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

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202320827)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320827

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

29 November 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 the resident’s reports of cold air entering his property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, and the landlord is the freeholder for the property. For the purposes of the report, the leaseholder will be referred to as the ‘resident.’ The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 July 2022. He said that he wanted to make a complaint regarding the last 2 months where there had been no contact or movement to rectify the outstanding issues in his property. The outstanding issues were that he felt thermal insulation was missing in the property and cold air was entering his property from the loft space.
  3. The resident said the landlord’s insistence on conducting a new survey was a waste of time and resources. He said it led to it changing its direction on how it would rectify the issues. He said he would like a full explanation regarding his complaint and an independent specialist to take over the assessment of his property.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 July 2022. It stated the following:
    1. It had investigated the complaint from January 2021 (the Ombudsman believes this date was an error and should have stated January 2022) when the resident contacted the landlord about the works. It outlined the action taken and the communication with the resident from that date.
    2. It said on 3 February 2022, it advised the resident that it needed to arrange for the tops of the external and internal walls to be capped off from the loft space. It said it explained that due to the time passed and the need to work in a confined space, it would need to complete a risk assessment prior to commencing the works.
    3. It confirmed that a visit took place on 29 April 2022, to carry out the works. It said it sealed the loft hatch but upon entry to the loft space it became apparent that there were no wall terminations within the loft, and so there was no work to be carried out.
    4. It referred to the previous thermal imaging report from 2018 and the recommendations. It acknowledged there were some minor works from the original thermal imaging survey which it had not yet completed. It apologised for not taking them forward and said it would arrange for them to be carried out.
    5. It concluded that there were 2 occasions where its communication to the resident was delayed, and it apologised for that. It said it had set the resident’s expectations appropriately regarding the works and it appreciated that his personal circumstances made it difficult to facilitate access without advance notice.
    6. The landlord confirmed that once the works were completed it would conduct a further thermal imaging survey. It said if the survey provided the same recommendations, there would be little more it could do, and it would consider the works completed. It said it would review any new recommendations. It asked for the resident’s availability for the outstanding works and awarded £169 in compensation for the times where there was a lack of communication.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 12 August 2022. He said his concerns regarding missing thermal insulation remained unaddressed. He said he was aware of other properties the landlord was responsible for which also had missing insulation in the walls and lofts. The resident reiterated that he wanted an independent specialist to inspect and put right all the issues. He said the thermal report showed where the cold air was coming in and none of the visits since the report have stopped or sealed the air coming from the loft space. He said the conversations he had had with the supervisor for the company who completed the thermal imaging survey were contradictory to the landlord’s actions. The resident said he would like a copy of the report.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 16 September 2022. It reiterated its findings in the loft space from 29 April 2022. The landlord said it understood its findings were at odds with his comments, however, it was led by the experts and the information provided to it. It confirmed that it was waiting on contact from the resident to arrange the outstanding repairs. The landlord said it would then complete another thermal imaging survey. It attached a copy of the previous thermal imaging survey and said it was satisfied that it had fulfilled its obligations. The landlord said that if it did not hear from the resident before 10 October 2022, the case would be closed.

Post internal complaints procedure.

  1. The resident responded to the landlord on 27 January 2023 to arrange the outstanding repairs. The landlord initially explained that the case was closed, however, following the resident’s explanation that he had been unwell it agreed to complete the outstanding works. The landlord completed the outstanding works, and a further thermal imaging survey was completed on 8 March 2024. The findings showed little to no improvement since the previous survey.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and took the complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he still had cold air entering his property, which caused it to be as cold inside as it was outside. He said that keeping the heating on constantly was the only way to prevent the property from becoming freezing. He said he wanted the landlord to have an independent specialist take over the task of putting right the thermal issues affecting his property. The resident said he would also like to see the numerous reports from the work the landlord had commissioned at his property over the years, as he believed they would be at odds with what the landlord was saying.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold air entering his property. 

