Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202230265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230265

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

19 December 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:
1. Handling of the major works at the property.
2. Calculation of the disruption payment offered to the resident in relation to his temporary move.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property and purchased a 50% share of the lease in August 2006. The property is a 2 bedroom top floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the block and owns the remaining share of the property.
The landlord first informed the resident that it would be investigating the external wall finishes at the block in October 2019. It confirmed in December 2019 that it had found an issue with the cavity barriers and it applied for funding from the Government to pay for the proposed work. The scaffold was erected in October 2021 and the work started to the lower floors. Upon commencement, the landlord identified further structural issues with the cavity barriers in the upper floors which meant the works would be delayed. In August 2022 the landlord told the resident that some of the work required would be very disruptive. It would therefore need to temporarily rehouse all residents on the upper floors of the block. It confirmed leaseholders would be compensated for this disruption at a rate of £325 for each 4-week period of rehousing. In November 2022 the landlord commenced external works to the upper floors.
The resident was unhappy with the length of time the works were taking and made a complaint to the landlord on 21 April 2023. In his complaint he noted that he had experienced noise and disruption from the works in the building for 18 months. He said the property had been without any thermal insulation since December 2022 and he felt he was entitled to more compensation than was being proposed for the temporary rehousing.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 May 2023. It acknowledged the thermal insulation had been compromised between December 2022 and February 2023 and as a result it had agreed to reimburse the resident for additional heating costs. It noted that it had offered to rehouse the resident for the remainder of the works in February 2023 but the resident had declined. It said that any proposed completion dates it had given for the works were not set in stone and that the delays had been caused by works that could not have been foreseen prior to starting the project. It confirmed it could not change the amount of compensation offered.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint on 15 May 2023. He was unhappy that the landlord still could not provide an end date for the works and noted that he remained without thermal insulation in his property. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 June 2023 and reiterated that it would not be increasing the compensation offered. It confirmed it had paid additional heating costs from December 2022 to date and the cavity barrier works were now complete. It also said that it had reimbursed the resident for some plants that the resident said had died due to the lack of sunlight caused by the weatherproofing wrap on the scaffolding.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated the matter to this Service in July 2023. He felt the landlord had not taken his complaint seriously and he wanted an increased offer of compensation.
It is noted that the landlord temporarily rehoused the resident in August 2023. The resident has informed us that he remains in the temporary accommodation as of the date of this report and that the process of returning to the property has recently commenced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident has said this situation has had a detrimental impact on his health, including a deterioration in his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has informed this Service that he has experienced further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the works since being moved out of the property temporarily. This included the length of time he has been out of the property, the landlord’s standard of workmanship in repairing his property after completing the major works, and the overall snagging process. This Service may only investigate complaints that the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints process. For this reason, events after the resident moved out of the property have not been assessed as part of this investigation. The resident has been advised that he can make a complaint to the landlord about any of these matters which could then be escalated to this Service if required.

The landlord’s handling of the major works at the property.

