Sovereign Network Group (202341372)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom mid-terraced house.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the garden fencing.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden fencing.
4. There was reasonable redress offered for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There was an unreasonable delay in repairing the resident’s fence.
6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide her with regular updates.
7. Whilst the landlord offered some compensation for the delays to the works in its complaint responses, there was further delay after this. This meant that the landlord did not ensure that matters were put right in a reasonable timeframe after the final response.
8. It offered appropriate redress for its complaint handling failures.

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.

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.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states she is responsible for keeping the boundary fencing in good repair. The resident’s request for a repair to her fencing related to a privacy panel. The evidence shows the landlord accepted responsibility for repairing privacy panels.
10. The evidence shows the landlord logged a repair job promptly however it did not book an appointment for the repair works. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for updates.
11. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that fencing works were on hold. It failed to provide the resident with a timescale for when it aimed that works could begin or when it would update her again. This would have caused the resident uncertainty.
12. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 1 February 2024. The landlord told the resident that no fencing works would be approved “this side of the financial year”.
13. It is unclear from the evidence why fencing works were on hold. The resident has told us that she was provided with reasons such as the weather, health and safety training needed for operatives and that work would be completed in the new financial year. An internal note dated 21 February 2024 said it was a “business decision”.
14. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident spent time chasing the landlord for an update. On multiple occasions, the landlord told the resident the issue had been escalated to a manager. She was also told she would receive an action plan. This did not happen and the resident continued to chase. The lack of communication from the landlord would have made the resident feel her repair was not being taken seriously.
15. On 14 August 2024 the landlord told the resident that the fence repair would be completed on 30 April 2025. It is unclear why an earlier appointment could not have been offered to the resident. We acknowledge the landlord did complete the repair sooner and replaced the fence on 30 January 2025.
16. Overall there was an unacceptable delay in the landlord completing the fencing repair. The landlord took 1 year and 8 months to install the replacement fence. This caused the resident inconvenience as she did not have privacy when using her garden.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation if its service had fallen short. In its stage 2 response the landlord identified service failures. It apologised to the resident and offered £250 compensation. In our view, its offer was proportionate to the failings by the landlord up until 20 May 2024, the date of its final response.
18. However, there were further failings by the landlord following its stage 2 response. This is because the resident continued to be adversely impacted by the lack of communication and further delays in the repairs service provided by the landlord. In its final response the landlord had committed to ensuring the work needed was approved urgently. This would understandably have raised the resident’s expectations that the work would be progressed and completed within a reasonable timeframe. However the work was then not completed for a further eight months. We consider a further £100 compensation is due to reflect the shortfalls in service and resulting impact on the resident after 20 May 2024 until 30 January 2025.

19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
20. The landlord did not provide an acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint. It provided its stage 1 response in time, within 8 working days.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not show it had reviewed its actions. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint but did not say why or comment on the service it provided to the resident. The landlord did not show it had fully investigated her complaint.
22. On 28 February 2024 the resident told the landlord she wanted to take her complaint further. She did not receive any contact and emailed the landlord again on 3 April 2024 requesting escalation of her complaint. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord for a response.
23. The resident told the landlord in a telephone call on 10 April 2024 that there was no point escalating her complaint and she would speak to us. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not continue with escalating her complaint at that time.
24. Following our contact to the landlord on 30 April 2024 it issued its stage 2 response in line with the Code.
25. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling. In our view, this is proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Learning

26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified learning. It is positive the landlord used its complaints process to identify areas for improvement. One of the areas of improvement was its level of communication with residents. As there were gaps in the landlord’s communication following its complaint response, it would not have given the resident confidence that the landlord learned from her complaint and the landlord should consider what learning it can take from this case to inform its future service improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We did not identify concerns with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

28. The landlord did not provide the resident with an action plan as it said it would. Had it of set the resident’s expectations, it could have avoided the time and trouble the resident went to in trying to get updates.