  1. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating, and renewing roof foundations and the main structure of the building. This includes all external and load bearing walls. It states that the leaseholder is responsible for the interior of the property and the interior faces (including plaster and other internal covering or lining) of the walls, ceilings, and floors of the premises. The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaseholders are responsible for the central heating, inside walls, ceiling, and joinery. While the cold air reported was internal, the resident was reporting that the cause was an external issue. Therefore, it was important for the landlord to initially address this.
  2. The landlord did not dispute that there were periods in which there was a delay in its communication. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered compensation which was appropriate. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not initially outline all the works it had originally committed to carrying out in the property. In not doing so, this led the resident to have to re-raise the issues to the landlord and he felt that the landlord had changed the direction of the works. The landlord apologised for this in its complaint responses, which was reasonable.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that much of the dispute is from the findings of the thermal imaging survey in 2018 and the landlord’s actions following that in 2022. The outcome of the survey was that significant cold air movement was noted within most of the walls of the property and was entering via the skirting boards. It said, “preventing the air entering the walls should be the priority and this should be tackled from within the loft area.”
  4. In his formal complaint the resident said he was concerned about the new inspection of the loft and the subsequent change in the direction of work. The Ombudsman finds it was reasonable for the landlord to do a new inspection and risk assessment due to the time which had passed and the difficulties with accessing the loft space.
  5. As highlighted above the landlord acknowledged that it did not outline all the required works in the property. Its stage 1 response listed the additional works and confirmed that they would be scheduled. The works included sealing and adjusting window frames, sealing light fittings, sealing the extraction units, and checking the ductwork on them. The works were in line with the recommendations in the thermal imaging survey.
  6. The landlord initially confirmed that it would cap off the internal wall ends within the loft space and “mastic close the temp loft space.” Following the inspection and risk assessment, the landlord visited the property on 29 April 2022 to carry out the works. It sealed the loft hatch. However, upon entering the loft space it said there were no wall terminations within the loft and therefore there was no further work for it to carry out. It said the loft was very well insulated.
  7. The Ombudsman can appreciate that the resident would be frustrated by the landlord’s findings as it did not resolve the issue. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately by arranging a thermal imaging survey and addressing the recommendations. This was in line with its responsibilities within the lease agreement. It was also reasonable for the landlord to state in its complaint responses that following the additional remedial works it would carry out a further thermal imaging survey. It was appropriate for it to state that it would consider any new recommendations.
  8. It should be noted that the landlord must rely on the expertise of the thermal imaging report and its contractors. From the report provided to the Ombudsman, it would appear the cause of the cold air was coming from the loft space. The resident requested an independent specialist inspection. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the thermal imaging survey and the landlord’s commitment to arrange a further thermal imaging survey following the works was appropriate at the time.
  9. The Ombudsman understands that a more recent thermal imaging survey has now taken place. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider any new recommendations in the report. It should respond to the resident in writing with its position on each recommendation if it has not already done so.
  10. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that the landlord did not address his concerns regarding missing thermal insulation in the walls. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had reviewed the thermal imaging report and it could not see any failing that would suggest additional works were required. It said if the resident had obtained a private report, it would be happy to review it.
  11. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response did not fully address the resident’s concerns, in particular, where he stated he had discovered the issue himself, and he was aware of this as an issue in other properties. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided evidence that the cavity walls had been insulated in line with the building regulations which would have been in place at the time it was built. If it did not have this information, and given the lack of clarity, it would have been proportionate for it to have inspected the cavity wall insulation. This would have reassured the resident as to whether there were any gaps and whether they may be contributing to the issue of cold air entering the property.
  12. To conclude, there were failings made by the landlord in the delays in communicating with the resident and in not outlining all the works it would do in line with the recommendations from the thermal imaging survey. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered reasonable redress. In line with its repair obligations, the landlord also inspected the loft, confirmed it was well insulated, and that there were no gaps to seal. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted further investigation into the resident’s reports of missing wall insulation. This was a failing.
  13. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold air entering his property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states that it will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The stage 1 response was provided 7 working days after the formal complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 25 working days after the resident’s stage 2 escalation. As the stage 2 response was not provided in line with its complaints policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this in its response and to apologise for any inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.
  3. In its stage 1 response, it was reasonable to outline the reasons why the works could not be carried out within the loft. However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to add that its staff members found the resident’s flat was not cold or draughty. This led the resident to point out that it was ridiculous to state that as on the day that they visited, it was not cold or windy.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that the response lacked empathy and potentially minimised the impact to the resident. The thermal imaging report confirmed that cold air was entering the property, therefore, while the loft works could not be completed, this did not mean that the issue was no longer there. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and to have apologised in its stage 2 response.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and aimed to explain its position well. It appropriately highlighted some of its failings and offered compensation which was proportionate to those failings. However, it should have expanded on its position regarding the reports of missing thermal insulation, its comment regarding the resident’s property not being cold or draughty was not appropriate, and the stage 2 response was provided slightly later than outlined within its policies. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
  6. The amount offered for the delays in its communication was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman finds further compensation would be appropriate for the additional service failings identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £319 in compensation. The compensation is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures where the landlord did not fully acknowledge or put right the issues and is broken down as follows:
    1. £169 previously offered to the resident for its delays in communication.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s reports of missing wall insulation and the likely distress, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result.
    3. £50 for the complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cold air entering his property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders

  1. The landlord must review the building regulations which were in effect at the time the property was built and provide evidence to the resident to show that it met the required insulation requirements for his property at the time. If the landlord cannot provide this information, it must inspect the resident’s property to determine whether there is sufficient insulation in the walls. If the landlord finds that there is not sufficient cavity wall insulation, it must outline whose responsibility it is to remedy this, in line with the conditions of the lease agreement.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £319 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £169 it previously offered. The amount must be paid directly to the resident and must not be used to offset any rent arrears/service charges.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider any new recommendations in the 2024 thermal imaging report and respond to the resident in writing with its position on each recommendation. If it is unclear where the responsibility lay with any suggested repairs, then the landlord should consult with its legal team to interpret the terms of the lease agreement.