Sovereign Network Group (202331542)

Background

1. The property was newly built when the resident moved in. She is unhappy that there are outstanding issues that she raised at the handover and shortly after moving in. She is also unhappy as she does not believe she has received all services that are paid for by her service charge.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of it not providing services paid for by service charges
   2. the resident’s reports of defects and repairs issues
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of it not providing services paid for by service charges
   2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects and repairs issues
   3. no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Service charges

5. We have seen no evidence the resident has not received services she has paid for. The landlord is not required to arrange cleaning of windows that are part of the resident’s property under the lease agreement. It explained this correctly to the resident in its stage 2 response.

Defects and repairs

6. The landlord failed to address all the resident’s repairs issues and did not follow through with the commitment it made in its stage 2 response. It also denied liability for a scratched hob as it said she had not reported it upon completion, despite having evidence to the contrary.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy timescales.

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.

What we have not considered

8. We may not consider complaints where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Any concerns the resident has about the fairness of the service charges, or her liability for these, would be better considered by the First Tier Tribunal.

Provision of services

9. When raising her complaint on 25 July 2023, the resident told the landlord the play area on site had not yet opened, more than 7 months after she had moved in. She also said that it had never carried out window cleaning.
10. In its stage 1 response of 10 August 2023, the landlord said that the play area was no longer gated off and should be usable. It said that part of the grounds was still fenced off and that it should completed work within 4 weeks. It said that if it had not provided a service this would be reflected in the actual service charges after the end of the year. This is standard practice with service charges. However, it did not respond directly to her concern about it not carrying out window cleaning, which would have been appropriate for it to do.
11. In her escalation request of 22 August 2023, the resident said that the gate to the play area remained closed and that the landlord had not responded to all issues she had raised.
12. An internal communication of the landlord on 26 September 2023 states that it carried out communal window twice cleaning a year, next scheduled for May 2024. It said that it only cleaned communal windows and that individual residents were responsible for cleaning their own windows.
13. The resident’s shared ownership lease sets out that the resident is responsible for the cleaning of the windows that form part of the property. It states that the landlord is only responsible for arranging cleaning of the windows in the building that do not form part of the individual properties.
14. In its stage 2 response of 27 September 2023, the landlord said that its operatives had been on site many times and always found the gate to the play area to be open. We have seen no evidence to dispute this, so cannot say the landlord has acted unreasonably in this respect.
15. The landlord explained to the resident that it was only responsible for the cleaning of communal windows. While it could have explained this at stage 1, it did provide this explanation, which was in line with the lease. It said that it had provided feedback to the estates team about the standard of cleaning, which was reasonable.

16. The resident’s purchased the property on 28 October 2022. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of the handover document from this date. However, an internal email from 29 June 2023 said that the resident had included a report of a scratch to one of the hob burners in this document and provided a photo at the time.
17. The resident asked the landlord about scratches to some windows on 10 February 2023. The landlord’s internal email of 29 June 2023 shows she also raised some other issues, including problems in the bathrooms and a scratch to a wardrobe mirror. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident raised all these issues.
18. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2023 to say there were some repairs issues that remained unresolved. She said that one of the bathrooms had been unusable between October 2022 and March 2023.
19. The resident also raised an issue about being left without water. This issue was raised as part of a group complaint with other residents, and so we have not considered this as part of this investigation.
20. The landlord’s repairs records show that it carried out works on 13 and 14 July 2023. However, the notes say it was unable to repair the wardrobe mirror and hob. The resident subsequently raised a complaint on 25 July 2023 as she was unhappy with how long it had taken the landlord to carry out repairs and that it had not completed them all.
21. In its stage 1 response of 10 August 2023 the landlord said it would be meeting with the developer on 21 August 2023 about outstanding repairs. It said it would come back to her about the outstanding issues and compensation following this meeting. As it gave a clear timeline about a meeting to take place within the fortnight, this was a reasonable response by the landlord at this time.
22. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 22 August 2023. She said she had not received an update about the scratched windows and it had not responded to all issues she had raised.
23. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023. It said it was unable to accept liability for the damaged hob as she did not bring this to its attention at completion. As detailed above, this was not the case as the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had raised this at the handover meeting. So, this response was not reasonable.
24. The landlord said the developer had rejected the landlord’s request to repair or replace scratched glazing under the defect liability cover. It has provided evidence which shows that this issue is cosmetic and therefore not a defect. It said its senior management were still in discussion about how to resolve matters and it could not give a timeframe on providing an outcome. It said it would consider compensation for this issue once it resolved it. However, the landlord has confirmed to us that it has not resolved this issue or provided any update or compensation, which was not appropriate.
25. The landlord did acknowledge there had been delays in it completing repairs to the bathrooms and that there had been a missed appointment for the balcony doors. Its compensation of £540 was in line with its compensation policy and reasonable to resolve these issues.
26. The landlord failed to address the issue of the scratched mirror in the wardrobe. It is unclear whether it did not believe it was liable for this, or whether it omitted to respond to this in error. This lack of response was not appropriate.
27. Given the passage of time and the lack of evidence available from the time the reported issues first became known, we are unable to make a finding on whether the landlord is responsible for the scratches to the windows and wardrobe mirror. However, it is evident the landlord did not act reasonably in failing to address the issue with the wardrobe mirror. It was also not appropriate that it took no further action in relation to the scratched windows, despite promising to do so.
28. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a scratched hob
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint about the scratched wardrobe mirror
    3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow through with its commitment at stage 2 to resolve the scratched windows and lack of communication with the resident in over 2 years since its response

29. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days (25 July to 27 July 2023)
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint (27 July to 10 August 2023) – in line with its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 6 working days after she requested it (22 August to 30 August 2023)
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 20 working days after acknowledging the escalation (30 August to 27 September 2023)
30. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time did not set a timescale for accepting and acknowledging an escalation request. The Ombudsman’s current complaint handling code expects a landlord to do this within 5 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. It also did not unreasonably delay escalating the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The records the landlord has provided do not seem to be complete in this case. We appreciate a significant amount of time has passed since the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, it is possible that the landlord’s lack of records contributed to its failure to address all issues and follow up on its stage 2 commitment. The landlord should consider whether its processes are sufficient to have a robust oversight of outstanding issues.

Communication

32. The landlord’s records for this case do not demonstrate effective communication. There is no evidence it kept the resident updated when it was unable to carry out its stage 2 commitment within a reasonable timescale. The landlord should ensure that if it is unable to do something it has committed to, it updates the resident and provides an explanation.