Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202339335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339335

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs, including to a wall and guttering.
2. Maintenance of the property/block, including resident engagement and cyclical decoration.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property with her husband, on a shared ownership basis since 2008. The property is a first-floor flat, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records show that on 9 November 2022 it received a report of a leak from a down pipe (it is now known whether the report was made by the resident or someone else in the building). Contractors attended on 28 November 2022, to clear the guttering, and 22 December 2022, to repair the guttering.
The resident reported a number of repairs on 19 January 2023, including leaking guttering which was causing damage to a windowsill. On 23 January 2023, she reported a crumbling wall, and that the building in general had been neglected.
Having chased the landlord about these repairs, the resident made a complaint on 31 October 2023 about the building not being maintained leading to disrepair including a crumbling wall and issues with the guttering (complaint 1). She also said residents were not being listened to. Following an initial response from the landlord on 6 November 2023, the resident sent a further email clarifying the complaint. She said, “In regards to reporting cleaning, the general maintenance of the exterior of the block shouldn’t need to be ‘reported’ it should be done routinely. Cleaning of the exterior of the block and cyclical cleaning. My complaint regards to this, the fact is neglected. This has never been done in the 15 years I have lived here.”
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023, as follows:
1. Guttering – a job had been raised on 8 March 2023 but another resident then said it was not leaking. However, another job was created on 30 March 2023 but it had no record of what action was taken. If there was still an issue, the resident should report it.
2. Crumbling wall – a job was created on 26 January 2023 and a contractor attended on 30 March 2023. A report was produced saying scaffolding was needed to complete rendering. This was rejected by a surveyor and the job went to another contractor on 4 April 2023. However, this job was cancelled but it did not know why. The job was not re-raised until 10 October 2023 and a contractor attended on 31 October 2023 and found the render below the window eroded due to the outlet having a broken clip. It reinstalled the clip, cleared the gutters and resealed the window frame.
3. It apologised that both repairs had exceeded its recommended and expected timescales. Poor record keeping meant it was unable to establish or understand why the orders were cancelled or not actioned, and in turn had caused the delays with the repairs. It offered to assist the resident in re-reporting the repairs if needed and ensure they were monitored until completion.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 22 November 2023, saying that the property should be maintained and it should not take reporting repairs to get things fixed. In response, the landlord resent its stage 1 response on 24 November 2023. The resident again asked to escalate the complaint on 3 December 2023 and reiterated her concern that the property was not being properly maintained.
This request was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 December 2023, and the stage 2 response was issued on 11 January 2024. It said the contractor believed it was probably a build-up of leaves, but had agreed to re-inspect the guttering. It was also looking into a roof replacement.
The resident continued to report that repairs were needed to the guttering and a crumbling wall under a window. A repair to the rear guttering took place on 14 March 2024 but, on 25 March 2024, she reported that water was coming through the wall to the inside of the property as a result of repairs not being completed. She wanted this treated as another complaint (complaint 2) and the landlord acknowledged this the same day.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response to complaint 2 on 11 April 2024, when it accepted that it should have addressed the issue of the crumbling wall after the last complaint. It said it would action that and monitor the repair to completion and created a job to repair the guttering. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 21 April 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and had damp and damage inside the property which she felt would not have been there if it had maintained the property.
The crumbling wall was rendered on 23 April 2024, but the resident told the landlord it did not resolve the issue with the guttering. A contractor was sent out on 22 May 2024 but it could not see an issue with the guttering at the front of the property, which the resident had reported.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to complaint 2 on 28 May 2024. It relayed a chronology of events and said the guttering and crumbling wall were more than likely caused by an immense storm in October 2023. It said the gutter leak was probably from the leaves and debris filling the gutters up from the high winds and rain and there was a tree right next to the building. It partially upheld the complaint as the resident was still having issues but said a guttering clip was replaced and no issues were found at an earlier visit. However, it was sending a contractor to inspect again (and created an inspection job the same day). It offered £247 compensation for the period 11 January to 28 May 2024, as time and trouble at £3 x 19 weeks (£57) and medium impact distress at £10 x 19 weeks (£190).
