Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sovereign Network Homes (202306986)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306986

Sovereign Network Homes

23 September 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 report of damp and mould.

2.     The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. In response to our evidence request the landlord reported that the resident had no vulnerabilities. However, the resident has confirmed that she and her son both have respiratory conditions.

4.     In 2016, the landlord installed a positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the resident’s property due to the presence of damp and mould.

5.     On 29 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team as damp and mould had returned on the same area of her kitchen wall as before and was also in the bathroom. The landlord advised her to report it to its repairs team, which she did on 4 November 2022. On 7 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged her report and sent a questionnaire about the damp which included questions such as whether she opened windows when she cooked. The resident returned the completed questionnaire that day and pointed out that her records would confirm that she’d had previous damp issues in the same area and a PIV installed.

6.     On 8 December 2022 the landlord confirmed it would arrange an inspection and its operative inspected the property on 15 December 2022 and provided the landlord’s damp team with photographs. The landlord has not provided us with a record of the damp team’s correspondence about its findings and it’s not clear whether this was via email or letter. However, it has provided the resident’s response on 6 January 2023 in which she requested to raise a complaint as she strongly disagreed with its findings that the issues were caused by condensation and asked the landlord to look at the history of previous damp at the property and its installation of a PIV. She explained that her health condition meant that she could not be around mould spores.

7.     On 9 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would send a surveyor to inspect the property and the resident dropped her complaint. The surveyor inspected the property on 25 January 2023. However, when the resident contacted the landlord for an update on 8 February 2023, the landlord responded the following day to say it had no record of the visit and it was established that the surveyor no longer worked for the company. The resident raised a complaint on 9 February 2023 as nobody had advised her of this or passed the work to another surveyor.

8.     The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 14 February and a surveyor inspected the property on 16 February 2023. The surveyor’s report said that there were signs of water ingress in the bathroom and that the pipework be checked for leaks. It also said that the extensive mould in the kitchen appeared to be “as a result of a high ground level that in some places breaches the damp proof course or were close to doing so” and a partially blocked downpipe. It also said that the external wall covering may have defects that allowed water ingress via the meter fittings.

9.     The resident emailed the landlord on 16 February 2023 to say that she felt the damp had not been dealt with properly back in 2016 and that this had affected her and her son’s health. She said either the damp proof course had not been checked in 2016, or it had been checked and subsidence was the reason for the ground level being higher than it was in 2016. She also questioned why the PIV had never been inspected or serviced since its installation in 2016. The landlord said it would add these additional points to the complaint.

10. In its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023, the landlord confirmed that the surveyor had recommended that:

  1. The external ground level be dropped with no bushes or plants being against the wall, and a channel drain be installed against the wall running away from the front of the property.
  2. That the window mounted fan in the kitchen be upgraded and a wall mounted single heat recovery unit be installed.
  3. That ( in addition to the pipework being checked) the fan in the bathroom be serviced and possibly upgraded .

11. The landlord explained that due to the time that had elapsed, it was unable to find information about the inspections that took place in 2016 and was therefore unable to comment on that. It advised that the surveyor had not highlighted any concerns about subsidence. It advised that it did not have a preventative maintenance programme for extractor fans/PIVs as it relied on its residents to report any amenities that did not work.

12. The landlord said that although the first surveyor’s departure could not have been foreseen, the timeframe between their attendance and the attendance of the second surveyor was not acceptable. It apologised for this and for the poor level of service she had received, along with the inconvenience and time and trouble involved in getting the issues resolved. It awarded a total compensation of £450 comprised of £200 for the delay, £200 for the distress caused and £50 for time and trouble. It also paid the resident £75 as the resident would have to run a dehumidifier for 15 days to dry out the bathroom before repairs could be completed.

