Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202310482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310482

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

11 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Major works to the roof of the building.
2. Associated remedial repairs to the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat within a converted house. The other flat on the first floor of the building was unoccupied during the period considered by this investigation.
On 14 November 2021, the resident contracted the landlord to report blocked guttering at the front of the property. The landlord raised a job for a contractor to inspect and clear the gutters on 19 November 2021. Due to an IT issue on the landlord’s part, the contractor did not receive the job until 7 April 2022.
The contractor attended the property on 17 May 2022 and cleared the front guttering. It told the landlord that it had noticed damage to the roof of the building which needed repairing. It provided a quote for this which the landlord accepted on 26 July 2022.
The contractor erected scaffolding on the building and prepared to start works on 12 October 2022. On this date it discovered that there were further repair issues which had not previously been visible. It said these meant that the roof was currently unsafe to work on. It provided the landlord with a new quote to renew the roof.
On 16 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask how long the scaffolding would be in place. She said she was struggling to access her gas meter (located in the front garden) due to the scaffolding bars and was “constantly” banging her head on them. The landlord said it was reviewing the condition of the roof which may need renewal and could not yet confirm its next steps.
On 3 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to ask for an update on the scaffolding. She said there had been no works and no communication for months now. The landlord responded that it was still in the process of approving the quote to renew the roof.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 April 2023. It arranged for her to give access to a structural surveyor to inspect the building on 17 April 2023. It told her that the surveyor would take 4 to 6 weeks to create their report on the roof, after which works would commence for a period of approximately 4 weeks.
On 13 May 2023, the landlord had the scaffolding at the front of the property altered so that the resident could access the front garden and her gas meter more easily. On 29 May 2023, the resident sent the landlord pictures of a head injury she said had been caused by banging her head on the scaffolding bars. The landlord advised it had opened a case with its health and safety team.
The landlord’s contractor began works to renew the roof on 5 June 2023. On 25 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that debris from the roof was falling at the front and back of the property and she felt unsafe to leave her flat. She sent photographs of roofing tiles which the contractor had placed in front of her gas meter leaving her unable to access it.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2023. She said it had not effectively communicated with her about the scaffolding or roof works. She said the noise from the works was disturbing her and dust was coming into her flat. The resident said that the leaks from the roof had caused damage to the walls in her flat and the contractor had damaged items in her front garden during the works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 July 2023. It:
1. Acknowledged that there had been delays in the works to the roof and apologised for its lack of communication about these.
2. Apologised that she had hit her head on the scaffolding and said its health and safety team was investigating this.
3. Advised the resident to claim for any damaged items using her contents insurance. If she did not have contents insurance, it suggested she make a liability claim via its insurers.
4. Said that, once the roof works were completed, it would allow the building to dry out for up to 5 working days. After this it would arrange remedial works for damage to the communal area and her flat.
5. Offered her £300 compensation for the delays in carrying out the works and the inconvenience caused.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that its contractor had completed works to the roof. It said it could now arrange works to make good the damage caused to the resident’s flat. The contractor removed the scaffolding from the building on 25 September 2023.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 10 October 2023. She complained that the contractor had left a mess around the building after completion of the roof works. She said that the landlord had sent an operative to redecorate her property on 5 October 2023, but they had left without doing any work. She asked the landlord to assist her with moving and storing her belongings so that the property could be redecorated. She expressed her opinion that a dehumidifier was needed to dry out the property before any works to ‘make good’ the damage could be started.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2023. It acknowledged that it had still not completed remedial works to the resident’s flat but said it had now arranged these for 4 December 2023. It offered the resident a further £678 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Major works to roof

