Sovereign Network Group (202340976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340976

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

24 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a payment from an insurance claim in 2023.
2. Response to repair issues raised after 21 June 2024, including:
  1. The resident’s request for a temporary decant in September 2024.
  2. Reports of rotten windows.
  3. The communal area smelling of sewage.
  4. The communal area having no lights, which resulted in injury to the resident.
  5. Rubbish in the communal area.
  6. The landlord charging the resident to unblock a toilet and basin.
  7. A bedroom window not opening.
  8. Another tenant of the landlord having returned to the block, which the resident considered to pose a risk.
  9. The landlord sharing the resident’s contact details with contractors.
  10. Storm damage to his belongings.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resident’s associated request for temporary accommodation during the works.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy at the property, which is a 1 bedroom, third floor flat. He has lived there since 2018 and lives with his partner and a child, who was a newborn at the time of the complaint. The property is located in a row of terraced, four storey properties and the building is a grade 2 listed. The landlord does not have vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, during his correspondence with the landlord, the resident advised that he has issues with his mental health and that his child has breathing difficulties.
The resident has experienced a number of leaks in different parts of the property between 2021 and 2023. These previous leaks were considered by the landlord at the time by way of its internal complaints procedure, compensation and insurance claims.
The resident reported a leak affecting the light fittings on 18 September 2023. Repairs were conducted by the landlord and in January 2024 cracks in the chimney were identified. The resident asked to be moved into temporary accommodation during the repairs.
The resident and landlord were in dispute around whether a temporary accommodation was needed and later about the type of accommodation that was suitable for the resident and his family.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 March 2024. It stated that it would pay money directly to the resident for him to pay for his selected temporary accommodation. It outlined the steps required to facilitate the repairs. It apologised and offered compensation for the delays in carrying out repairs.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 March 2024. The landlord carried out works at the property on 15 April 2024. When the works were finished, the landlord tried to arrange dates to test if the leak had stopped. The resident would not allow this unless the landlord arranged further temporary accommodation.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 3 June 2024. It offered additional compensation and outlined payments it had already provided to the resident. It provided the dates when the additional works were due to take place.
After the stage 2 response, the resident said there was still a leak at the property. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he said the leak had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that he had not received a payment following an insurance claim from 2023. The landlord has provided information to this Service which it has received from its liability insurer which states it had paid £18,000 to the resident in respect to a claim for damaged possessions following a leak.
Paragraph 34.a of the Scheme states that for the Ombudsman to consider a complaint it must relate to the actions or omissions of a member landlord. In this case, the resident has complained about the length of time it took for the landlord’s insurers to pay him. As the landlord’s insurer is not a member of or Scheme, this is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
Within his correspondence to this Service, the resident raised concerns about a number of other repair issues from 21 June 2024 onwards. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that we may not investigate complaints which were made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, these cannot be investigated at this stage. For clarity, the matters raised by the resident which had not concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and which are not within our jurisdiction are as follows:
1. The resident’s request for a temporary decant in September 2024.
2. Reports of rotten windows.
3. The communal area smelling of sewage.
4. The communal area having no lights, which resulted in injury to the resident.
5. Rubbish in the communal area.
6. The landlord charging the resident to unblock a toilet and basin.
7. A bedroom window not opening.
8. Another tenant of the landlord having returned to the block, which the resident considered to pose a risk.
9. The landlord sharing the resident’s contact details with contractors.
10. Storm damage to his belongings.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The resident submitted a complaint in respect of a leak in 2021 and completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in September 2021.
At the end of its internal complaints process, the landlord told the resident that he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. However, the resident did not do so. The resident submitted another complaint in 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 (on 4 April 2023), however, the resident did not escalate this to stage 2. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from September 2023 (the report of the leak leading up to the most recent complaint) onwards. Mention of events that occurred before this are to provide context only.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resident’s associated request for a temporary decant

Following the resident’s report of a leak on 18 September 2023, the landlord raised an emergency job to make the electrics safe and supply a dehumidifier. The works were completed by the landlord on 19 September 2023. This Service has not seen any records of action taken by the landlord took to identify the cause of the leak, or action taken to resolve it following the resident’s report.
On 24 October 2023 the landlord’s surveyor and contractor attended to inspect. They determined that scaffolding would be required in order to investigate the gutters as a possible cause.
