Sovereign Network Homes (202333482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333482

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

29 May 2025

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 a repair to the resident’s balcony door.

Background

2. The resident holds a fixed term tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block.
3. On 29 May 2023 the resident reported that his balcony door was unsafe. The landlord attended the same day and recorded that the door required replacing. It told the resident to keep the balcony door closed. The resident raised a complaint on 1 September 2023 as he was unhappy with the time taken to replace the door and lack of communication.
4. The landlord responded on 13 September 2023 at stage 1 of its complaint procedure. It upheld the complaint and said:
   1. the original contractor (contractor A), had been replaced by contractor B due to the time taken
   2. contractor B would arrange an appointment with the resident to assess the door and carry out the relevant repair or replacement
   3. due to the delay and distress and inconvenience caused, it would offer a payment of £345 in compensation.
5. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 September 2023 and on 24 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
   1. contractor B had been unsuccessful in sourcing a replacement door – so it passed the job to a different contractor (contractor C)
   2. contractor C said it could not replace the door on a like for like basis, but it could not agree to this
   3. it had passed the job back to contractor A as this contractor was now confident it could replace the door and complete the works needed
   4. it would increase the compensation offered at stage 1 of its process to £483 – this was to account for the additional 6-week delay
   5. once the work was completed it would review its offer of compensation
6. Contractor A replaced the resident’s balcony door and completed the necessary work on 13 March 2024.
7. The resident referred his complaint to us in December 2023. At the time he wanted the balcony door issue to be resolved. As the balcony door was replaced in March 2024, he has said that he would like a higher amount of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

8. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the balcony door repair. However, we are aware that the resident also has a complaint about a delay in repairing his windows. This was referred to us on 5 February 2025 and will be investigated under case number, 202450959.

