Sovereign Network Group (202403659)

Background

1. On 11 June 2023, a contractor disconnected the washing machine pipe during a repair to the shower room pump and caused a leak. The leak damaged the vinyl, a plinth in the kitchen, and the carpet bordering the kitchen before the landlord resolved it on 27 July 2023. By November 2023, the landlord had completed the repairs and arranged a professional carpet clean. The resident was dissatisfied with the carpet clean and requested replacement because the leak left dampness and black spots on the carpet. The landlord has a record of the resident’s physical conditions and mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There was a delay in repairing the leak and putting right the damage to the kitchen flooring, cupboard, and carpet bordering the kitchen resulting from the leak. During this period, the resident reported inconvenience from the delay and missed appointments. The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
7. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 looked at

8. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the new leak coming through the ceiling of the storage room in October 2024. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.
9. The resident told us that the damp and black mould in the property has caused her asthma to deteriorate. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

10. On 21 June 2023, the resident reported water leaking from the shower and flooding the property. Although the job was allocated to a contractor promptly, the repair was delayed and eventually completed on 27 June 2023. This was not in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy to attend within 4 hours and amounts to a failing.
11. The leak damaged the kitchen flooring, cupboard, and carpet bordering the kitchen. The landlord inspected the damage promptly on 28 June 2023, but repairs were not completed until November 2023. We found no clear records confirming when the repairs were completed but based on the revised compensation offer and the resident’s account, we deduced that repairs were completed in November 2023. The issue was first reported on 11 June 2023 and repairs should have been completed within one month, the target for routine repairs.
12. The resident’s initial complaint cited health and safety hazards as a result of the leak which were particularly concerning for her as she is registered disabled. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered these risks or attempted to mitigate them. A risk assessment would have been reasonable and this amounts to a service failing.
13. During its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £290 compensation, recognising the impact and distress suffered by the resident. Following the stage 2 response, repairs remained outstanding until November 2023. On 5 March 2024, the landlord revised its compensation offer, recognising the further delay in repair and missed appointments. Although delayed, this revised offer was appropriate as it acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right.
14. During the repair delay, the resident experienced inconvenience from delayed repairs and 6 missed appointments. Landlords should deliver repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord reallocated work to different contractors on two occasions, showing it was proactive in minimising further delay. It also recognised its failings and offered compensation for distress and impact, which was appropriate.
15. The landlord and resident disputed liability for the carpet damage. The resident said the contractor caused the damage and therefore liability rested with the landlord or contractor. The responsive repairs policy states the resident was responsible for floor coverings and the landlord was responsible if it provided them or if they are located in communal areas. . The landlord replaced the kitchen vinyl but did not agree to replace the carpet bordering the kitchen. This was in line with its repairs policy. It directed the resident to use her own insurance, and facilitated a public liability claim through its own insurance for the damage to the carpet.
16. The landlord’s insurer rejected the claim and directed the resident to claim on the contractor’s insurance. Following this, the landlord confirmed that it would meet the cost of the resident’s insurance excess or reimburse the cost of having the carpet cleaned (up to a maximum of £200). Given its insurer rejected the claim, the landlord exceeded its obligations in making these offers. It appears the resident instead chose to pursue a claim with the contractor who subsequently arranged for the carpet to be cleaned. Overall the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about damage to her carpet. However, given that the resident is dissatisfied with the carpet clean, it is recommended that the landlord confirms if its offer of reimbursing up to £200 of the resident’s insurance excess still stands, should the resident wish to pursue this option.
17. The resident used a dehumidifier to dry the kitchen before repairs and asked the landlord to reimburse the costs she incurred in running the dehumidifier. In response to her request, the landlord said that it would need copies of electricity bills. This was in accordance with its compensation policy which says that it may consider reimbursing costs if evidence is provided. The resident confirmed she could not provide meter readings due to health reasons. The landlord’s approach was reasonable as it followed its policy however no evidence has been provided to show that it considered if there was any assistance it could offer the resident in obtaining bills for the relevant period. Therefore it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to explore this further.
18. Although the repair delays amounted to maladministration, the landlord took steps to put things right during the complaints process and after repairs were completed. The total compensation of £675 was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. It was proportionate to the delays, failures, and impact on the household. This amount reflected the higher end of maladministration. The landlord made a reasonable offer to resolve the matter and should pay the compensation if not already paid.

19. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2023, 10 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was in accordance with its complaints policy.
20. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 28 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 4 September 2023. This was after 20 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was in accordance with its complaints policy.

Learning

21. It is important that the landlord recognises prolonged repairs and considers an alternative and timely solution. It was reassuring to see that the landlord reallocated repairs to minimise further delay.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord generally displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right. However, there were some gaps and insufficiently detailed notes about completed repairs.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally good and it was responsive to the resident’s contact.