The resident made a third complaint on 10 June 2024 (largely regarding issues that do not form part of this investigation) in which she asked for the outcome of the proposed roof/guttering inspection from complaint 2 (complaint 3). She also mentioned how often general maintenance issues had to be reported and the lack of communication/engagement from the landlord.
An outside inspection took place on 19 June 2024 and found there was a tile missing from the front of the property above the dormer. This was replaced and a small section of the gutter was cleared. The landlord noted, “It’s worth noting that a likely cause of any issues with water dripping will be due to the bay roof lower down – water has been running down the corner and down the wall causing the issue. We applied a barrier of sealant to prevent this happening in the future”.
The contractor confirmed all outstanding works were complete on 2 July 2024.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to complaint 3 on 15 July 2024, when it detailed the actions taken on 19 June 2024 and said, as a rule, guttering could require maintenance every 12 months. This could be reported by residents as needed or would be reported by the neighbourhood team as part of their inspections as needed. If all the residents wanted an automated service agreement, this would need to be considered with its leasehold team as there would be costs involved.
The resident has confirmed the crumbling wall has been rendered and the front guttering fixed but she is concerned there may be further issues in the winter.

Assessment and findings

Reports of repairs, including to the wall and the guttering

The lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for roof and gutter repairs when leaseholders live in a flat. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to take action to respond to the resident’s reports in that regard.
It does seem other neighbours had also reported an issue with the guttering and a contractor did attend, but not until 22 March 2023, and only after the resident chased. However, at the visit, the contractor recorded that another resident claimed there to be no issue with the guttering, so no action was taken. Instead, it recommended replacing felt on a flat part of the roof which may have been allowing water in.
While there appears to have been some confusion between residents over whether there was an issue with the guttering, the landlord’s Repairs policy says it aims to attend within two weeks of a repair being reported, and to complete most repairs within one calendar month. It clearly failed to achieve that here. It took no action in relation to the exterior wall and, as a further report of faulty guttering was logged on 30 March 2023, it is evident the guttering issue remained unresolved too. To make matters worse, although the landlord accepts that a job was created on 30 March 2023 to repair the guttering, it has no record of any action being taken again, nor can it explain why that is the case. This shows poor record keeping on the landlord’s part, and it is a concern that a repair can go unaddressed without anyone noticing.
Having overlooked the repair at that time, a further 6 months went by, and no further action was taken. It was left for the resident to chase the landlord again on 1 September 2023 and its response was to query what repairs she was referring to. This understandably frustrated the resident and shows that it had again failed to record the repairs and monitor them. It did not realise its error and take immediate action to remedy the situation by recording a new job and arranging for someone to attend as a priority. Instead, it told the resident that, as no repairs had been raised in the last 6 months, she needed to report them again to its customer services team. Therefore, it put the onus on the resident to do further work, when it was an oversight on its part, and caused further delays to the repairs, which is unacceptable.
Although the guttering was cleared on 9 October 2023, a further report of the external wall crumbling was made the following day. Again, there is no evidence of the landlord actioning this. This led to the resident having to make another report on 31 October 2023, reiterating that the exterior wall was crumbling, and reporting there was still an issue with the guttering.
The landlord’s records show the contractor believed the guttering just needed to be cleaned out. However, an inspection was carried out the same day, on 31 October 2023. It is noted that the contractor spoke with the resident who explained the issue was at the front of the block above the bay window. The contractor then noted the render below the window had eroded and the clip on the guttering needed replacing. This was done, and the guttering cleaned again. It also sealed around the window frame.
While action was ultimately taken, the landlord has acknowledged crumbling walls were reported several times and damage to windows. It also acknowledged roofing and guttering was reported in March 2023, but the job was closed as being completed. It is positive to see that in its 21 November 2023 complaint response, the landlord accepted its service had fallen short. It apologised that both repairs had exceeded its recommended and expected timescales. It also acknowledged that poor record keeping meant it was unable to establish or understand why these orders raised were cancelled or not actioned, and in turn had caused the delays with the repairs. While this apology was appropriate, to then say the resident had to re-report the repairs, having already raised them several times, before it would do anything further is disappointing, as it further inconvenienced the resident.
The resident is understandably unhappy with the length of time the landlord has taken to address the repairs reported. The evidence shows that she has had to go to the trouble of raising complaints in order to get an explanation from the landlord, and get it to take action. This should not have been necessary. Even having done that, the landlord took a reactive approach to dealing with repairs, as opposed to being proactive, and taking ownership for its mistakes and looking to put things right.
