Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202332361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332361

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

16 April 2025

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 response to the resident’s reports of repair issues with his bedroom window.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord which is a housing association. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. The resident contacted the landlord in May 2023 to report that his bedroom window was stuck open and was causing draughts. The landlord raised a repair with its contractor on 30 May 2023, and an appointment was arranged for an operative to attend the resident’s property on 12 June 2023.
4. The operative did not attend as arranged, and the resident was not informed of the cancellation. A further appointment was arranged for 26 June 2023, but this was cancelled and rearranged for 3 July due to the operative being unwell. A further appointment was arranged for 2 August 2023.
5. The appointment on 2 August 2023 went ahead; however, the operative believed that scaffolding or an abseiler was needed to better assess the window externally due to the flat being on a high floor.
6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 August 2023 regarding the window being stuck, which was causing draught. The resident also said that the draught was making him unwell. The same day, the landlord made a referral to its contractor, and an appointment was subsequently arranged with the resident for 22 August 2023 for a survey to take place.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023, which included the following:
   1. It outlined the actions taken to date. It also acknowledged that the repair fell outside of its expected timescales, which it said was due to missed appointments. It apologised for this and acknowledged the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.
   2. It also said it would normally expect the window to be initially made safe by screwing the window shut, although it said no such report was made to it that that was done.
   3. It agreed it would undertake any recommended repairs following the survey, on or before 25 August 2023. It also apologised to the resident for the effects he had suffered.
   4. It also outlined those lessons had been learned, and improvements would be made to better communicate with its contractors. This including more liability for individual failings with financial penalties issued against contractors that result in loss of earnings from missed appointments.
   5. Finally, it offered the resident £218 compensation for inconvenience, which it said was in line with its compensation policy. This was broken down as: £90 for missed appointments, £40 for delays, £80 for distress, and £9 for time and trouble.
8. There were further delays caused by a cancelled appointment that was due on 2 October 2023, because of a suspended access cradle being out of service. Further delays occurred later due to the contractor being untrained to operate the cradle. The landlord contacted the resident to make him aware that the arranged appointment could not go ahead. It confirmed new appointments would be arranged for December 2023.
9. The resident requested that his complaint was escalated to stage 2 during a telephone call with the landlord on 6 November 2023.
10. The contractor arranged 2 appointments with the resident to address the necessary repairs on 20 and 21 December 2023. However, these were subsequently cancelled.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 December 2023, which included the following:
    1. It responded to the ongoing delay with the window repair, and the lack of regular updates from the landlord.
    2. It acknowledged that there had been a total of 25 weeks delay.
    3. It apologised for the length of time that issues had been ongoing for and offered increased compensation totalling £875. This was broken down as £250 for the delays, £500 for distress, and, £125 for time and trouble.
12. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s delays in repairing his window, and the effect this had on his health. He said he was seeking the repair of his window, and increased compensation for the delays. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the repairs remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident has mentioned that he had been ill due to draughts from the stuck open window. While this would understandably be distressing, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causes of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Therefore, the effect on the resident’s health and wellbeing is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. We will instead look at whether the landlord’s actions or inaction caused the resident unnecessary additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience, and whether it put things right in all the circumstances of the case.

The delays in repairing the window, and the amount of compensation offered by the landlord

14. The repair was originally logged with its contractors on 30 May 2023, and the landlord’s repair policy states “we aim to attend within two weeks of the resident reporting the repair, and we aim to complete most repairs within one calendar month”. The delays were caused by at least 6 cancelled appointments on 12 June 2023, 26 June 2023, 3 July 2023, 2 October 2023, 20 December 2023, and 21 December 2023, due to contractors or machinery not being available. We expect landlords to keep effective records; however, the repeat failings are concerning as this would have caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
15. There was also evidence in the landlord’s internal emails of confusion and communication breakdown between it and its subcontractor in respect of its access to a suspended cradle, and having no staff trained to operate the cradle. This clearly caused much of the delay, and had the landlord considered alternative approaches this could have further mitigated the effect on the resident. It is not evident that the landlord kept the resident updated about the cause of the delays or that it provided updated timeframes for works.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted it had not made the window safe by screwing it tight to the window frame. Despite this, the landlord failed to raise any interim works. The landlord was not able to advise why this did not happen which is concerning as it would have helped mitigate the issue with draught, especially as the property is on the 9th floor.
17. While the landlord’s stage 2 response identified its failure to complete the repairs in line with its repair policy, it failed to set out an action plan to address the issue or discuss timeframes with the resident. This was contrary to its repair policy which says, “we will let the resident know how long the repair is likely to take”. To date, the repairs remain unresolved, and subsequently there has currently been a 21-month delay. It is unreasonable and concerning for the resident to wait this amount of time not knowing when the repair will take place. Had the landlord been more proactive in its approach, it may have been able to mitigate the effect on the resident and put things right earlier.
18. The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord that there was a failing in the service it delivered in its approach to resolving the window repair. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer discretionary compensation when its actions have resulted in “delays in providing a service (e.g., in undertaking a repair),” and for “unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.” In the Ombudsman’s view, while the £875 compensation offered during the landlord’s internal complaint process was reasonable at the time the offer was made to reflect the effect on the resident, the subsequent ongoing delays warrants additional compensation. Further, the landlord noted that further compensation may be warranted, but did not follow this up with a further position. It has since informed this service that it had not offered any further compensation.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord has offered the resident £875, broken down as £290 for delays, £90 for missed appointments, £580 for distress, £134 for time and trouble. However, given that the resident has continued to be inconvenienced by the delays, the offer is not proportionate to the impact caused over the past 21 months.
20. In summary, the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration and a breach of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which says “any remedy offered must reflect the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified”, and “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. It is proportionate for the landlord to pay further compensation as it previously suggested it would.
21. The landlord has therefore been ordered to apologise and pay the resident full compensation of £3,435. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £875. This order is broken down as follows:
    1. £930 for the 21 months of delay (being £10 per week for 93 weeks).
    2. £1,860 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience (being £20 per week for 93 weeks).
    3. £465 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the issues (being £5 per week for 93 weeks).
    4. £180 for missed appointments (being £30 for each of the 6 missed appointments).
22. This order is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards for maladministration to recognise delays in getting the repairs resolved when the failure has had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £3,435 for the impact caused to the resident by its failings relating to the window.
25. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £875. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is also ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further delays and failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Provide an action plan for the resolution of the window, including timeframes for any works.
27. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided within 4 weeks of the date of this report.