From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202313853)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313853

Sovereign Network Homes

31 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door of the resident’s property and associated safety and safeguarding concerns.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. On 20 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord she had damage to her door, door frame and locks. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair, attended the same day and its contractor reinstalled lock plates and manipulated the frame to receive lock bolts. The contractor stated the door did close and lock, though it was a temporary solution as the frame had shattered beyond repair and a new one was needed. The landlord’s contractor returned on 26 June 2023 and established a fire door replacement was needed as that was damaged and took measurements for a new fire door.
  2. The resident provided a crime reference number to the landlord on 30 June 2023, called the landlord for an update on 6 July 2023 and again the following day. The resident informed the landlord there was only one lock at the top of the door and was staying away from the property until that was repaired. The resident was advised by the landlord she would be contacted the following week.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2023. The resident stated:
    1. She had been waiting for the door to be repaired for over two weeks, it was not secure, and she had been staying with family in another city as she did not feel safe. The resident said she had gone back that day to her property to try and collect some of her belongings however, due to the insufficient temporary repair that was done she had not been able to open her door as it was jammed. For her own safety she had been unable to wait for an out of hours repair appointment for that day as she was in fear of her ex-partner. As she had no support network where she lived, she had no other option but to go back to her family that day without collecting any of her belongings.
    2. She had already been displaced due to being a victim of domestic abuse and the fact her door was left in such a state in the first place was really upsetting. The resident asked when her door would be repaired as she should not have had to wait that long for a repair when she was in a vulnerable position, and she could not afford to be travelling back and forth between cities and didn’t expect that she should need to do that.
    3. She needed to access her property and collect her belongings as soon as possible and asked the landlord if it would ensure that was dealt with as an emergency. The resident said she understood a new door needed to be ordered but, in the meantime, something needed to be done to secure the frame and change the locks. The resident said she gave permission for that to be done in her absence and the keys sent to her family’s address.
  4. The landlord raised works for 10 July 2023 for a lock change, but its records noted there was no access to the property and the landlord subsequently reraised the works on 17 July 2023 but again no access was available. This was due to the property being located in a building with a communal entrance and the resident was not at the property to grant access. The locks were eventually changed on 21 July 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 July 2023. The landlord stated:
    1. It was agreed when the resident first reported the door that an emergency call out would be raised with its contractors to attend on 10 July 2023 within 4 hours. After reviewing the order with the contractor, it was unable to confirm 100% that the engineer had attended due to no reports or images being provided. It apologised for the lack of information being provided. It was unable to see any progress on that until the resident contacted it on 17 July 2023 and it was advised at the time of the call that the operative was off sick, and the contractor was unable to retrieve the report. It was confirmed that the spare keys had not been delivered, it deemed that as a failed visit and recalled the contractor back out as an emergency to attend the same day. It could see the engineer had attended outside the emergency timescale and it apologised. The engineer had advised that at the time he was unable to gain access to the communal door and was not given authorisation to force entry and cause damage. The landlord apologised and said it could have communicated better with its contractor.
    2. After multiple attempts to resolve that with the resident’s neighbours on 18 July 2023 it took the decision on 20 July 2023 to renew the communal door lock to gain access to the communal area to then access her property to make the property secure. Both those orders were raised as an emergency.
    3. On the day the operative was due to attend, the operative advised that he was unable to carry out the works as he did not specialise in those types of locks. The contractor spoke to a sub-contractor who agreed to attend on 21 July 2023. On the day of the visit, it attended as planned and carried out all works required. The landlord then emailed the resident and her neighbours to advise of the lock change and provided her and the neighbours a key each with the key safe code.
    4. It sent its fire door contractors to attend on 24 July 2023 to measure the resident’s door for replacement. At the time of that visit, it was notified that all keys had been taken from the key safe.
    5. It would raise works to renew the communal locks again on 31 July 2023 to attend the next day and on that visit it would be installing an additional 2 key safes and they would all have a unique code that would be provided to each neighbour to access the new keys to mitigate the need to renew the locks again. The landlord confirmed there was a key safe installed outside the resident’s property entrance door with the new keys inside for her.
    6. It concluded that the time taken to carry out emergency repairs fell below its recommended and expected timescales. It apologised for the impact and inconvenience that had caused and continued to have stating the delays were incurred due to both lack of communication and break down of communication.
