Sovereign Network Group (202330492)

Background

1. After starting a new tenancy, the resident realised that the front door opening was too narrow to allow him to move furniture into the flat. He complained about this to the landlord and, being unhappy with its response, moved out.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s reports that he was unable to open the front door fully.
   2. Resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he was unable to open the front door fully.
   2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The door

4. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the door opening, suggesting a resolution.

The complaint

5. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaint were outside the timescales set out in its policy and it provided no explanation for its delay.

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.

6. The resident said he had viewed the property before accepting the tenancy and would not have proceeded had he known the door would not be replaced. However, there is no evidence that the landlord advised him that the door would be replaced and he accepted the tenancy knowing the size of the door opening.
7. Following the resident’s report that he was unable to move furniture through the opening, the landlord brought forward its inspection appointment from 13 October 2023 to 4 August 2023. It identified an option to enable him to move furniture into the property. It said it could take the door off temporarily while he moved furniture in. He thought this impractical. However, due to the layout of the property, the door opening could not be widened and so while not ideal, it was the only viable solution. Nothing in the evidence suggests there were any repair issues with the door.
8. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and the circumstances of his complaint. Although the resident says he was not able to bid on other properties because he had given up this tenancy, this was not due to any actions or decisions by the landlord.

9. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint.
10. The available records do not clearly identify when the resident first raised his complaint. However, they indicate that the complaint was made prior to 4 August 2023, with the landlord issuing its response on 25 October 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s 10‑working‑day response target by at least 40 working days. The landlord also missed the opportunity to acknowledge and apologise for this delay when it eventually responded.
11. The landlord did not respond at stage 2 of its process until we intervened, asking it to provide a response. When it issued its response on 26 March 2024, this was 95 working days outside of its timeframe.
12. Further, some of the dates used in the landlord’s complaint responses were clearly inaccurate, which, along with its other complaint handling failings, undermined the effectiveness of its overall response.
13. The landlord failed to acknowledge its significant delay. While the impact on the resident was reduced as he had already vacated the property, it was unreasonable of it not to recognise its failure to respond in line with its policy. The landlord has been ordered to pay compensation in line with our compensation guidance to acknowledgethisrepeated service failing.