The resident continued to report the crumbling wall on 23 and 31 January 2024 and 12 and 13 March 2024. The landlord did acknowledge this on 13 March 2024 and said a job had been raised. The resident confirmed the wall had been re-rendered on 23 April 2024.
The resident has continued to report further issues with the guttering, but at the rear of the property, which is not subject to this complaint. She has said the repairs have been completed, but is concerned there may be further issues with the exterior wall and front guttering in the future. If that is the case, they would need to be reported as a new repair.
It took the landlord 15 months to finally complete the repairs which is certainly not in line with its Repairs policy. Throughout that time, it had to be chased on several occasions, and it failed to learn from its mistakes.
A key factor in the landlord’s service falling short was its poor record keeping. The importance of keeping good records is set out in this Service’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) May 2023 (the Spotlight report). The landlord’s poor record keeping has resulted in reported repairs going unactioned, which caused delays, frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should therefore review the Spotlight report along with how it records jobs, and ensure steps are taken to make sure all jobs are actively monitored, are carried out within the timescales set out in its Repairs policy, and that there is communication with the residents.
There has clearly been maladministration in the way the landlord handled the reports of repairs. While the landlord did recognise elements of service failure and ultimately offered the resident compensation in that regard (see paragraph 13 above), the Ombudsman does not consider that its offer was proportionate to the identified failings. The reason being that the amount of time it took to resolve matters was more than the 5 months identified by the landlord. Taking this in to account, along with the prolonged delays, the time, trouble, general frustration and inconvenience caused over that period, in accordance with this Service’s Remedies guidance, the compensation offered should be increased from £247 to £500.

Maintenance of the property/block, including resident engagement and cyclical decoration.

Paragraph 5.3 of the lease states “the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate renew and (in the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve” the main structure of the building and all external parts and load bearing walls and windows on the outside. There is nothing specific in the lease that stipulates how often the landlord should carry out cyclical repairs or regular maintenance. However, maintaining the property would mean keeping assets and facilities working before they reach end-of-life. Therefore, a landlord would be expected to inspect a property regularly in order to monitor what work, if any, is needed.
There is no cyclical repairs policy, but the landlord’s Repairs policy does say, “blocks are inspected at least 4 times a year by the Estate Services Team. Tenants also have a responsibility to report concerns to our Customer Service Team”.
Aside from in 2024, it is evident that the landlord has not had the building inspected 4 times a year, as it has confirmed the only inspection reports it has, relate to: 27 July 2022; 23 August 2022; 24 May 2023; 25 May 2024; 28 June 2024; 26 July 2024; and 9 October 2024.
The 3 inspection reports from 2022 and 2023 recorded evidence of dust and the cleanliness of walls and communal decoration was fair, but “cyclical was due”. There was rubbish at the communal bin and the contractor had been informed. It stated the residents had reported several times that the bin shed floor was not being cleaned by the cleaners and several letter boxes were dented. However, these could be looked at during cyclical repairs. In 2024, the only repairs noted were that the signage at the front had faded and was being dealt with by the Estate Services Team.
The landlord has supplied emails sent on 17 May and 24 August 2022, and 19 July 2023, which show it contacted the cleaning contractor about the state of the bin area, to have it cleared. The emails support the resident’s claim and the contents of the inspection reports, that residents had stated it was an issue several times. Further, an email of 28 November 2022 shows the landlord had also been asked to install a lock on the bin cupboard in order to stop further issues, but no evidence has been provided to indicate that was done.
The cleaning contractor has confirmed in a recent email of 4 December 2024 that regular reports were made about the bin area overflowing and that the residents were getting frustrated. It said it tried its best to make sure the overflow/bulk was reported and the bin room attended even if it was on a call out basis.
While the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord did act on reports of issues with cleanliness in the bin area, in the main it acted in response to complaints from the residents. Knowing it was an ongoing issue, it could have done more to put a plan in place to check with the cleaning contractor regularly, that the area was clear, in order to prevent further reports of there being an issue. It could have also followed up on the request for a lock to be fitted.