    7. It confirmed with its specialist contractor that they had not received the fire door referral from the landlord’s contractor until 17 July 2023 and was unable to arrange a visit until 24 July 2023 where it was then unable to gain access. The original contractor had advised the resident on 26 June 2023 that they would be returning to measure the door however by the 17 July 2023 it realised that was an internal fire door opening out onto the communal area and would require a specialist contractor.
    8. It apologised for the delay and distress that had and said once it had undertaken the communal lock change again, it could instruct the specialist contractor to return but also advised that Fire Door renewals could take up to 12 weeks to be made and come into stock and a further 2 weeks to install.
    9. The landlord offered compensation of £150.00.
  6. The resident requested her complaint be escalated the same day stating the information within the complaint was incorrect including the date she initially reported the door repair, the first attendance by the landlord, subsequent promises for the door to be repaired which she had to continually chase, the initial repair not being suitable causing her to be locked out the property, questioning why it would take 12 weeks for the door replacement given she was living in a different city and unable to return to work and a lack of safeguarding by the landlord.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 August 2023 and informed the resident it would issue its response by 5 September 2023.
  8. The landlord’s records noted it ordered the new front door on 9 August 2023.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 September 2023. The landlord stated:
    1. It could see there was a job reported on 20 June 2023 and was sent to its contractor to attend as an emergency. The repair stated that the door was not locking. It believed that job was not looked into at Stage 1 as it seemed unrelated to the job reported on 10 July 2023. It however confirmed its operative did attend on 20 June 2023, reinstated the lock plates and that was a temporary solution. It also confirmed that on 26 June 2023 they re-attended and advised it needed a new door frame and a new fire door for which the operative took measurements for the door. With regards to the job raised on 10 July 2023, as per the Stage 1 response, it did not have any evidence that the job was attended to within its service level agreements, was accepted as a failed visit and a new job was raised on 17 July 2023 which the contractor was unable to gain access. As it had another contractor which supplied its fire safe doors, it was referred to them on 17 July 2023. The contractor carrying out the works would need to measure for the door.
    2. It understood that the resident felt she had to leave the property as the frame needed replacing. As advised by the landlord’s contractor and confirmed by the resident, the property was still locked and secure so it would not be able to agree that she had been left insecure. The door was ordered on 9 August 2023 and there was an 8-to-12-week lead time for those doors to be made. There had been a clear delay in the door being ordered as that should have been done sooner.
    3. With regards to the resident’s statement that it had not provided adequate safeguarding in relation to the door damage, it advised that would be a police matter because the police had powers to issue any legal remedies such as non-molestation orders and injunctions against the criminal act.
    4. It had reviewed the compensation. The issue was first reported on 20 June 2023, and it would usually expect repairs to be resolved within 1 calendar month. It would have expected the fire door to have been ordered at an earlier date than 9 August 2023. Although the property had been left secure, it understood that the situation had caused significant distress to the resident and there had been clear delays in resolving the matter. The landlord offered a total compensation of £375 consisting of
      1. Time and trouble – £35
      2. Distress – £140
      3. Delay – £140
      4. Missed Appointment – £60
  10. The landlord has stated it had no formal records but confirmed the installation of the fire door works were completed around 22 November 2023 as per an invoice from its specialist fire door contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, and this Service, the resident sought compensation for time taken off work and requested compensation for loss of earnings. Although the Ombudsman can consider the impact of repairs on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about loss of earnings or award damages. A request for actual lost earnings, would require assessment of liability and, ultimately, a claim to the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, and consideration has been given to this in the investigation.
  2. In the complaint to this Service, the resident asked the Ombudsman to consider her request for a management transfer. However, the landlord did not address that in its complaint responses and there was no evidence the resident asked the landlord to formally consider this in her complaint made to the landlord. The Ombudsman can only investigate matters which have first been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to consider if she wanted to make a formal complaint to the landlord regarding that matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door of the property and associated safety and safeguarding concerns.

  1. The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s repair records that were provided to this Service. The landlord was only able to provide limited information, which did not include significant information such as details of its contractor’s assessment of the door frame in terms of safety and security. The landlord’s repair records lacked details such as repair raised dates, completion dates and details about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records and email communications between the landlord and the resident. 
  2. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  3. Section 3 of the landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for keeping the structure of a resident’s home in a good state of repair and the maintenance of means of access to the property.
  4. Section 4.2 of the repairs policy states where damage is caused by domestic violence then the landlord will complete repairs as a matter of urgency.