The resident has said that she hit her head several times on the scaffolding whilst trying to access her front garden and gas meter. One of these incidents resulted in a wound which required her to visit her GP. The Ombudsman is unable to make determinations on causation of and liability for injury. These are matters best pursued through the courts via a personal injury claim. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will not consider this element of the complaint. This investigation will, however, give due regard to any general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of health and safety risk assessment around the erection and presence of the scaffolding at the building. The Health and Safety Executive is the appropriate authority to investigate such concerns, which do not fall within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, this investigation will also exclude that element of the complaint.
The landlord’s repairs policy describes ‘planned repair works’ as larger repairs which take longer to arrange. It lists ‘roofs’ as an example of this. The policy says the landlord will provide residents with an estimated completion date for this type of repair and aims to complete them within 90 days.
After the resident reported issues with the guttering at the front of the property to the landlord, it raised a job for its contractor to inspect and rectify this on 19 November 2021. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that, due to an IT issue, the contractor did not receive this job until 7 April 2022. It is of concern that the landlord failed to follow up this job, or the “many other repairs” it said the error had also affected, over a period of several months. This demonstrates a lack of oversight and management of its contracted out repairs.
Once the landlord’s contractor had received the job, it asked the landlord for contact details of the resident to arrange access to the building. The landlord failed to provide these. This caused the contractor to attend unannounced on 2 occasions where it was unable to gain access. The contractor eventually attended on 17 May 2022, when the resident was at home, and cleared the front guttering.
Whilst clearing the guttering the contractor noted defects to the roof which needed attention. It provided the landlord with a quote to repair these on 2 June 2022. The landlord took until 26 July 22 to approve this quote. In its stage 1 response it explained that this delay was due to it needing to ensure the proposed works were cost effective and would resolve the issue. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it sought a second opinion or further quote for the works which would support this explanation.
After the landlord approved its quote, the contractor erected scaffolding to the front of the property and was due to begin works on 12 October 2022. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s 90 day target for planned repairs, with the repair contractor having identified the repair issue almost 5 months prior.
On 12 October 2022, the contractor identified significant further issues with the roof which meant it recommended a full replacement. It is apparent that the contractor was unable to see these issues until the scaffolding was in place. It could therefore not have reasonably identified them prior to this point. The contractor provided a quote for the replacement of the roof promptly on 17 October 2022.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it informed the resident of this development, even though the presence of the scaffolding would clearly have had a direct impact on her enjoyment of her home. This lack of communication is evident throughout the period of complaint and the Ombudsman makes a recommendation below in relation to this.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it was unable to agree the costs of the contractor’s original quote. It arranged for one of its surveyors to visit the building with the contactor, after which the contractor provided a revised quote on 1 November 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out its own inspection if it had concerns over the value of the original quote. This was in keeping with its principles of being cost effective as referenced above.
However, the landlord did not approve the contactor’s revised quote until 4 April 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord gave general information about how procurement processes and consultations could delay larger works. However, it has not presented any evidence that either of these circumstances applied in this case.
Internal emails between the landlord and the contractor evidence confusion within the landlord as to who was responsible for approving the quote and what stage this was at. These delays dragged on so long that the contractor began urging the landlord to let it take down the scaffolding, which had accumulated significant hire costs by this point, until it had decided on a way forwards.
It was whilst this quote was awaiting approval that the resident first contacted the landlord to express her concern. On 16 November 2022, she said the landlord had not communicated with her about what was going on with the scaffolding and when the works would start. She also told the landlord she was struggling to access her gas meter due to the scaffolding bars. She said she was having to stoop to do this, which was causing her back and knee pain, and that she was ‘constantly’ banging her head.
The landlord responded that it was currently reviewing the roof and extensive works or even renewal may be required. However, it failed to appropriately address her concerns about accessing her gas meter and difficulties navigating around the scaffolding. The landlord did eventually adapt the scaffolding to assist the resident, however it took until 13 May 2023 to do this meaning she was left to struggle with this issue for a further 6 months.
On the day it approved the contractor’s quote, the landlord contacted the resident. It provided an update on the works and said it expected to start planning them in 4 to 6 weeks and the contractor to be on site for 4 weeks. The contractor began work to the roof on 5 June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord confirmed the exact start date to the resident, or provided any details of arrangements whilst the works were ongoing.
Had it done so, the resident may not have needed to contact the landlord as she did on 25 June 2023. She complained about debris falling from the roof and said she felt unsure when it was safe to leave her home. She also expressed dissatisfaction at the noise of the works and that her belongings in the front garden had been damaged.
Had the landlord appropriately communicated and consulted with the resident about the start date of the works it could have ensure she cleared the front garden prior to this. This would have ensured there were no belongings obstructing the contractor, or at risk of being damaged by it. The landlord could have also put processes in place to reassure the resident it was safe to leave the property amidst the works or, if it was unable to do so, considered a temporary decant for the duration of the works. The landlord’s lack of satisfactory response to her concerns led to the resident making her complaint on 2 July 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to claim via her contents insurance for her damaged items. It said that alternatively she could make a claim through its insurers and signposted her how to do this. This was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which says that residents should explore an insurance claim for damages within their home before it considers an award of compensation. If she has not yet done so, the resident may wish to submit a claim to the landlord’s insurers as advised.
The contractor completed works to the roof on 11 August 2023. Although this was significantly longer than 4 weeks the landlord had advised the resident works would take, these delays were largely caused by weather conditions which were beyond the landlord and contractor’s control. The contractor returned on 23 August 2023 to clear materials from the site and removed the scaffolding on 25 September 2023. It is unclear why it took well over a month for the contractor to remove the scaffolding following completion of the works.
On 10 October 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. This was partly based on the fact that she said the contractor had left various materials around the outside of the property. The landlord appropriately followed this up with the contractor, which returned on 2 November 2023 and cleared the remaining materials.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £978 in recognition of the delays, distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she had been caused. This falls within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration or severe maladministration causing significant physical and/or emotional impact.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also referred to a further £378 it had previously awarded the resident. However, the landlord had awarded this as part of a separate complaints process and so it will not be considered for the purposes of this investigation.
The extensive delays in completing the roof works meant that the resident lived for almost 12 months with scaffolding erected on the property. This impacted her ability to enjoy her front garden and top up her gas meter. Some of these delays were beyond the landlord’s control and a result of it following necessary processes and encountering unforeseen issues. However, the landlord has not been able to reasonably account for other delays, in particular the approval of its contractor’s quotes.
In addition to this, the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident around the planning, progress and implementation of the works, or address her concerns around these. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation awarded offers reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings, which were broadly acknowledged in its complaint responses.

