Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Homes (202421228)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421228

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

25 April 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 the resident’s reports of a faulty balcony door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat in a block built in 2015. The landlord is the freeholder of the block. The property is on the 7th floor and has a door which leads to a balcony. The Land Registry says the property was sold by the original leaseholder in October 2020. The resident bought the property in December 2022.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2022 and said the balcony door would not close correctly. He said the door was still under warranty and asked how it would be repaired.
  3. The landlord asked for further information on 9 January 2023, which the resident provided the same day. He sent an email on 22 January 2023 after not hearing anything further and said:
    1. He had reported the door was draughty and allowed rainwater into the property on 9 January 2023.
    2. He had arranged a repair company to attend. But they could not repair the door as it was too small for the frame. 
  4. The resident called the landlord on 24 January 2023 and sent an email 3 days later. He said the landlord replaced his neighbour’s balcony door after they reported the same issue. However, it was unclear exactly when this was. He also provided an email sent from the repair company that attended which said:
    1. The door had been manufactured to the wrong size.
    2. It was impossible for the door to fit correctly or prevent draughts or rain from entering.
    3. The resident should ask the landlord to replace the door. 
  5. On 2 February 2023 the landlord emailed its defects team asking it to attend to inspect the door. The resident chased on 11 March and 19 April 2023 after no contact. The landlord chased its defects team on 19 April 2023 and told the resident they would contact him.
  6. After not receiving a response, the resident raised a formal complaint on 5 June 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 June 2023 and said:
    1. The door was signed off as working correctly when the building was handed over from the developer in 2015.
    2. The resident bought the property in December 2022. And there was no record of what maintenance or repairs were carried out to the door by the previous leaseholders.
    3. The resident is responsible for balcony door repairs.
    4. It apologised for the slow progress investigating the issue.
    5. It had not ruled out the possibility a latent defect may exist.
    6. It arranged an inspection of the door.
    7. It awarded £160 compensation for inconvenience, delays, and distress caused.
  7. The landlord inspected the door on 29 June 2023 and agreed there were gaps around the door when it was closed. It emailed the resident on 3 July 2023 and said repairs had been carried out in November 2021. It therefore said it could not approach the developer to inspect or replace the door as the warranty was invalidated. The resident replied the same day and asked why repairs were permitted if the repairs invalidated the warranty.
  8. The resident chased 3 times between 7 August 2023 and 4 September 2023 for a response. This included chasing the compensation offered in the stage 1 response. The landlord replied on 4 September 2023 and said:
    1. The balcony door warranty lasted 3 years.
    2. The door had been adjusted by a contractor approximately 6 years after it took handover of the building.
    3. The resident was responsible for balcony door repairs.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2023 and said he had arranged for 2 further repair companies to visit. He said:
    1. The first company would not proceed as the door was the incorrect size for the frame.
    2. The second company adjusted the door but could only reduce the draught to a certain extent. And could not make the door fully weatherproof.
    3. He discovered the previous resident used a plastic sheet fixed to the door frame with Velcro to reduce winter draughts.
    4. He would like the landlord to carry out another inspection.
  10. The resident chased 3 further times between 30 November 2023 and 8 January 2024 before raising another formal complaint. The landlord sent another stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2024. It said:
    1. The door was the resident’s responsibility unless a latent defect could clearly be identified.
    2. It did not agree it was responsible to replace the door.
    3. The door issue was not raised during the defect liability period.
    4. Doors require regular maintenance including easing and adjusting due to wear and tear.
    5. It recommended he contact the manufacturer to inspect the door and frame and provide a report. If the report supported his claim of a latent defect, it would help to hold the developer responsible including reimbursement of any costs.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 March 2024, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the communication delays.
    2. It said the resident should have had the windows and doors checked as part of a survey when he bought the property.
    3. There was no evidence the resident had maintained the door.
    4. If the resident commissioned his own investigation and a latent defect was identified, it would:
      1. Reimburse any costs, which was standard practice.
      2. Take full ownership of repairing or possibly replacing the door.