Scaffolding was put up and an inspection took place on 10 November 2023. The landlord noted during this inspection that “personal items” had restricted access. Therefore, a further inspection was arranged for 20 November 2023. On that occasion, the landlord noted that there had been access constraints with another tenant. This had impacted its ability to identify the cause of the leak. The landlord arranged for a third inspection to take place on 22 November 2023. This identified a defect in the membrane of the gutter and a repair was carried out that day.
In total, the repair to the gutter took from 18 September to 22 November 2023. This was around 2 months. This was longer than the landlord’s repair timeframe for a routine repair, which was 1 calendar month. Some of the reasons for the delay had been outside of the landlord’s control, however the work was already not within the target timescales by the time of the landlord’s first visit.
Following this repair, the resident told the landlord on 14 December 2023 that there had not been another leak even after heavy rain. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the guttering repair had resolved the leak.
On 9 January 2024 the resident reported that the leak had happened again after it had rained. The landlord’s surveyor attended within 4 working days and told the landlord that there seemed to be a defect in the lead flashing. A contractor attended on 18 January 2024 and found that personal items had been disposed of in the gutters. This had pierced the membrane. Due to the weather on the day, the contractor could not carry out a repair. The repair was completed on 25 January 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s target timescale. However, there is no evidence that the landlord repaired the flashing at the time.
The resident reported that the leak was still occurring the following day. The landlord noted that it had arranged an emergency visit. It is not clear when this took place, however its contractor did not find a leak. Cracks in the chimney had been found. The contractor told the landlord that some of the wall and ceiling in the resident’s property would need to be removed. After this, a test using dye would need to be carried out to see if the work had stopped the leak.
The resident requested that he and his family be moved temporarily during the works. The landlord told him on 13 February 2024 that this would not be needed as he could still use the property. The resident asked what works would be done and asked again to be moved temporarily. He said that his child’s life would be at risk if they stayed during the work and his child had breathing difficulties.
The landlord explained the works. It said that it would only consider a temporary move if the main bedrooms, kitchen or bathroom would be affected and could not be accessed overnight. The landlord‘s decant process does not explain or confirm how it will determine whether a temporary move is appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged that the works would cause inconvenience in light of the resident having a newborn. However, it explained that a refusal to allow access for the repairs would a breach of tenancy. The landlord and resident remained in dispute about this issue until around mid-February 2024. The landlord told the resident that although it considered a temporary move was not needed, it would see if it could be arranged through its insurance policy. This was to try to resolve the issue.
By taking this action the landlord showed that it had considered the resident’s concerns and took a sensible approach to enable the work to take place. It offered the family a stay in a nearby hotel during the planned works from 11 to 15 March 2024. The resident declined this and said that a hotel was not appropriate. He needed access to a microwave and did not want to be around other people due to his child’s illness.
The landlord said that it could not offer different accommodation. Although it had told the resident its position, there was a missed opportunity to explain the reasons for this. The landlord also missed a chance to manage the resident’s expectations about what options it had.
Following the resident’s refusal of the hotel accommodation, the landlord advised him that it may have to take legal action to enter the property and carry out works.
The resident submitted a complaint on 6 March 2024 and stated that hotel accommodation with a newborn was not safe and so he would not move. He told the landlord that he needed a kitchen as he had “dietary needs” and that he needed access to a washing machine and bath. He asked the landlord to pay for him to stay in an Airbnb during the work. He also said he had not been given a full breakdown of the work and that the landlord had not addressed moving his furniture.
On 22 March 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it saying that it could seek an injunction could have caused distress. It had offered a hotel but at the resident’s request, it had agreed to pay for him to choose an Airbnb to stay in. The landlord would pay for 5 nights’ accommodation, for 2 adults and 1 child. It would also pay for breakfast and dinner. This came to £1238.90, which it would pay to the resident.
2. It explained the works to be carried out between 8 and 15 April 2024. It said that it would need the resident to move his personal items before this.
3. It acknowledged that the time taken to resolve the leak had been too long. It explained that there had been delays due to a number of defects that had contributed to the leak. It apologised for this.
4. It offered £414 compensation for the inconvenience of the 18-week delay (4 December 2023 to the proposed completion on 8 April 2024).
Despite the landlord having agreed to the resident’s request to source his own accommodation, the resident was unhappy with the response. He said it was unprofessional and insensitive. He asked how the landlord had calculated the cost of the accommodation and food. He said that the timeframe for the repairs (8 to 15 April 2024) was more than the 5 nights’ accommodation it agreed to pay for. In addition, the resident told the landlord that he could not move his furniture due to “back issues”.