Remedial repairs to property

The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the resident first raised the matter of damage to the interior of her flat on 7 March 2023. In an email she told the landlord that there was water ingress and damp in the walls throughout her flat. Within this email she claimed she had been reporting these issues for “2-3 years”. This Service does not have the records to substantiate this claim, and the resident did not refer to it within her formal complaint. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of remedial repairs from 7 March 2023 onwards only.
In her complaint of 2 July 2023, the resident brought the internal damage to the landlord’s attention again. She said that leaks from the roof had been entering the fabric of the building for some time and caused damp throughout her flat.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that once its contractor had completed works to the roof it would allow up to 5 working days for the building to dry out before beginning internal remedial works. It also noted that a contractor recently attending the resident’s property to complete a mould wash had identified “a further defect with external fabrication of the building causing the mould to occur in your property”. The landlord said it would review the contractor’s recommendations to decide next steps.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the contractor identified this external defect on 14 July 2023. The contractor recommended that a surveyor attend to investigate further. The contractor returned and completed the mould wash on 6 September 2023, but the landlord has not provided any evidence that it followed up on its recommendation and took steps to investigate or address the defect.
After its contractor completed works to the roof, the landlord contacted the resident on 17 August 2023. It said it was now able to arrange works to make good the damage in her flat but needed to confirm that the water ingress had stopped. The landlord said that it could use a dehumidifier to help dry out the property so that remedial works could be started.
The landlord did not raise a works order for remedial repairs to the resident’s flat until 25 September 2023. It is unclear why there was such a delay when it had previously said it could commence works 5 working days after the roof works were completed. In an email of 2 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that its contractor would decide whether a dehumidifier was required to dry out the property before it commenced works.
On 5 October 2023, a contractor attended to assess the remedial works to the resident’s flat. It fed back that the resident’s belongings needed to be moved before the work could be done, however that was not within its remit. There was no mention of the contractor’s opinion on whether a dehumidifier was necessary.
When escalating her complaint on 10 October 2023, the resident said she felt that a dehumidifier was needed to dry the property out before any remedial works could be started. She said that she would struggle to move her belongings from the flat due to her arthritis and asked the landlord for assistance in storing them.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had now arranged the remedial works for 4 December 2023. Its records indicate that the resident signed a disclaimer on or around 16 October 2023 enabling its contractor to move her belongings. However, the landlord failed to comment on this, or a solution for storing her items whilst remedial works were carried out.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 4 December 2023, the contractor carried out works to the hallway of the resident’s flat only. This was despite the works order specifying works to the kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms. The resident has said that, due to the hallway walls not being properly dried out, the decoration carried out on this visit began to bubble and peel shortly after its completion.
The landlord’s repair records show that the contactor delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 5 December 2023. It is unclear why this was only provided at this point, when the contractor had attended to assess the job 2 months earlier. The requirement for a dehumidifier should have been clear at that point.
The repairs log provided by the landlord contains no entries after 11 December 2023 (when the contractor exchanged the original dehumidifier for several smaller units). There is therefore no evidence that the contractor completed the remedial works to the resident’s flat. The resident has stated that this is the case and says she is still living with damp and water damaged walls a year after the roof works were completed.
In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately organise and complete remedial works to the resident’s flat once its contractor had completed the roof works. It also failed to investigate and resolve the defect in the external wall which its contractor had identified as contributing to mould in the property. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of major works to the roof of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of remedial works to the resident’s property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration in remedial repairs.
2. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration in its handling of the remedial repairs to her flat.
3. Have a surveyor inspect the interior and exterior of the property and compose a schedule of works required to address any damp, mould and water damage. The landlord should provide a copy of this schedule of works to the resident along with the reference numbers for any corresponding works orders raised.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £978 compensation offered during its internal complaints process. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.
The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord reviews its procedures for communicating with residents in buildings subject to major works to ensure that it appropriately:
1. Updates them on expected start and completion dates.
2. Advises of any significant delays, complications and unforeseen issues which arise during the works.
3. Allows them the opportunity to feedback any concerns associated with the works and provides a response to these.