In addition to the issue with the bin area, the resident raised general concerns regarding the condition of the building. Other than addressing the signage, the inspection reports provided since 2022 do not refer to any matters requiring urgent attention. However, they do make it clear the building was in need of cyclical repairs. The landlord has provided a copy of a report it commissioned on 28 October 2024 as a result of residents complaining about the signage and cyclical repairs. While this is certainly a positive step, it had been on notice since 2022 that cyclical repairs were due. Therefore, it could have acted more swiftly than it did, to obtain a report.
The assessment of the building in October 2024 found the following:
1. Internal decoration – fair
2. Lobbies and stairs carpets – fair, except the ground floor which was poor.
3. External brick walls – good.
4. External coloured render surfaces – poor.
5. External steelworks – poor.
6. Windows – poor.
7. Roofs – good.
8. Entrance door signage – poor.
It recommended the landlord take action to remedy the issues identified. The landlord told the resident on 24 November 2023 that cyclical works would start this year, but it has since told this Service that is not the case. It has said that the person who told the resident in November 2023 that there would be, did so in good faith, as that was what they were told. However, it was subject to having the budget and had the person known that, they could have managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s comments are noted, and the resident’s expectations should certainly have been managed better if funding was likely to be an issue. However, the landlord was told not only by the resident, but through inspections for the last 2 years, that cyclical repairs were due. The latest report supports that the building does require some work to ensure it is kept in a reasonable condition. Therefore, having now received the recommendations from the October 2024 report, the landlord should draft a schedule of works it intends on carrying out based upon the report’s findings and share that with the resident, making it clear what work will be done, and when.
The Ombudsman has noted the resident told the landlord on 19 November 2023 that cleaning should not have to be reported and the property should be regularly maintained. However, the Repairs policy clearly says the landlord relies upon information about work being needed at the block from inspections as well as direct reporting from residents. In this case, the landlord had received feedback from residents and inspections that cleaning was needed in the block and it has taken action. However, if the resident has any other concerns, these should be reported to the landlord in the usual way.
In summary, the landlord has not complied with its Repairs policy, and ensured the building was inspected 4 times a year. It did take steps to address the cleanliness of the bin area, but it could have been more proactive in that respect. In terms of the general condition of the building, the resident told the landlord on 23 January and 6 September 2023 that it had neglected the building, and it was not maintaining it as it should. Therefore, it was not correct for the landlord to say on 11 September 2023, that the resident had only just reported her concern, so it would not treat it as a complaint. It is accepted that the landlord did liaise with the cleaning contractor about the bin area, but it also said it emailed leasehold services about the issue; but it is not known what, if any, action was taken as a result of that.
The resident complained about not being listened to and general engagement and the landlord’s communication was poor at times. The resident repeated her concerns in the complaints that were made, became increasingly frustrated by the lack of ongoing maintenance of the property, and felt she had to wait a long time for responses.
The resident’s expectations regarding cyclical repairs were not adequately managed. In addition, it is not clear if she was informed when the landlord had liaised with the cleaning contractor about the bin area or of any planned works following inspections taking place. In the landlord’s response of 15 July 2024 it did provide some details of works it was carrying out and apologised if that had not been communicated clearly. It also asked for more information about works that were needed. It did explain there had been a change of contractors and the contract had gone to tender; more information would then be provided once known. It had asked its leasehold team to address the resident’s concerns regarding costs and service charges which she had raised on more than one occasion. It said it would get back to her as soon as possible (but no later than 10 working days). However, it is not known whether the landlord has since contacted the resident.
While the information provided by the landlord was helpful, it should not have taken until July 2024 for it to provide the resident with a detailed response on this point. There have been regular inspections, albeit not in line with the frequency set out in the Repairs policy. The resident has had to raise her maintenance concerns several times due to the landlord’s lack of engagement, and this all amounts to maladministration.
There is provision in the Repairs policy for regular checks to take place, to ensure the block is maintained, and this is something the landlord should adhere to going forward. It should also be more responsive to residents’ concerns over the general condition of the block, and respond to any reports setting out what, if any, action will be taken. If it feels no action is needed, a reasonable response would be to explain why that is the case.
