Sovereign Network Group (202421526)

Background

1. The resident occupies a one-bedroom, ground floor flat with his girlfriend and 2 young children, including a new-born.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leak repairs.
   2. The resident’s request to separate the water supply to his and his neighbour’s properties.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of leak repairs.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to separate the water supply to his and his neighbour’s properties is outside our jurisdiction.
   3. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak repairs

4. It took over 2.5 months and 9 attendances by the contractor to fix a severe leak under the floorboards of the resident’s property. The landlord failed to manage the repair effectively and there was inadequate oversight and scrutiny over the contractors’ handling of repairs. Its communication with the resident was also inadequate.

The resident’s request to separate the water supply to his and his neighbour’s properties

5. It is appropriate to allow the landlord an opportunity to put things right through its complaints procedure before we determine this complaint.

The complaint

6. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s complaint in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code. Its stage 2 response did not address the issues raised in the resident’s escalation request and included a seemingly unrelated issue in respect of the boiler/electrical issues. It failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its complaint responses.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. We have not looked at the issues the resident says he experienced with moisture and related electrical issues caused by the leak. We understand these issues transpired after an independent contractor, engaged by the resident, detected and stopped a leak. The resident notified the landlord of this on 30 January 2025. This was over 6 months after the stage 2 response and over 12 months after repairs were carried out in January 2024. As the landlord has not had an opportunity to address these issues through its complaints procedure, we have no power to investigate these elements of the complaint. The resident may refer these issues to us for separate investigation once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

What we did investigate

8. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. 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.
9. In this case, there are gaps in the evidence from the landlord. For example, it has not provided evidence of the resident’s reports relating to the leak. Some of the repair records are also insufficient to clearly demonstrate the steps it and its contractors took to address the leak. This amounts to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide us with information for our investigation. In the circumstances, we cannot assess if the landlord took timely and appropriate actions.
10. Based on the available evidence, we are satisfied the leak was severe and ought to have been treated as an emergency repair under the landlord’s repairs policy. The leak was reported on 5 November 2023 and, in line with its policy, the contractor attended within 4 hours of the job being raised. However, they did not return to complete urgent follow-on works the next day.
11. Although the contractor carried out works on 7 November 2023, the evidence suggests this did not resolve the leak. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that the resident reported the leak was ongoing on 4 December 2023. Further, an operative’s note dated 21 January 2024 stated, “Nothing has been done” since they attended in November. They advised, “There is a burst pipe underneath the floorboards… You can hear it. IT’S LOUD.” They supplied 20 litres of drinking water to the resident and his neighbour as they had no water at all.
12. Photographic and video evidence of the leak under the floorboards and moisture in the bathroom, provided by the resident, are not dated so it is unclear when these were taken. However, we are satisfied as to the severity of the leak, as this was noted in the contractor’s notes.
13. Records indicate the leak was fixed on 22 January 2024, over 2.5 months after it was reported. This was an excessive delay, which clearly had a significant impact on the resident and his household.
14. There were at least 9 attendances at the resident’s property by multiple operatives to address the leak between 5 November 2023 and 23 January 2024. Several jobs were raised, cancelled, shut down and recalled. This demonstrates an ineffective system and/or process to properly manage the repair and monitor the outcome of appointments and follow-on works.
15. In his stage 2 escalation request dated 5 March 2024, the resident requested “reassessment of the repair work to address the visible dripping condensation to the floor board”. This was not addressed by the landlord, which was a missed opportunity to assure the resident and itself that the leak had been satisfactorily resolved. Given the previous failure by the contractor to satisfactorily repair the leak in November 2023, a post-works inspection would have been reasonable. That said, no order for an inspection has been made by us as the resident has confirmed there are no current concerns.
16. Aside from the limited complaint correspondence, there is no evidence of any communication between the resident and the landlord from November 2023 to January 2024. Consequently, we cannot reasonably assess the time and trouble the resident was put to in reporting, re-reporting and chasing repairs. The lack of evidence is consistent with the landlord’s acceptance in its stage 1 response that communications were inadequate.
17. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted service failures but attributed these to its contractor’s poor planning and inadequate communication. It seems there was an over-reliance on the contractors to deal with repairs without any oversight or scrutiny by the landlord. However, responsibility for repairs ultimately lies with the landlord. If it chooses to employ third party contractors to deliver this aspect of its service to residents, it must ensure effective oversight and monitoring of repairs.
18. The compensation awarded by the landlord for its failures in the handling of the leak repairs (£200 at stage 1) does not adequately reflect the impact of its failings on the resident’s household. (For the avoidance of doubt, the additional £765 awarded at stage 2 has not been considered as part of this investigation because, at the time, this was for a seemingly unrelated repair to the boiler and electrics.) Its stage 2 response recognised it had not factored in distress, time and trouble at stage 1, but it did not award additional compensation for these elements.
19. The delay in completing repairs (from 5 November 2023 to 22 January 2024) constitutes a failure that had a significant impact on the resident and his household. Therefore, the redress needed to put things right is substantial. Accordingly, in line with our remedies guidance, we consider compensation at the higher end of the range for maladministration is proportionate and fair to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. If the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
21. The resident’s concern relating to the separation of his water supply from his neighbour’s appears to have been raised for the first time as part of his stage 2 escalation request on 5 March 2024. The issue was not addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response, nor was it logged as a new stage 1 complaint. We address the complaint handling aspect of this below. However, in the interest of fairness to both parties, we consider it reasonable to allow the landlord the chance to put right first. The resident may refer this issue to us for separate investigation once it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