The landlord responded to these concerns the same day and apologised that the resident had not felt its response had been professional. It also apologised that there had been errors in the dates. It confirmed that the works would take place between 8 and 12 April 2024. It said it would ask its contractor to move the sofa. It also said that once works had been completed, its insurance team would review the settlement and investigate any new claim.
The internal works were completed by 15 April 2024. This left a test using dye to be carried out to see if the leak had been resolved. The resident told the landlord that the family would need to be decanted again during this test as it was not safe for his child. The landlord urged the resident to allow the test to take place on 18 April 2024. The resident declined and asked for a dehumidifier. The landlord noted that it had previously given him a dehumidifier in September 2023. The resident told the landlord that it had been collected and so the landlord offered to deliver one on 9 May 2024.
On 3 June 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It had paid the resident £1238.90 upfront so that he could book his own accommodation during the works. Once it had paid the money, the resident had decided not to move from the property. The work had been carried out with him there. Despite this, it had not asked him to pay back the money. It had also paid him £414 compensation to acknowledge the 18 week delay, inconvenience and distress of the work.
2. Its offer of £414 compensation had been based on the middle level of its compensation policy. If it had calculated this at its highest level, the amount would have been £810. As it had paid the resident a total of £1653, extra compensation was not appropriate.
3. It had arranged for a contractor to redecorate on 18 June 2024.
4. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the delay. It said the resident could refer the matter to a Designated Person or wait 8 weeks to refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
The resident said he was unhappy with the stage 2 response on 17 June 2024. He asked how the landlord had concluded that he had not stayed in the Airbnb during the works. He said he had had to cancel appointments and take time off work for the work. He also said that landlord had not given him a bucket or dehumidifier. Redecoration work was not appropriate as the leak had not been resolved.
The landlord offered to install a drip tray for the ongoing leak. The resident declined this. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 19 June 2024, however, it could not access the property. It advised that when writing the stage 2 response, it thought the leak had been resolved. As the resident said he had stayed in temporary accommodation, it would reconsider its compensation once the leak had been resolved.
Although the internal work had been completed, the landlord was aware that the dye test had not been carried out as the resident had not agreed to this without another decant. As this test had not been done, it was unreasonable for the landlord to have assumed the leak had been resolved within its stage 2 response.
A surveyor’s inspection took place after the matter had been referred to the Ombudsman. This identified further issues with the roof and gutter. It is not clear why these were not identified during the earlier inspections. There was no further action up to November 2024 as the landlord and resident had reached an “impasse” on the temporary decant for the dye test to take place. In November 2024, the landlord agreed to arrange temporary accommodation to enable the work to be carried out. This was being arranged at the time of writing this report.
The evidence shows that much of the delay to complete the works was due to the resident’s insistence for him and his family to be temporarily moved from the property. It is reasonable for a landlord to remind a resident of their obligations in line with their tenancy and to explain what steps it can take to access the property, including legal action.
The evidence shows the landlord took a resolution focussed approach to its response to the resident’s concerns. It did so by first offering a hotel, then providing money for the resident to pay for a short term let as he had requested. Whilst there were some delays in making decisions and coming to a solution which the resident was happy with, the landlord acted reasonably in order to facilitate the works.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been an 18 week delay in it actioning repairs for the leak (from 4 December 2023 to 8 April 2024). It is not clear how the landlord identified these as the dates. This Service has not seen a report of a leak or any correspondence from 4 December 2023. (This Service did ask the landlord to clarify how it had determined these dates. This was not provided). It is also clear from the records that internal works were finished on 15 April and not 8 April 2024 as stated. The records seen by this Service show the following delays:
1. Guttering repair- 18 September 2023 to 22 November 2023. This was around 8 weeks. This was 4 weeks over the landlord’s repair timeframe of 1 calendar month.
2. Internal repairs- 26 January 2024 to 15 April 2024. This was around 12 weeks. This was 8 weeks over the landlord’s repair timeframe of 1 calendar month.
As such, the total delays in works being completed was 12 weeks. However, as the landlord has calculated the delay to be 18 weeks, in the interest of fairness to the resident, the Ombudsman will base its findings on this accepted timeframe.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out 3 levels of compensation:
1. Low- there has been a service failing but this was rectified within a reasonable amount of time with low effort and had a low impact on a resident.