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for any repairs or improvements to the external cladding. In 2019 the landlord informed all the residents in the block that it would be undertaking investigations into the cladding and render finishes. It said this was to check if these had been installed correctly and to confirm they were compliant with Building Regulations. It noted this was as a result of the advice issued to landlords by the Government about building safety after the fire at Grenfell Tower. It erected scaffolding and completed the initial investigations in October 2019.
On 19 December 2019 the landlord informed the residents that an issue had been found with the cavity barriers on the external walls. It said it would update residents as soon as it had further information to share. The landlord issued regular letters to the residents throughout 2020 and 2021 and published these on its website. The evidence shows that the landlord issued either monthly or quarterly updates, depending on the level of work being carried out at the time. This approach ensured the residents were kept up to date with the progress of all aspects of the fire safety work. This was reasonable.
It is understandable that it took the landlord some time between identifying that work was required and commencing the work, for example because of the need to submit an application for Government funding. In his complaint, the resident said he was unhappy with how long the works were taking. This dissatisfaction was specifically about the intrusive works to the upper floors and the impact the scaffolding was having on his enjoyment of his property. As the complaint centred around the time taken from the installation of the scaffolding in October 2021, this investigation has assessed events from this point onwards.
It may be helpful to first outline the approximate timeline of events surrounding the complaint:
1. The scaffolding installation commenced in July 2021.
2. As the works involved removing the external cladding, the building’s weatherproofing was going to be compromised during the works. To prevent rain affecting the building, the landlord installed a protective wrap to the scaffold in October 2021.
3. In December 2021 the resident told the landlord that the protective wrap was limiting the light getting into his property and this was having an impact on him.
4. Work to the lower floors was due for completion by March 2022. It is unclear from the evidence exactly when this was completed.
5. The landlord commenced works to the upper floors in July 2022, however additional structural work was identified once the cladding panels were removed.
6. In August 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would need to temporarily rehouse the resident because some of the additional work identified would be intrusive. It confirmed it would compensate leaseholders for this.
7. The landlord commenced the external work to remove the cladding panels and insulation from outside the resident’s property in November 2022. The resident raised a concern that the property was now without any thermal insulation.
8. In December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report and said it would reimburse the resident for any additional heating costs incurred (when compared to the same period last year) as a result of the works.
9. In March 2023 the landlord gave formal notice of the requirement to temporarily rehouse the resident. It said this would happen after May 2023 and it expected to move the resident back after 2 months.
10. The resident was temporarily rehoused in August 2023 to complete the intrusive works to his property. The resident remains in the temporary accommodation as of the date of this report.
It was understandably frustrating for the resident that he was impacted by the scaffolding from October 2021 and yet no work commenced outside his property until July 2022. However, the evidence shows the landlord communicated well with the resident throughout this time period and the regular update letters continued throughout 2022. The landlord explained that it was required to complete this work under advice from the Government. It clarified it was able to do so under the terms of the lease, even if that meant causing some unavoidable disruption to the residents. It was clear from the start that all target completion dates were estimated and subject to change. The landlord was understanding of the resident’s situation and compensated the resident for the value of his house plants that he said had died as a result of the limited light reaching his property. The landlord acted reasonably in handling the initial delays in completing the work.
It is also understandable that it was disappointing for the resident that the additional work required to the upper floors was not identified until July 2022, rather than earlier in the process. However, these works could not have been foreseen as they related to the structure of the building within the upper floors. There was no way the landlord could have known about these works until the cladding was removed and it explained this to the resident.
The resident told the landlord on at least 4 occasions between November 2021 and April 2023 (when he made his formal complaint) that the lack of daylight in his property was having an impact on his mental health. He also noted that the presence of workers on the scaffolding meant he felt he had minimal privacy. In response to this, the landlord:
1. Explained that the works were a necessary disruption which, under the terms of the lease, it was able to cause.
2. Confirmed the contractors would only be doing noisy works after 9am and confirmed that the contractors on site had been happy to work with the resident to try and make the situation easier.
3. Provided links to mental health support services. The evidence shows the resident asked the landlord not to suggest this again.
4. Said it was exploring the possibility of offering a respite area in a vacant flat for residents who were struggling with the lack of daylight. However, there is no evidence of the landlord ever offering this to the resident.
5. Confirmed with its contractor that it was using the best available product to provide the protective wrap on the scaffolding and there was no alternative which would allow more light to the property. It shared this information with the resident.
6. Offered to rehouse the resident for the duration of the remaining works in February 2023.
The above steps were all a reasonable response to the resident’s comments about the impact on his mental health. The landlord was limited in what action it could take due to the unforeseen delays of the works which were out of its control. It communicated regularly with the resident about this and signposted the resident to mental health support services. This was reasonable.
In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that the contractor had removed the external cladding and thermal insulation from the outside of his property. He said this has not been replaced and had only been sealed with, what he described as, “tarp”. He provided photographs and reported his property was very cold because the tarp was providing no thermal benefit to the property. The landlord said the contractor should have been ensuring no properties were left without insulation overnight. However, there is no evidence of the landlord confirming this with the contractor prior to making this statement. The landlord’s internal emails later show that it discussed the resident’s photographs and the possibility that they showed areas of the building exposed back to only the internal plasterboard. It said if it did show this then that was not the agreed upon process. However there is no evidence of the landlord reaching a definitive conclusion.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the thermal insulation to the property had been compromised between December 2022 and February 2023. It said it had already agreed to reimburse the resident for any increase in energy usage incurred as a result of needing to heat the property with portable heaters. The landlord later confirmed it would continue to reimburse the resident for additional usage until the issue had been fully resolved. Where there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service considers if the redress offered by the landlord is in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord attempted to return the resident to the position he would have been in had the issue not occurred by covering any additional costs incurred as a result of the insulation issue. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take in making this offer.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord also noted that it had offered to rehouse the resident in February 2023 for the remainder of the works, but the resident had refused. This was at an earlier stage than would have been required and was offered solely as a goodwill gesture. The resident said he had refused because he had been offered a 1 bedroom flat and he needed a 2 bedroom flat. The evidence shows the landlord planned to move the resident to a 2 bedroom flat as soon as one came available. The resident informed this Service that he had not accepted this as there was no guarantee how long he would be in the 1 bedroom property for. By offering any alternative property, the landlord demonstrated it was taking the resident’s complaints seriously and making attempts to improve things. The landlord acted reasonably in offering an interim solution to alleviate the resident’s dissatisfaction with his living situation.
Although it was understandable that the resident was frustrated by the overall delays to the major works and the inconvenience this caused, the landlord communicated well with the resident about his concerns. The evidence shows the landlord explored options to improve the resident’s situation such as rehousing the resident early and offering links to mental health support. Where the landlord acknowledged the thermal insulation had been compromised, it had already offered proportionate redress to put things right for the resident. For this reason, this investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the major works at the property.