22. We have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint, which further highlights the landlord’s poor record keeping and/or its failure to provide us with information for our investigation. Therefore, we cannot ascertain if the acknowledgement letter dated 22 January 2024 was issued within 5 working days of receipt, as required by the Code.
23. The acknowledgement advised that the landlord would respond to the resident’s complaint by 6 February 2024, which it did. This was 11 working days after the acknowledgement letter. This was inappropriate, as it was outside the 10 working days allowed for a stage 1 response in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. However, there was minimal impact to the resident as it responded within the timescale it advised him.
24. As we have not seen the resident’s complaint, we cannot determine whether or not the landlord addressed all of the issues raised in its stage 1 response. However, it provided a detailed response in relation to the handling of the leak repair. It advised the resident to make a claim on his home contents insurance for his damaged flooring and other items, in line with its repairs policy, and also included contact details for its own insurance claims team, which was appropriate. It apologised for service failures it had identified and tried to put things right by way of its compensation offer. It also sought to demonstrate learning from the resident’s experience, stating its contractor had made changes to its processes to improve its service. The landlord’s approach was consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes).
25. Contrary to its policy and the Code, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It replied to the resident’s email chasing a response on 2 May 2024 and apologised for missing his previous email requesting escalation. However, it did not define the complaint it would investigate or indicate when he could expect to receive the response.
26. The stage 2 response was issued on 7 June 2024, 65 working days after the resident’s escalation request and 25 working days after it logged the stage 2 complaint. This was excessive against the 20-working-day timeframe stated in its complaints and service recovery policy and the Code.
27. It is unclear why the landlord included an electrical issue with the boiler in its stage 2 response, as this was not raised in the resident’s escalation request. His referral of the matter to us in September 2024 noted his view at the time that the boiler/electrical issue was “an unrelated case”. Conversely, the response failed to address other elements of the resident’s email of 5 March 2024 – for example, the separation of the water supply and his request for a reassessment of the works carried out by the contractor.
28. By including the boiler/electrical repairs in its stage 2 response, the landlord effectively removed the resident’s right to request a review of this aspect of its response, as per the 2-stage complaints procedure required by the Code. In any case, we note the resident has since told us the issue subsequently became a concern, as the electrics kept cutting out due to high moisture levels from the leak. Accordingly, we have ordered the landlord to log a new complaint about this and other issues not properly addressed in its handling of this case.
29. Overall, the stage 2 response did not effectively address the resident’s concerns and failed to reflect our Dispute Resolution Principles. Nor did the landlord acknowledge its shortcomings in its handling of the complaint up to that point. We take the view it is appropriate to award compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the significant impact of its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord has not provided us with complete records. This points to poor record keeping practices and/or a failure to provide us with information for our investigation.

Communication

31. Other than the complaint correspondence, the landlord has not provided any evidence of its communications with the resident, which is unsatisfactory. It must be able to demonstrate its communications with the resident by reference to contemporaneous records.