  5. The landlord was first informed of the damage to the door on 20 June 2023. It responded the same day and made the door safe under an emergency repair. The landlord’s contractor however stated that further works were required due to the door frame being unrepairable. The contractor notes clearly stated the frame had to be manipulated to fit the lock indicating the job was very much a temporary repair. Under section 5.4 of the landlord’s repairs policy a door repair would fall under the landlord’s routine repair policy which it states it aims to attend within 5 working days.
  6. Section 1.3 of the landlords Safeguarding Policy states it recognises it has a responsibility to keep its customers safe from harm. Given the door was reported to be in need of a full replacement and the emergency repair had been temporary it was important the landlord recognised this and ensured the works to make the resident safe were completed as quickly as it was able to do so.
  7. There was evidence provided showing the landlord’s contractor returned to the resident’s property, noted the door needed replacing, a fire door was required and measured for a replacement door on 26 June 2023.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2023 and 7 July 2023 as she had not received any further updates. This included informing the landlord that due to there being only one lock at the top of the door she was staying away from the property until that was repaired. The resident was advised by the landlord she would be contacted the following week.
  9. The resident made her complaint on 8 July 2023. At this stage the repair had been outstanding for 14 working days. The landlord was informed that the resident did not feel safe due to the door being damage by a former partner and was staying with family in a different city which was a significant distance from the city her property was in. At this point the landlord was also made aware the door had jammed due to the temporary repair not being successful and the resident was unable to enter her property or collect her belongings. The landlord is required to ensure the resident has access to her property. The repair conducted prevented the resident from entering and safely occupying the property that she was legally entitled to.
  10. When the landlord was notified that the resident could not access the property it had a duty to get her safe accommodation either through access to her flat or to find a temporary solution including an alternative property or other temporary accommodation. There is no evidence the landlord offered that to the resident.
  11. Although the resident had informed the landlord that she was staying with family There is no evidence provided that the landlord considered the resident’s inability to access the property or that she was staying with family far away due to safety fears and unable as a result to attend her workplace. This was a failing by the landlord as it has not evidenced it considered that if the resident was unable to access her property or safely remain in the property with a damaged door frame, that it considered alternative options.
  12. The landlord’s records stated on 26 June 2023 and 10 July 2023 it knew a new fire door was needed. It informed the resident on 12 July 2023 that in relation to the door replacement it had raised that to its Responsive Repairs Team to update her within the next 5 working days. There was no evidence provided by the landlord that it contacted the resident. It was also not until 17 July 2023 that the fire door referral was sent to its fire safety team. This was a further failure by the landlord which would have caused added distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2023 stating that she was waiting for someone to contact her, and she needed access to her property.  At this stage the works had been outstanding for 28 days. The landlord records showed it was unable to locate the keys to complete the works and the works needed to be reraised and later confirmed that following a review of its records it was unable to confirm a visit did take place on 10 July 2023. This was a further failing adding to the distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident informed the landlord her ex-partner was on bail and her travelling around the city to the landlord’s offices to collect keys would put her at further risk. At this stage there is no evidence the resident was able to access her property and had no accommodation made available to her to reside by the landlord.
  14. Section 5.1 of the landlords safeguarding policy states it will work closely with a number of partners and agencies responsible for safeguarding those at risk. There was no evidence however that the landlord considered if it should consider making a safeguarding referral or discuss any safeguarding concerns with any other agencies, the police or the resident.
  15. Section 6.1 of the safeguarding policy states the landlord will record all cases of safeguarding concerns following its procedures. There is no evidence the landlord opened or considered if it should open a safeguarding case for the resident despite her informing the landlord she felt it was not safeguarding her.
  16. The landlord’s records show the referral for the fire door was raised on 17 July 2023. This was 22 days after the landlord’s contractor established that a replacement was needed. The landlord has not evidence why there was such delay, and this was a failing by the landlord that added significant time to the repairs process for the resident.
  17. After the resident reported she could not get access to her property on 8 July 2023, there were unreasonable delays in the locks at the property being repaired for her to get access. This was caused by the landlord’s contractor either not attending a planned visit or being unable to access the resident’s property due to not getting access through the communal entrance door. It is not clear why the landlord did not have a process or procedure in place to ensure its contractor could gain access to the communal entrance without the need for the resident or a neighbour being at the property. This caused an unnecessary delay and resulted in two changes of the communal entrance lock in one month for access to be obtained. It is a concern to this Service that the landlord did not have any contingency plans to be able to access the communal door without a resident being present given an emergency could occur while residents are not in occupation and the landlord may require access at short notice.