To recognise the effort the resident has had to go to, in order to get the landlord to take their concerns seriously, a payment of compensation is reasonable. The lack of action in terms of maintaining the block in general, has been frustrating. In accordance with this Service’s Remedies guidance, as the landlord failed to address the failings and detriment to the resident in respect of this issue, a compensation payment of £250 is reasonable.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s Complaints and Service Recovery Policy says it will acknowledge and log all complaints within 5 working days of the complaint/request being received. It goes on to say it will aim to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, but it will explain if that is not possible.
Having made complaint 1 on 31 October 2023, the landlord did acknowledge it promptly, 4 working days later. Although it did not issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days, it had explained on 6 November 2023, that it would respond by 21 November 2023, and it adhered to that. Therefore, the resident’s expectations were properly managed.
The stage 1 response was comprehensive. It acknowledged there had been failures in its service and apologised for that, which was appropriate, including poor record keeping. However, it told the resident to re-report issues when it could have arranged for a contractor to go out straight away. This appears to have added to the resident’s frustration.
The resident then asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 22 November 2023; but the landlord simply resent its stage 1 response 2 days later. The resident had to ask again on 3 December 2023, before the landlord acknowledged the request, which amounts to an unacceptable delay. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 January 2024. Although it was outside the 20 working day time frame in its policy, it had put the resident on notice of this response timeframe earlier, so her expectations had been adequately managed.
Although the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its policy, there was no detriment to the resident as she was told when to expect a response and the landlord adhered to that. However, the landlord did fail to escalate the complaint to stage 2 promptly. In addition, having identified shortcomings in its service, it should have given consideration to the impact that had on the resident and offered an appropriate remedy, such as compensation, and a commitment to address the reported repairs straight away. Its failure to do that amounts to maladministration.
The resident raised complaint 2 on 25 March 2024 reiterating the contents of complaint 1. The landlord did acknowledge this the same day and, although it did not issue its stage 1 response in 10 working days, it had told the resident to expect a response by 11 April 2024, and again adhered to that.
The landlord once again accepted an oversight on its part, as it had not addressed the repair needed to the exterior wall since they had last complained. When the complaint was then escalated to stage 2, it did take action to repair the exterior wall but it took the landlord 24 working days (excluding bank holidays) to respond to the complaint. There is no evidence of it advising the resident that there may be a delay. It did offer the resident compensation at that stage, but not in relation to its poor complaint handling.
Overall, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. Although it did tell the resident when to expect a response on all but one occasion, it still took longer than the timescales set out in its policy and this Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The landlord now has a statutory obligation to ensure such compliance and this is monitored by a dedicated team within the Ombudsman. As a result, no recommendation is made in that regard, but the landlord should take steps to ensure that it is aware of, and compliant with, its obligations in relation to the Code.
There was a delay escalating complaint 1 at stage 2 and inadequate consideration given to the impact of its service failures on the resident. It could have done more to deal with the repairs when it acknowledged certain reports had been overlooked and it should not have taken the resident making 2 separate complaints for compensation to be considered.
Taking all this in to account, while the impact of the landlord’s poor complaint handling on the resident is not long term or significant, it did cause frustration; however, this was modest. Therefore, in accordance with our guidance, an appropriate remedy would be compensation of £100.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of repairs, including to a wall and guttering.
2. Maintenance of the property/block, including resident engagement and cyclical decoration.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Review the Spotlight report and produce a report setting out what changes it is making to ensure all jobs are actively monitored and carried out within the timescales set out in its Repairs policy, and that there is communication with residents.
3. Pay £850 compensation (inclusive of any amount already paid in respect of these complaints) made up of:
  1. £500 for delay and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of reports of repairs.
  2. £250 for the frustration caused by the landlord not responding promptly to the resident reporting concerns about the maintenance of the building.
  3. £100 for its failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. Ensure relevant staff are reminded that inspections should take place 4 times a year and any reports of general cleaning or maintenance issues are recorded and actioned in line its Repairs policy. Any resident that makes a report is advised what action, if any, will be taken.
5. Draft a schedule of works to be carried out based upon the 28 October 2024 report’s findings and share that with the resident.
6. Consider the resident’s service charge and whether an additional compensation payment is appropriate based on charges made for services not fulfilled. It should also consider whether this payment is appropriate for other residents in the block.