Sovereign Network Homes (202325540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325540

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

3 July 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. An emergency repair.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. On 13 July 2023 at 13:28, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen. A plumber attended the property the same day at 16:11, stopped the leak and completed the repair. 
4. On 14 July 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied that there was no dedicated number for emergency repairs, the response time for emergencies was 4 hours and her vulnerabilities did not prompt a quicker response.
5. On 2 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it had raised an emergency repair and had told the resident and her carer that a contactor would attend within 4 hours. It explained that the call handler had addressed her vulnerability and attempted to reassure her that help was on the way. The landlord explained that it was unable to provide a dedicated number for emergency calls. It acknowledged that the call wait times were  long and explained recent recruitment should help bring down call wait times. The complaint was not upheld as the repair was correctly assigned as an emergency, the call handler provided the correct information and the contractor attended the property within the 4 hour period.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and requested the escalation of her complaint on 17 August 2023 via a handwritten letter. The landlord received this letter on 23 August 2023. The resident explained that there was a malfunctioning phone line when she was reporting the uncontrollable flood in her kitchen. The resident stated that the root cause of the problem was not addressed in the stage 1 response and more needs to be done to help vulnerable tenants. Furthermore, she disagreed that there had been no service failures as the stage 1 response did not consider that the phone had cut off twice before she had been able to report the emergency.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and explained the steps it had taken to reduce wait times over the past few months after it had increased its staff. It also explained the alternative channels of raising non-emergency issues. It explained that its operative had attended around 4 pm, which was still less than 4 hours after the resident’s first attempted call, regardless of the first call disconnecting and call wait times. It apologised for the inconvenience and additional stress caused by the calls disconnecting and explained it was unsure what had caused this.
8. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 October 2023. She explained that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response times and the phone line repeatedly disconnected during an emergency and uncontrollable flood. She said to us that she wanted the stopcock replaced with sure stop.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s process on 29 September 2023. In recent correspondence to us the resident explained that she wanted to have a sure stop installed. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s earlier formal complaint. This is a new issue and the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions fully through its complaints process prior to our involvement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the subsequent issues, she can escalate her concerns with the landlord and follow its process until she exhausts it.

The landlord’s handling of an emergency repair

10. Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (the 1985 and 2018 Acts) obliges landlords to ensure that its properties are fit for human habitation, including by avoiding defects from repairs.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours. The policy explains that an emergency repair is a situation where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that is rapidly getting worse, for example uncontrollable flood.
12. The landlord’s vulnerable customers policy states that it aims to provide support to vulnerable customers by accelerating repairs.
13. The resident reported a leak, which the landlord categorised as an emergency repair. The repair was completed within 4 hours. This was appropriate and demonstrates the landlord responded correctly to the resident’s report of a leak and acted in accordance with its emergency repairs timescales. The resident mentioned in her complaint that emergencies have a 4 hour response time. However, this is a standard timeframe for emergency repairs.
14. The resident explained that being number 9 in the call queue added to her anxiety and lead to a panic attack therefore her carer had to speak to the call handler. The resident stated the phone line was malfunctioning and repeated disconnections added to her stress. The resident made the first call at 12:46, the call was cut off and she was in the call queue for 24 minutes. She called again at 13:16 and waited for 28 minutes. The landlord apologised for the wait times in its complaint responses and explained that it was working on reducing its call wait times.
15. The landlord confirmed in its responses the first call at 12:46 had been cut off and the second call at 13:16 had been disconnected at the resident’s end and the call hander had called back at 13:43. The call handler appropriately explained the emergency would be responded to in 4-5 hours. The landlord also appropriately investigated if the phone lines were working which we have seen evidence of.  
16. While the landlord apologised for the wait time and the disconnections these did not have an adverse impact on the landlord’s response time. From the first moment the resident called the landlord at 12:46, the repair was responded to (at 16.11) within the 4 hour timeframe. The resident stated in her escalation request that the landlord did not respond to the phone lines disconnected in its stage 1 response. However there is no evidence that she raised this previously. Furthermore, at stage 2 the landlord provided a response and investigated the issue. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated the landlord had taken her concerns seriously.
17. In the complaint, the resident stated her vulnerabilities were not appropriately considered and did not lead to her emergency being escalated and responded to quicker. She explained that she had a panic attack due to the flood and the situation would have been far worse if her carer had not been with her to help with the calls. The landlord explained that during the calls, it had provided advice to the carer, it had called back to confirm a contractor was booked and the repair was responded to within 4 hours. We have seen evidence confirming these appropriate steps.
18. The resident explained that vulnerable residents and residents who lived alone needed additional support. She suggested the landlord to introduce a dedicated phone line for emergency repairs. The landlord apologised for the wait times in its stage 1 response and explained that it was working on reducing call wait times. It explained that it was unable to provide a specific number for emergencies but took steps to improve its services to reduce the waiting times. In its stage 2 response it provided details of the step taken and how this positively affected the response times. This was a reasonable and customer orientated approach.
19. Overall, the landlord assessed the repair with the highest priority and responded to it in line with its repairs policy. It addressed all the resident’s concerns. Despite the landlord identified no failure, it took seriously the resident’s feedback and took steps to alleviate any waiting times issues from occurring in future. We have found no failure in the landlord’s response to the emergency repair request. 

Associated complaint

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and at any stage, if it needs further time, it will agree this with the resident.
21. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 17 August 2023 via handwritten letter, which was received at the landlord’s office on 23 August 2023. The landlord issued its response on 29 September 2023, in 27 working days. The landlord did not meet its target timescale. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the complaint being acknowledged via a telephone or letter, or update provided to the resident about any delay.
22. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its stage 2 response. It would been appropriate to keep the resident informed and explain the delay in its response particularly given her concerns about its response times. However, it did not do so and as such it missed an opportunity to put things right for her. This amounts to a service failure.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an emergency repair.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord  to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failure.
    2. Pay £50 compensation directly to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s failures in the complaint handling identified by this report.
    3. Contact the Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.