  18. The resident was contacted by the landlord’s specialist contractor on 21 July 2023 regarding the fire door and from the evidence provided there was confusion as to whether the resident was to give access or if another resident in the block could grant access to the communal part of the building indicating further failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident. At this point it had been two weeks since the resident had informed the landlord her front door was jammed, and she could not gain entry.
  19. The landlords’ records stated the lock to the resident’s front door and new key safes were installed on 21 July 2023 and the resident was informed the specialist contractor would attend the following week to measure for the replacement door and that it had been given access to the key safes for entry. The resident again informed that it could take up to 12 weeks for the door to be made and a further 2 weeks to arrange an appointment for it to be installed.
  20. The length of time after the door had been ordered for it to be manufactured and installed was within expected timescales for a door of that type. However, the delay in reaching the point the door was measured by the specialist contractor was too long and there was no evidence provided that would reasonably explain the delays. Equally there was no evidence the landlord considered the safeguarding aspect of the resident and her fear to be in the property until the correct door was in place. In an email to the landlord on 1 August 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord she was still living away from the property due to not feeling safe with the state of the door. This meant the resident had been away from her property for over one month at that stage.
  21. Overall, the landlord failed to handle the residents reports of repairs appropriately. The landlord failed to ensure that following the emergency repairs that the remaining works were completed to an appropriate standard causing the resident to not be able to enter her property for a period of time. It failed to raise the required works for the fire door within a suitable timeframe and failed to suitably keep the resident informed of progress causing her to have to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord failed to ensure there was access for the landlord’s contractor to access the building resulting in the communal key lock changes and failed to evidence it considered any safeguarding measures or alternative accommodation for the resident while the property was made safe.
  22. Given the cause of the damage was domestic abuse and the resident made it very clear to the landlord that she was fearful of her safety, was needing to live in a different city while waiting for the repairs to be complete and that she was unable to work. The landlord has not demonstrated it took appropriate actions to resolve the repairs within a suitable time frame. From the date the repair was reported it took at least 143 days for the final repair to take place. While some of the delay was due to the manufacturing of the fire door and out of the landlord’s control there were failings in the landlord’s actions in the events leading up to the fire door being ordered which unreasonably delayed the repairs process. This was severe maladministration by the landlord, and it should pay the resident £1000.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At both stages the landlord will issue an acknowledgement of the complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. Where it is unable to meet the target timescales, it will contact the resident and explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date. It will keep residents informed throughout the complaint process until the complaint is fully resolved.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 8 July 2023 and informed the landlord on 17 July 2023 she had not had conformation the complaint had been raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 July 2023. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it should have issued its complaint acknowledgment within five working days of receiving the complaint. The acknowledgment was however issued after seven working days. 
  3. The stage one response was issued on 31 July 2023, the landlords complaint policy states it will issue a response at stage one within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord issued the response after 16 working days.
  4. The landlord’s stage one response referred to the resident making her complaint on 17 July 2023, but it failed to identify that the resident had made her complaint 8 July 2023 and her email on 17 July 2023 clearly stated she initially made contact with the complaints team on 8 July 2023 and had not had any resolution to her complaint.
  5. The stage one response failed to address the repairs that the resident had reported in June 2023. This was a failing by the landlord that would not have provided the resident with reassurance it had fully investigated her complaint. This also meant that an offer of redress would not have considered the entirety of the complaint period.
  6. The resident requested her complaint be escalated 31 July 2023 and the landlord issued the stage two response 26 working days later on 5 September 2023. This was outside of the 20 working days timescale in its complaints policy and the landlord failed to apologise for the delay.
  7. The stage two response did however acknowledge and respond to the period in June 2023 that had not been considered in the stage one response.
  8. The delays in the landlord issuing the responses at both stages and the landlord failing to include the full period of time covered in the resident’s complaint at stage one is maladministration. The landlord increased the offer of compensation in the stage two response for its handling of the door repair but the offer of compensation did not include any redress for its handling of the complaint including the delay in issuing the stage two response. For the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the complaint the landlord should pay the resident £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door of the property and associated safety and safeguarding concerns.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report. This must come from the Chief Executive.
    2. Pay the resident £1000 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the front door of the property and associated safety and safeguarding concerns. The compensation is to be paid to the resident and not paid to her rent account.
    3. Pay the resident £150 for the handling of her complaint. The compensation is to be paid to the resident and not paid to her rent account.
    4. Contact the resident to establish if the resident requires any further security measures to her property to ensure she feels safe to remain in the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and information management and consider this with regards to its record keeping practices regarding repairs to ensure repairs are appropriately recorded, monitored and outcomes fully recorded.