Calculation of the disruption payment offered to the resident in relation to his temporary move.

The landlord confirmed it would need to temporarily rehouse the resident in August 2022. This was because the work it needed to do to the upper floors would be impossible to do safely with residents living in the properties. It held an in-person meeting to discuss this, sent letters confirming the decision and offered to meet with residents individually. The landlord confirmed a disruption payment would be made to all leaseholders in recognition of the inconvenience of moving out of their homes. It also agreed to cover all costs associated with the move, including storage of belongings, removals and any additional mileage incurred.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not say what would be proportionate compensation in these circumstances. For this reason, this Service has assessed if the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident may have incurred as a result of the need to move out of his home.
The landlord explained to the resident that it had used the amount set by the Government for statutory home loss payment which, at the time, was £7800. It had considered this amount equivalent to covering a 24 month period where all disruption from moving home would be reasonably incurred. On this basis, it calculated that a monthly payment of £325 was a proportionate offer in recognition of the disruption that the resident would likely incur from moving out of his home temporarily. It is noted that the landlord initially expected the resident to be rehoused for a period of around 2 months and therefore its initial offer was for £650. It confirmed it would then offer £325 for any further 4 week period (or equivalent pro-rata amount) spent in the temporary accommodation.
The resident queried how the landlord had decided to use that method to calculate the amount. He was aware that statutory home loss payments for leaseholders were calculated as a percentage of the property value, not based on the £7,800 which was applicable for tenants. He felt the landlord should be offering more. The landlord explained it had taken legal advice on the best way to calculate the amount and this was not negotiable. It is understandable that the way this amount was calculated may have caused some confusion to the resident. However, the landlord explained it had only used this amount as a guide on which to base its payments. It was clear it was not actually making a statutory home loss payment which would only be applicable for permanent rehousing cases.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes it may make compensation awards of over £20 per week for situations which had a major impact on the resident’s lifestyle and/or enjoyment of their home. This Service’s remedies guidance also notes awards over £600 are proportionate for failures which had a significant impact on the resident, including emotional impact. On this basis, the amount offered was proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience the resident would likely have incurred.
In conclusion, although the landlord’s method for calculating the amount of compensation was potentially confusing, the resulting amount was proportionate in the circumstances. It is also positive that the landlord demonstrate it had used a formula to calculate the appropriate amount. The landlord was under no obligation to provide any compensation as it was providing a like for like property and had agreed to cover all moving costs. It was therefore positive that the landlord proactively made this offer in recognition of the distress and inconvenience it was likely going to cause. This investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the amount offered for the disruption of temporarily rehousing the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the major works at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s calculation of the disruption payment offered to the resident in relation to his temporary move.