13. Following an inspection of the bathroom by a plumber on 30 March 2023, the resident escalated her complaint as she had used the dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom for 2 weeks in preparation for plumbing work in the bathroom to commence. However, an operative had arrived on 12 April 2023 and only replaced the bath panel. She said her father had overheard a telephone conversation between the operative and the plumber, whereby the plumber said he did not want the work as it was going to be  “a hell of a job”. She said the operatives had also left some metal sticking out in the bathroom that she was concerned could hurt her son. She also said she had to originally delay the work in the kitchen due to having covid but had been unable to get through to the contractor to rearrange it since. 

14. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2023 to confirm that the contractor had now rang her to apologise for its operatives comments . The landlord also said it would reimburse her for any additional cost for having to use the dehumidifier for longer than agreed. Later that day the landlord’s complaints team emailed the resident asking whether she still wanted to escalate her complaint. On 19 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that a plumber due that day had not arrived and to confirm that she still wanted to escalate her complaint. On 10 May 2023, the resident advised the landlord that not only had the plumber not rang her 30 minutes before their visit, but they had also now identified a leak under the bath that had not been found previously, meaning the bathroom would now need longer to dry out.   .

15. In its stage 2 response on 23 May 2023 the landlord responded to the points the resident had raised by copying and pasting responses from the contractor into its response. The contractor was quoted as saying the bathroom work had now been completed and apologised that they had left the resident is this situation and would be speaking to the operatives involved. The contractor also said they had re-raised the kitchen repairs and would also re-raise a repair for the bathroom sealant as the standard of the repair was poor.

16. The landlord gave a summary of repairs that had been completed and those that were outstanding and had been rescheduled. It said it had failed to manage the repairs and awarded an additional  £350 compensation comprised of £140 for the further delay, £140 for the further distress and an additional £70 for time and trouble. It said if  the resident wanted to provide an electricity bill for the cost of the dehumidifier instead it would look at that but that it may be higher or lower than the amount already  awarded.

17. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 May 2023 as was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the damp and mould was affecting her own and her son’s health and the “constant arguing” with the landlord was leaving her feeling stressed.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints process.

18. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has experienced further issues with damp and mould, including having to chase the landlord in September 2023 as the mould had returned and the landlord had not completed the outside work it agreed to in its stage 2 response. The resident confirmed in September 2024 that all the work that the landlord agreed to carry out in its stage 2 response had now been completed with the exception of the installation a wall mounted single room heat recovery unit in the kitchen. She said the PIV had now been serviced but that the landlord had recently carried out a damp survey as she had concerns that there was still damp in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

19. The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on her own and her family’s health. Although we would give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident and her family’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states: 

20. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’

21. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s actions regarding damp in the property in 2016. Whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from November 2022 when the resident reported damp and mould had returned, until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 23 May 2023.

22. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she experienced further issues with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould since the end of the ICP. This included the mould returning and her having to chase the landlord to complete the outside work, both in September 2023. At the time that the investigations into this complaint began, no formal complaint about these further issues had been made or exhausted the landlord’s ICP. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not be investigating those further issues in this report. This in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states:

23. “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” 

24. However, the resident is able to raise a new complaint with the landlord about those issues. If, once that new complaint has exhausted the landlord’s ICP, the resident remains dissatisfied she would be able to refer that complaint to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.

25. When the resident reported damp and mould on 29 November 2022 to the landlord’s complaints team, they signposted her to its repairs team, which was reasonable as it was a report and request for service at that stage, rather than a complaint. Once the resident reported it to the repairs team on 4 December 2022, it was reasonable that the landlord issued a questionnaire to find out more about the damp and mould. The inspection of the property was arranged on 15 December 2022 which was within ten days of the resident’s report and therefore reasonable.

26. The resident has advised us that the complaint she raised on 8 January 2023 was as a result of being told by the landlord that the damp and mould was condensation as a result of her lifestyle. The landlord has not provided a copy of either a letter or call record of this correspondence so it has not been possible to confirm the wording used. However, it does appear that its decision to send a surveyor to inspect the property was as a direct result of the resident’s complaint. This suggests that it was not originally going to send a surveyor out and there is no record that it was planning to take any other action to address the damp and mould until the resident raised that complaint.

