was adequately and evenly insulated. In response, the landlord took reasonable action to resolve these issues by servicing the existing extractor fans and installing new loft insulation. We note it also installed vents to the eaves in July 2023 which was a further step to ensure adequate ventilation of the loft.
The resident raised concerns about the levels of formaldehyde in the air of the property in her complaint. The landlord responded reasonably by referring her back to the air quality report of 2021. It was not clear if the landlord saw the report that the resident had commissioned which evidenced that the formaldehyde levels in the property were not at a level that concerned the contractor.
We do not doubt the allergic symptoms that the resident and her son have experienced and which she reported to the landlord. Having examined the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord took appropriate and proportionate action in response to the concerns that she raised. There was no failing by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of problems with the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move

At the time of the events complained about, the landlord had a voids, allocations and lettings policy. This explained that management transfers would only be in exceptional cases where the need for a transfer was both acute and urgent.
For internal transfers, the landlord undertook an assessment of each applicant’s housing needs and it prioritised them using its banding system. It explained there were 3 categories: band A which was the highest category of need for those at risk of significant and imminent harm; band B which included cases of severe overcrowding; and band C which included inappropriate accommodation and those needing to move on welfare/social grounds.
This policy also explained that the landlord should also provide advice, including signposting to external websites and advising residents on how to access various alternative housing options including the mutual exchange scheme. It explains that transfer applicants must not have any rent arrears. The policy said that applicants had the right to ask for a review of certain decisions including the banding decision.
Given that the resident’s allergies could not be linked to the property, the landlord’s decisions (in December 2021 and on review in 2023) that she did not meet the criteria for an internal transfer on medical reasons was appropriate. This is because there was no evidence that the medical condition the resident was experiencing was caused or exacerbated by her housing circumstances.
While the landlord acted appropriately by suggesting a mutual exchange to the resident in 2024, there is no evidence that it did so when a transfer was first refused in December 2021 in line with its policy. This was a service failure. However, it is not possible to say with any certainty whether a mutual exchange would have been achieved more quickly given that the resident had rent arrears at that time. Given that, an apology would be appropriate redress for this failing.
The landlord gave the resident support in suggesting she apply for a discretionary housing payment to help with those arrears. It is not clear if the resident applied for such a payment. However, the resident completed a mutual exchange in May 2024 with the support of the landlord and, as a gesture of goodwill, it also paid £400 towards the advance rent of the new property. There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to pay this sum, doing so demonstrated its willingness to achieve a resolution for the resident in this instance.

Associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The procedure says that, if more time is needed to respond, the landlord will write to the resident it will let them know and give an explanation for that delay.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. At stage one the landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint on 11 August 2024. There were delays of 11 and 9 working days respectively at stage one and 2. The landlord did not acknowledge any delay at stage 2 in its complaint response which it should have done in line with its complaints procedure. Nor did it consider what impact those delays might have had on the resident or how it might have remedied that.
In her complaint escalation, the resident raised a new issue about a pigeon flying out of the roof. She raised this issue again when asked to clarify her reasons for escalation. As the resident had brought up this issue, she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to them. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised a further stage one in response to this matter. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to see if she would like it to consider these concerns. The Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s concerns about the pigeon until this matter has been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is evident that the delays in issuing the complaint responses, as well as not identifying a new concern the resident had raised, caused some frustration and inconvenience to the resident. It also meant that she had to chase the landlord for a response at stage 2 of the complaint process. While an apology at stage one was a proportionate and appropriate remedy, financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for the full impact of the complaint handling failings. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been delays in issuing complaint responses which had a moderate impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the property including with the cavity wall insulation, the levels of formaldehyde in the air, and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failure to suggest a mutual exchange to her earlier and also for its the complaint handling failings.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the impact of those complaint handling failings.
3. Write to the resident to find out if she would like it to investigate her complaint about the pigeon seen flying out of the roof. If the resident wants this to be investigated, the landlord should issue a response at stage one of its complaints process.