Balcony door repair

9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that an emergency repair is a situation where there is a risk to someone’s health and safety, or a home is not secure. In these circumstances it will attend a property within 4 hours and make a property safe.
10. The resident first reported that his balcony door had come off its hinge and was not secure on 29 May 2023. The landlord attended the same day within 4 hours of the report and recorded that the balcony door was broken, and a replacement would be needed.
11. While the landlord attended in line with its emergency repair policy it did not make the door safe until 31 May 2023. A note from Contractor A on this date says that the door was shut and secured, and advice had been given to the resident not to open the door. The note said that “this door should have never been left like this”. The time taken to make the door safe did not align with its emergency repair policy and caused the resident some distress.
12. The landlord’s repair policy says that it would aim to complete routine repairs within 1 month. Depending on the nature of the repair it may take more than 1 month if specialist parts are required. If this does occur, it would let the resident know how long a repair is likely to take. For complex repairs, the landlord would aim to complete these within 90 days.
13. Once it was decided that the balcony door required replacement Contractor A took measurements for a new door on 1 June 2023. However, these measurements were misplaced and a new appointment had to be arranged. Contractor A attended on 14 June 2023 but sent an incorrect operative. A further appointment was arranged for 30 June 2023 where new measurements of the door were taken.
14. This highlighted a lack of effective record and case management which caused distress to the resident. Additionally, the landlord has been unable to show that that it updated the resident during this period or provided a timescale for how long the repair was likely to take. This went against its repair policy for routine repairs and increased the distress the resident felt.
15. Between 30 June and 23 August 2023, no progress was made on the door replacement. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 3 August 2023 because they had not heard anything about a new appointment. The landlord then asked the contractor to contact the resident. This shows poor case management by the landlord, who put the onus on the resident to seek updates instead of communicating proactively. The landlord also failed to inform the resident about the expected repair time, not following its own policy.
16. Contractor A attended the resident’s property on 23 August 2023. However, rather than progressing the case any further the contractor took measurements of the door again. This meant 3 months after the resident reported the issue, the landlord was no further forward in replacing the door. Contractor A had visited the property 3 times to take the same measurements. This shows that the landlord was not managing the case well, and that the record keeping during this period was poor. The time taken was already beyond its policy timescale for routine repairs and nearly exceeded the period for complex repairs. This unreasonable delay caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the length of time taken to replace the door was not acceptable. It said that it had passed the job to a different contractor who would arrange an appointment to assess the door once the resident was available. The landlord explained that as this was a new contractor that Contractor B would need to assess the door before the work could be completed. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused it offered the resident compensation of £345.
18. Choosing a different contractor to fix the resident’s issue was a reasonable decision. However, the landlord did not give the resident new timescales for the replacement. It also should have explained that Contractor B would need to take its own measurements. These were missed opportunities to be open and transparent with the resident to manage his expectations. Since poor communication was a concern for the resident, the landlord could have considered setting up a communication plan. Such as a specific point of contact for the resident or an agreed timeframe for regular updates. The continued failure to follow its repairs policy caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
19. Contractor B arranged an appointment to assess the door with the resident for 29 September 2023. Contractor B confirmed that the door needed replacement, took measurements, and said they would provide a quote to the landlord. On 6 October 2023, Contractor B said that it could not source a replacement and would need to return the job to the landlord. Despite receiving this information, the landlord did not update the resident. This ongoing failure in proactive and effective communication caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
20. A new appointment with Contractor C was arranged for 16 October 2023 and the landlord was told that they could not source a like-for-like replacement door. The landlord advised that it could not accept this and would use a different contractor who could find a suitable door. As part of its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that Contractor A was now saying they could complete the work. Therefore, it would pass the job back to Contractor A.
21. The landlord’s actions partly followed its repair policy to provide a “value for money” service. It considered Contractor C’s offer to replace the door but found the quotes too expensive. Although it declined Contractor C’s offer, the landlord did not communicate this well to the resident. It did not provide an estimated timeline for the door replacement. Despite the challenges in giving a timeline, this situation shows the need for regular and clear communication. The landlord’s failure to keep the resident informed added to their distress.
22. Contractor A sent a surveyor to view the resident’s door on 14 November 2023. On 11 December 2023 an estimate of costs was sent by Contractor A to the landlord for approval. This approval did not take place until mid-January 2024. During this period the resident chased the landlord at least 3 times for an update as he had not heard anything about the replacement door. This further highlighted the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively even after the resident had raised a formal complaint about the issue.
23. After the landlord approved the replacement door, the job was not completed until 13 March 2024. Between January and March 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated with timescales. Instead, it was left to the resident to chase this which caused further distress and inconvenience.
24. Part of the landlord’s repairs policy says that it will “deliver an efficient, effective and value for money responsive repairs service that meets the needs of residents.” It also says that it will “provide a prompt and cost-effective responsible repairs service that residents value and are satisfied with”.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord did not meet these repairs policy aims. While it did consider if replacements were cost effective, its service was not efficient, prompt, or effective. It took 290 calendar days to replace the resident’s balcony door. This was far outside even the 90-day calendar day timescale for complex repairs.
26. We understand that not all this delay was due to the landlord’s actions. However, this makes effective communication even more important than for a less complex repair. The evidence shows that throughout the 290 days, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident or manage his expectations. This failure significantly increased the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Taking all circumstances into account, the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.
27. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it offered the resident compensation of £483 for the distress, inconvenience, and delay. It said that after the balcony door had been replaced it would review the compensation to account for any further impact. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to show that this was done. This failure to review the compensation offered to the resident was a missed opportunity to resolve the case and contributed to the finding of maladministration.
28. The landlord’s own compensation policy says that where there are issues that have caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve a payment of £23 per week can be made broken down as:
    1. £10 for delay
    2. £10 for distress
    3. £3 for time and trouble
29. It took 290 calendar days (or 42 weeks rounded up) for the balcony door to be replaced. Normally a complex repair in the landlord’s policy will be completed in 90 days. Therefore, the time taken to replace the door was 200 days (29 weeks rounded up) over the policy timeframe. Using the landlord’s own compensation figure this would amount to a total compensation figure of £667. Broken down as:
    1. £290 for the delay
    2. £290 for the distress
    3. £87 for the time and trouble.
30. We have also considered that the resident suffered from a loss of enjoyment in his home as he was unable to use his balcony for a long period of time. This heightened the detrimental impact on the resident. Therefore, a figure of £800 (inclusive of the £483 already offered) is a fair figure to recognise the overall impact on the resident. This is broken down as:
    1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience
    2. £300 for the delay
    3. £100 for the time and trouble
31. While the landlord’s compensation policy has been used above to calculate compensation, it is important to highlight that the amount of £800 is in line with our remedies guidance which states that £600 to £1,000 is reasonable for findings of maladministration where there was a failure in service which had a significant impact on the resident. Under the circumstances, we consider the amount awarded to be appropriate.
32. Please note, we are entitled to make our own determination on the level of compensation based on our assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, we focus on what we deem to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s balcony door.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write an apology to the resident for the failures found in this report.
    2. Pay compensation totalling £800 to the resident (inclusive of the £483 already offered), broken down as:
       1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience
       2. £300 for the delay
       3. £100 for the time and trouble