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

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202315037)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315037

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for data covered by General Data Protection Regulation.
    2. The resident’s reports of several repairs required and its subsequent offer of compensation. 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor maisonette with a garden. The tenancy started in October 2017. The resident was diagnosed with a condition affecting mobility.
  2. For the purposes of this investigation, this Service will refer to the resident and his representative, who has acted on his behalf, as the resident.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord by email on 11 April 2023. It was about a leak from the roof which had caused a hole in the ceiling of his bedroom. He outlined a history of events to the landlord, as he said his health was affected by his experience. He said he initially reported a crack in the ceiling in 2021. In August 2022 he had sent the landlord evidence of the hole in the ceiling and exposed beams. He said he was told by the contractor not to sleep in the bedroom. He also detailed he had to chase the landlord regarding repairs. After the scaffolding was erected, contractors had damaged his bathroom window. He said the landlord was negligent and caused him health issues.
  4. On 25 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord told the resident it accepted that the repairs should have been completed by 30 July 2022. The landlord said it reallocated works to a different contractor on 1 July 2022 due to performance issues. However, the contractor did not receive this until 25 August 2022. Due to demand and workload, scaffolding was not put up until 28 September 2022. The contractors faced adverse weather conditions which contributed to delays. As such, it approved a “tin hat roof” for the scaffolding. It acknowledged that while working on the roof, debris fell which damaged the bathroom window. It also mentioned the following dates of completion:
    1. The contractors finished the roof and ceiling repairs on 3 January 2023.
    2. Scaffolding was removed on 26 January 2023.
    3. The landlord completed a mould wash to the resident’s bathroom and bedroom on 14 February 2023. A further inspection took place on 17 February 2023.
    4. On 24 March 2023 the ceiling was replastered by a contractor.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £975 in compensation at stage 1 of its internal complaint’s procedure. It also apologised that the resident had to chase for updates. The landlord said it would deliver a dehumidifier to the property the following day and said it had spoken to its insurance team.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 May 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the full response and did not think the landlord’s offer of compensation was sufficient. Due to damages to personal items, effect on health, and his experience he said he wanted more than £3,500 in compensation. He also asked for the names of staff members in his communications with it in October 2022. He was not provided any dehumidifiers either as stated in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
  7. On 26 June 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord told the resident it had identified there were missed appointments. It did not have a record of who the resident spoke to in October 2022, but actions of individual staff represent the organisation as a whole. If the resident felt he did not have information or correspondence, he could raise a subject access request. It apologised for the delays in erecting the scaffolding, its communication, and overall delays. It also apologised for misinformation provided by it at stage 1 regarding insurance. It then provided a link to submit an insurance claim and gave advice, as well as mentioning a charitable fund to provide assistance. Also, if dehumidifiers were still needed he should inform the landlord. . It committed to redecorating the resident’s ceiling on 10 July 2023.
  8. The landlord revised its compensation in its final response to £1,475. This figure was made up of:
    1. £390 for delays calculated at 39 weeks.
    2. £780 for high distress caused for 39 weeks.
    3. £195 for time and trouble for the duration of 39 weeks.
    4. £60 for 2 missed appointments.
    5. A discretionary payment of £50 for misinformation within the stage 1 complaint response regarding insurance.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wrote to this Service on 24 July 2023. He wanted us to investigate his concerns as decoration works remained outstanding despite the ceiling being re-plastered. By 22 February 2024 the resident told this Service that works were completed, but he does not feel the level of compensation was sufficient. There were further delays and missed appointments for re-decorating on 10 and 19 July 2023, as well as 29, 30, and 31 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. The landlord shared its position on the names of individual staff members to the resident. The resident raised issues about the landlord’s response regarding this and that he could make a subject access request. Matters regarding data and information transparency would fall properly under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The resident may seek independent advice about his options to progress his concerns with the ICO. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for data covered by General Data Protection Regulation is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Concerns regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be commented on by us.

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint submitted to the landlord on 11 April 2023, he said the issue with the ceiling had started in 2021. The Ombudsman’s investigation will only consider events that took place after 11 April 2022, which was 12 months before the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This is because residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider issues, and evidence is available for it to reach an informed conclusion. There is no evidence the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord prior to 11 April 2023.
  2. It is noted the resident said that the leak and subsequent ceiling collapsing prevented him sleeping in his bedroom, and in turn his physical and mental health was affected. The resident also said he was also told by a contractor he was inhaling fungus. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts.
  3. Similar to the above, negligence is a legal matter to be decided by the courts and residents could make a claim to their insurer in such cases. Alternatively, residents may make a claim to the landlord’s insurer, who would consider whether the landlord is liable for any lost or damaged personal items. The resident may wish to seek independent advice about insurance or pursuing aspects of the complaint through the courts. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s communication about these matters.

