Sovereign Network Homes (202328601)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328601

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

31 January 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak from the balcony above.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property which is a 2-bed first floor flat.
  2. On 31 August 2022, the landlord raised a works order for an inspection after the resident reported a leak from the property above. On 27 September 2022, the landlord raised another works order for a joint inspection of the property. It later identified that two balconies were leaking into the properties below.
  3. On 28 November 2022, the landlord raised a works order to apply a waterproof coating to the balcony of the property above the resident’s. On 13 December 2022, the landlord raised a works order to “seal around the gulley” of that balcony. The landlord said it completed these works in January 2023 but it did not provide the exact date.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint in January 2023 – the exact date is not recorded by the landlord. The resident’s complaint was about the delay in any works being carried out to prevent further leaks and the lack of communication.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 3 February 2023. It said that the next required works needed dry weather on consecutive days before they could be completed. It said that, given the time of year, this had caused delay. The landlord said it would arrange a date for the works once appropriate.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 February 2023. She said that the stage 1 response did not explain why there was such a significant delay in any works being carried out to prevent further potential damage. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 15 February 2023 and said it would provide a response by 15 March 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. It said that a full inspection of the balcony had been agreed and it would have to wait on the results of the inspection before putting in place a plan of works. It said it would provide a further update after the survey and offered £50 compensation due to the delay in providing its complaint response.
  8. After the stage 2 response, the landlord completed a survey of the balcony and decided on works to prevent further leaks. It is evident that these works were delayed due to the landlord identifying issues with the location of gas pipework at the property. The resident brought the complaint to this Service in November 2023 as works were yet to be completed.
  9. Works were completed around December 2023. The landlord later carried out a dye test at the property to see if the leaks were still an issue. It said that following the test, it was satisfied that there were no further leaks coming from the balcony above.   

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident was in contact with the landlord after the end of the complaints process – throughout the second half of 2023 and into 2024 – chasing completion of permanent works to prevent further leaks.
  2. This investigation will focus on the events that led to the complaint in January 2023 up to the end of the complaint process in April 2023. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Nevertheless, we can review whether the landlord took the steps to put things right as proposed in its final complaint response and how it learned lessons from the outcome of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the balcony above

  1. After receiving a report of the leak from above, the landlord raised a works order with a priority timeframe of 7 days. The landlord did not provide any detail or notes from this visit so the severity of the leak and the associated damage is unclear. However, it is evident that when booking a joint inspection later in September 2022 this was recorded as having a 28 day timeframe instead. The repair policy says that this timeframe is assigned to non-emergency works.
  2. After inspecting the property, the landlord did not class this as an emergency repair. Nevertheless, it would still be expected to take steps to prevent further leaks, especially heading into the winter period. However, the landlord’s records show that after raising the inspection, it took a further 2 months before it raised a works order to carry out repairs at the property. This was unreasonable.
  3. It is accepted that leaks from above can be difficult to diagnose and resolve. These repairs may require additional time due to the potential need for specialist contractors or significant planning. Also, where there are leaseholders in the block, the landlord may need to follow the section 20 consultation process before it can proceed with works.
  4. However, in its repair policy, the landlord says that if works will take longer than 28 days, it will communicate with the resident and give expected timescales for the works to be completed. This Service has not had sight of any such correspondence from the period between the leak report in August 2022 and the first repair in January 2023. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not provide updates to the resident in line with its repair policy. The resident made it clear in her complaint that chasing updates was a cause of distress and inconvenience during this period.
  5. Where there are potentially significant delays to carrying out repairs, the landlord would still be expected to consider a temporary repair. This would reduce the possibility of further damage while awaiting its planned works. In this instance, the landlord took more than 4 months to carry out any form of repair. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence that the potential for further damage caused her considerable concern during this period.
  6. It is evident that the works carried out by the landlord in early 2023 did not provide a lasting repair. As part of the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had decided to arrange a further inspection of the balconies to identify a permanent solution. The landlord said that works would be prioritised after it received the report from the inspection. Given that the previous repair had not worked, this was a reasonable direction for the landlord to take.  
  7. The landlord’s records show that, following the inspection, it did plan and carry out works to provide a lasting repair. There were further delays due to the positioning of pipework at the property. HowHowever, it is also evident that the resident had to continue to chase the landlord for updates while delays were ongoing. This indicates that it did not learn sufficient lessons from the outcome of the complaint and excessive delays continued beyond April 2023.
  8. In February 2024, following a “dye test” carried out to the balcony, the landlord said it was satisfied that the cause of the leak had been repaired.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord failed to complete the balcony repairs in a timely manner. Despite significant delays, the landlord did not keep the resident informed throughout in line with its repair policy. Had the landlord provided adequate oversight and treated the repair with appropriate urgency, the works would likely have been completed sooner. Given the failings identified, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a leak from the balcony above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. At stage 1, it did not provide any explanation of the reason for the delays. Instead, it just said that a works order had been raised and it would ensure the works went ahead when possible, given the requirements for good weather. Within the same response, it failed to acknowledge or mention the resident’s concerns over the lack of communication.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will “investigate all complaints thoroughly”. The resident was clear about the reasons for her complaint and these are not commented on in the landlord’s responses. This shows that the complaint was not investigated thoroughly by the landlord. This was a service failing by the landlord as it did not act in line with its own policy. This meant that it failed to address the key points from the complaint and it also displayed no sense of empathy for the resident’s position.
  3. It is clear that the landlord’s failure to comment on the initial reasons for the resident’s complaint led to her escalating the complaint to stage 2. Within that response it apologised for the delay in providing it. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a response within 20 working days. However, it took 46 working days to issue the stage 2 response. This was a further service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to meet the timeframe set out in its complaint policy.
  4. The stage 2 response from the landlord also made no reference to the resident’s reasons for complaining. Instead, it only offered an update as to the actions it would be taking to address the required repairs. There was insufficient acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint, its failings and the detriment caused. This was the same across both stages of the process, showing a lack of understanding or learning. This is a service failing on the part the landlord. The landlord’s complaint responses likely added to the distress and inconvenience caused by its initial failings in the handling of the leak.
  5. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £50 which it said was for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. Given the other failings in its complaint handling, which it failed to acknowledge, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this was not proportionate considering the detriment caused. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the balcony above.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation to the resident, made up of:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of a leak from the balcony above;
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of her complaint (this is inclusive of the £50 offered at stage 2).
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.