2. Medium- the issues have caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve involving much time and effort.
3. High- a serious failure with severe consequences which took a considerable amount of time and effort to resolve. This has had a major impact on a resident’s lifestyle and/or enjoyment of the property.
The landlord based its offer of compensation at stage 1 on the medium range. This was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case. For a medium impact, the compensation policy states that the landlord will pay £10 a week for delay, £10 a week for distress and £3 a week for time and trouble. The landlord followed its compensation policy in calculating its offer of £414 compensation as follows:
1. 18 week delay = £180.
2. 18 week distress = £180.
3. 18 week time and trouble = £54.
The resident told the landlord within the escalation request (27 March 2024) that he should be compensated for loss of earnings due to waiting in for contractors. The landlord’s compensation policy is clear that it does not compensate for loss of earnings. It was therefore appropriate that this did not form part of the landlord’s offer. The landlord’s failure to address this, however, is considered below in the complaint handling section.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident had not used the £1,238.90 it had paid to the resident to cover the Airbnb. As such, it stated that the total compensation had been £1,652.90 (£1,238.90 + £414).
The landlord’s payment of money upfront for accommodation meant that when the resident challenged this, the landlord could not back up its claim that the resident had not used the money for the accommodation.
However, the landlord’s offer of £414 compensation was appropriately calculated in line with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to use its medium range when deciding compensation. This is because the issues caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve, involving much time and effort. This amount offered was also in line with what the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance states is appropriate where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident.
However, in addition to failings for which the landlord appropriately provided compensation, this Service has also identified the following failures:
1. Following the reported leak on 18 September 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action at the time to identify the cause or resolve it. There was a delay of over a month in the landlord’s surveyor and contractor attending on 24 October 2023.
2. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to repair the defective flashing at the time when its surveyor had raised this on 15 January 2024.
As the landlord did not acknowledge all of its failures, there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resident’s associated request for a temporary decant. To acknowledge the impact of these failures on the resident, the Ombudsman has ordered an additional £100 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If additional time is required, it will keep the resident informed.
The resident submitted a complaint on 6 March 2024 in respect of the leak and the landlord acknowledged this on 8 March 2024. The resident said that it was not a new complaint as the issue had been ongoing since 2021. The landlord advised that it would be treated as a new complaint as the resident had had the opportunity to escalate his previous complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 March 2024, within its stated timeframe.
It is noted that the resident felt the stage 1 response was unprofessional and insensitive. The response seen by this Service was appropriately written and addressed the aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns that same day and apologised if the response had come across that way. It also clarified the date of the works which had been inaccurate in the stage 1 response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 March 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 3 June 2024. This was 45 working days from the escalation request, more than double the landlord’s stated response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay, apologised and offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £50 compensation if a complaint response is delayed by more than 10 working days, as in this case. Although compensation in such circumstances is appropriate, it is reasonable to expect there to be discretion within the landlord’s policy to award higher amounts of compensation depending on the circumstances of a case, the delay involved and the impact of the delay on a resident.
The Code makes it clear that landlord’s should address and respond to all parts of a complaint. The stage 2 response failed to respond to the resident’s request to be compensated for loss of earnings. As the resident had specifically requested this, this should have been addressed by the landlord within its response.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord provided incorrect signposting information to the resident. It said that the resident would need to refer the complaint to a Designated Person or wait 8 weeks to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. This was incorrect as it referred to an out-of-date process which had not been in place since 1 October 2022. It is noted however, that the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman 14 working days later. As such the landlord’s incorrect signposting did not negatively impact the resident’s ability to refer his case to the Ombudsman. It was, however, unreasonable for the landlord to refer to an incorrect process, following the completion of its internal complaints procedure.
Given the failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the poor and inaccurate stage 2 response, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To acknowledge the impact the failures had on the resident, additional compensation of £50 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 34.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of a payment from an insurance claim in 2023 is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to repair issues raised after 21 June 2024 is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the resident’s associated request for a temporary decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay a total of £614 compensation to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £464 compensation. Payment must be made directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £564 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of the leak and associated decant.
  2. £50 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. Provide the resident and this Service with a plan of the next steps it will take to resolve the leak, including the dates of any inspections and associated schedule of works.
3. Update its records to reflect the household vulnerabilities.