Repairs required and offer of compensation

  1. The landlord has accepted that it failed in its service delivery to the resident. The resident disputed the level of compensation offered by it. The resident told this Service that there were no outstanding repair issues. Therefore, this report will consider whether the landlord has offered fair compensation and was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This is also echoed in the landlord’s repairs policy and specifies it is responsible for repairs to the roof, ceiling and plasterwork (but not decoration), window frames, and glass.
  3. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. This Service has received some contrasting information from the landlord. The landlord said it should have completed the repairs in line with its repairs policy by 30 July 2022, as it was aware of the roof issue. The resident reported the ceiling was damaged and leaking on 18 August 2022. From the evidence provided to this Service, the roof and ceiling repairs (excluding ceiling plasterwork) were completed on 3 January 2023. The timeline provided by the landlord for routine repairs is 1 calendar month.
  5. This delay was inappropriate action by the landlord as it exceeded the timescales the landlord sets out in its repairs policy by 6 months. Inappropriately, the plaster repairs did not take place until 24 March 2023, which was over 2 calendar months since it completed works to the roof and ceiling. These delays were acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses.
  6. Further, the landlord did not repair the damaged bathroom window until 12 April 2023, despite the resident first reporting it on 14 December 2022. Under the timescales for routine repairs, it should have been completed by 14 January 2022. Therefore, it had taken the landlord nearly 4 calendar months to repair the window, which was inappropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This delay was acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses.
  7. In contrast, the landlord’s timeliness in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was prompt and in line with its timescales in its repairs policy. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 14 February 2023 to the bedroom and bathroom, which was within 1 month of the resident’s report of 8 February 2023. A further inspection took place on 17 February 2023. The findings of this inspection was not shared with this Service, but the landlord’s actions demonstrated it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously and in line with HHRSH.
  8. The resident did not raise further reports of mould. However, the landlord had said in its stage 1 complaint response it would deliver a dehumidifier to the property, but it failed to do so. Despite this, it did re-offer a dehumidifier to the resident in its final response, which was reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.
  9. In the resident’s escalation request email of 19 May 2023, he reiterated to the landlord his vulnerabilities and the effect the issue was having on him. He also felt the compensation offered at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure was insufficient. His personal belongings had been damaged. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it told the resident how he could submit an insurance claim and asked him to provide supporting evidence. It also apologised for its communication errors regarding insurance at stage 1 of its internal complaint’s procedure, which was reasonable.
  10. Further, the landlord accepted the resident’s request to re-consider the level of compensation and revised the compensation offered. The total offer was £1,475 and took into consideration 39 weeks of delays, distress, time and trouble experienced by the resident. As well as £60 for 2-missed appointments, and £50 for miscommunication in its stage 1 complaints process. The landlord’s compensation policy states £10 will be paid for each missed appointment, but the landlord used its discretion to increase this to £30 per missed appointment. This offer of compensation was in line with is policy and demonstrates the landlord assessed its errors over a substantial period of time. It also demonstrates its reasonableness and use of discretion, given the resident’s vulnerability.
  11. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. Due to the prolonged period, the resident experienced repair issues and the effort expended, this level of compensation would have been in line with what this Service would expect in the circumstances.
  12. However, in the landlord’s final response it committed to redecorating works that were to take place on 10 July 2023. The landlord’s compensation policy states it would consider additional works not generally within its responsibility, such as decorating. From the evidence provided, this appointment was missed, as well as a further 4 appointments. This was until a contractor attended the property on 1 September 2023. This was inappropriate action by the landlord as it failed to consider the additional missed appointments in line with its compensation policy.
  13. Additionally, the landlord did not include any learnings identified in its complaint responses. The landlord had also not explained the missed appointments from and including 10 July 2023. In any event, it is clear the resident continued to experience delays and inconvenience following the landlord’s final response.
  14. By the landlord not completing the redecoration until almost 8 full weeks after 10 July 2023, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also demonstrates that the landlord had not learned from outcomes, despite identifying earlier missed appointments and delays within its internal complaints procedure. As such, this Service is unable to find that the landlord offered reasonable redress. Taking into consideration the landlord’s compensation policy, an award of £90 is due to the resident for 5 missed appointments (£10 per missed appointment as per its compensation policy) and £40 for 8 weeks of delays. This award is also reflective of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  15. Overall, while the landlord did attempt to put things right and acknowledged its errors, it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Missed appointments and delays continued to impact the resident after its final response and compensation offer. Therefore, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs required and its subsequent offer of compensation. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for data covered by General Data Protection Regulation is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repairs required and its subsequent offer of compensation. 

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the further failings identified in this report. Within its apology, it is to outline what learnings it has taken from the complaint and share the contents of the apology with this Service.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, total compensation of £1,565, comprised of:
      1. £50 for the further missed appointments from 10 July 2023 in line with its compensation policy.
      2. £40 for 8 weeks of delays in accordance with its compensation policy for it to complete redecoration.
      3. £1,475 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 26 June 2023, if any of the £1,475 had already been paid, it can be deducted from the total of £1,565. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean £90 is to be paid to the resident.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.