27. The resident dropped her complaint as the landlord agreed on 9 January 2023 to send out a surveyor to inspect the property, which was appropriate, given the history of previous damp and mould issues. The inspection was carried out a week later on 16 January 2023, which was a reasonable timeframe. However, when the surveyor stopped working for the landlord shortly afterwards, the landlord failed to arrange for the surveyors workload to be reallocated and failed to update the resident either. This resulted in additional stress and inconvenience when the resident contacted the landlord for an update on 8 February 2023. Once the landlord was aware that the surveyor had left, it responded appropriately by arranging for another surveyor to inspect the property on 16 February 2023.

28. It was reasonable that the landlord did not investigate the work it had carried out in 2016, as such a long time had passed and it no longer had the records available. Its explanation that it did not carry out services of fans and PIVS was also reasonable, as residents are responsible for reporting any repairs to landlords. However, we will be recommending that it consider servicing new PIVs in line with manufacturers’ guidelines and consider servicing all existing appliances to ensure they are working appropriately. It was also reasonable that it relied on its surveyors report to reassure the resident that there had been no concerns about subsidence raised during the inspection. The landlord also took appropriate steps to arrange for the surveyor’s recommendations to be actioned.

29. However, there were further failings following its agreement to carry out the recommendations. These included delays in carrying out repairs, missed appointments and failing to call 30 minutes beforehand, as promised. There were also delays in identifying the leak in the bathroom and delays in carrying out the plumbing work due to the plumber not wanting the job. These failings would amount to maladministration. However, the landlord took appropriate steps to reschedule the delayed works and also appropriately acknowledged its failings. It also paid total compensation of £800. The Ombudsman considers this amount to be reasonable as it is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, for this part of the complaint the Ombudsman’s finding is one of reasonable redress.

30. It is important to note that this investigation has considered events up until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 23 May 2023, and the finding of reasonable redress is in relation to the landlord’s actions up until that date. As mentioned earlier in this report, the resident is able to make a new complaint to the landlord about any further issues she has experienced after this date.

31. Although the landlord had appropriately agreed to reschedule all works in its stage 2 response, the resident has advised that the landlord was not able to install the wall mounted single room heat recovery unit in the kitchen, but she is unsure why. Therefore we will be recommending that the landlord explain to the resident the reason it was unable to install the unit and whether it will be offering an alternative.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will investigate complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. However, its stage 1 response was issued 2 days outside of the 10 working day timeframe. The stage 1 response also did not address why it appeared to have taken a complaint from the resident for it to send a surveyor to inspect the property. This was a failing.

33. It would also have been helpful if the landlord had sent written confirmation of the resident’s escalation request so that she could be sure that it had been escalated. However, instead she had to request this and it is not clear whether she ever received it. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response took appropriate steps to address the concerns the resident had raised, it lacked empathy and a large part of it consisted of addressing each of the resident’s concerns with a copy pasted response from the contractor. Although the contractor’s response included apologies there was no real acknowledgment of the impact the failings had on the resident on a personal level.

34. As such the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and will be ordering it to pay the resident £150 compensation for the impact on the resident of these failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of service failure where the failing may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, where the impact might include distress and inconvenience, disappointment, and loss of confidence in the landlord.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision , the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Apologise to the resident for the service failure in respect of its complaint handling.
  2. Pay the resident £150 compensation the impact of this failing on the resident.

38. The landlord is recommended to:

  1. Consider whether it would be appropriate for it to service PIVs in accordance with manufacturers’ guidelines.
  2. Contact the resident to explain the reason it was unable to install a wall mounted single room heat recovery unit in the kitchen and whether an alternative solution was or will be provided instead.
  3. Confirm with the resident that has an accurate record of all vulnerabilities in the household.