Assessment and findings

  1. While we have considered the lease terms as part of our assessment of the resident’s complaint, it is not within our remit to make a legally binding decision on the interpretation of the lease.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty balcony door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says leaseholders are responsible for all repairs, maintenance, and replacements inside their home. This includes joinery, for example doors, door frames, and door hinges.
  2. The landlord provided a copy of the original lease agreement from 2015. It was unclear whether any details have changed in the subsequent sales of the property. However, the original lease said:
    1. The leaseholder is responsible to repair and keep the premises in good repair. The premises includes the glass of the windows (but not the frames), the doors, and door frames.
    2. The resident has a right to use to balcony (referred to as the terrace in the title plan included in the lease), however it is not part of the premises. The title plan shows the premises boundary lines.
  3. The landlord was initially slow to respond to the resident’s first email. The resident replied the same day to its request for further details about the door on 9 January 2023. But there was no evidence the landlord took any further action, which was a failing.
  4. After no contact, the resident chased 13 days later and sent evidence from a suitably experienced door repair company that there were issues with the door. Internal emails showed the landlord contacted the developer, which was a reasonable approach to take. The developer said they required an illustrated report to demonstrate it was a “genuine latent defect.” On 2 February 2023 the landlord then requested its latent defects team inspect the door, which was a positive step.
  5. However, there was no evidence the landlord followed this up or chased its defects team until 19 April 2023, 2 and a half months later. This was only prompted after the resident chased. Again, there was no evidence the defects team took any action. This led the resident to raise a formal complaint and was a further failing.
  6. The landlord initially used its complaints process to put things right for the resident, which was positive. It emailed shortly after the inspection and relied on the expired warranty as the reason it would not pursue the door issue. Despite the expired warranty, it could have considered contacting the developer to consider further investigation as to whether there was a latent defect. However, there was no evidence it did so which was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord confused matters in its email sent September 2023 as it said the door warranty lasted 3 years. This meant the warranty expired in December 2018. However, it then went on to say its contractor had attended and carried out repairs in 2021 after the warranty expired. The evidence showed it then took the landlord 2 months to reply to the resident’s further concerns raised after the inspection. He incurred further inconvenience chasing for a reply at least 3 times. When the landlord replied, it said the repair carried out by its contractors was “only maintenance.” But then said “your balcony door needs maintenance which is not something we can assist with.” This was confusing and suggests there were previous issues as to who was responsible for the balcony door repairs.
  8. It was not clear exactly when the resident contacted the landlord again. But on 13 November 2023 he emailed the landlord and said he had “arranged for 2 further maintenance companies to visit at the landlord’s suggestion.” The landlord asked for reports from the companies confirming what the latent defect was and any proposed work required to resolve the issue. This was positive and suggests it was still open to the possibility there may be a latent defect. While there was no evidence this was provided to the landlord, the resident asked it to complete another inspection on 30 November 2023. He chased 3 times for a response before raising a second formal complaint after receiving no response.
  9. Having read through the lease agreement provided, the terms do not specify whether the balcony door specifically is included as part of the resident’s property. The boundary lines in the title plan are also unclear as to whether the balcony door is part of the resident’s property. There was no evidence the landlord has looked at the lease/title plan or considered the possibility it may be responsible for the door. This is despite the fact:
    1. It had previously attended and completed repairs.
    2. It had previously replaced a neighbour’s balcony door according to the resident.
    3. The lease says it is responsible for the window frames which form the boundary to the balcony along with the door.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns has been poor.
    1. Its overall communication has been poor with the resident chasing multiple times for responses on several occasions.
    2. It failed to consider the opinion of an expert door repair company in January 2023.
    3. It took 6 months for the landlord to attend to inspect the door which was an unreasonable delay.
    4. It also failed to consider attending again after the resident arranged for 2 further companies to attend.
    5. There was no evidence it considered referring the door to the developer as a possible latent defect in January 2023, June 2023, November 2023, or February 2024.
  11. The complaint responses place the issue solely for the resident to prove that there is a possible latent defect, when the balcony door may not even be his responsibility. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders have been made to put things right. This includes a further £250 compensation for the significant overall delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s initial handling of the first complaint was positive. It used its complaints process to put things right. However, whilst the inspection was carried out as arranged, the resident incurred further inconvenience chasing the compensation payment. The landlord said it would send a form to the resident to provide his bank details on 22 June 2023. There was no evidence it did so. The resident had to chase for updates on 3 occasions between 29 June 2023 and 4 September 2023. The landlord eventually said the compensation was being processed on 11 September 2023. This was nearly 3 months after the compensation offer and was an unacceptable delay. There was therefore service failure, and a further £50 compensation is ordered to reflect the delays receiving the payment, and inconvenience chasing it up.
  2. The second complaint was a further opportunity for the landlord to address the issue for the resident. However, the stage 1 response in February 2024 reiterated its position the resident was responsible for the door unless a latent defect was identified. It did not offer an explanation why it had previously completed repairs for the previous resident. The complaint responses put the responsibility on the resident to prove there was a latent defect. It could have used the complaint as an opportunity to arrange a second inspection or contact the developer. However, it failed to do so. The responses also failed to consider any further compensation for months of poor communication from July 2023 to March 2024. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and a further £200 compensation is ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty balcony door.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Review the lease and write to the resident to explain its position in relation to the balcony door referencing the terms of the lease agreement.
    2. Obtain legal advice to assess the lease agreement and title plan to confirm who is responsible for the balcony door.
    3. Pay the resident £500 compensation made up of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of the faulty balcony door.
      2. £50 for the delays and inconvenience in relation to the compensation offered in the first complaint response.
      3. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the second formal complaint.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is to:

  1. Write to the resident with the legal advice outcome. This should also be provided to us. If the landlord is responsible for the balcony door, it should arrange for a suitably qualified person and the developer to inspect the door and assess whether there is a latent defect. If a latent defect is identified, it should confirm to the resident the action it will take. If it is decided there is no latent defect, the landlord should arrange to repair or replace the balcony door.