Sovereign Network Group (202400248)

Background

1. The resident held a shared ownership lease with the landlord from October 2019, when the property was completed as a new‑build. The property is a 3‑bedroom semi‑detached house. The resident is a single parent and lived at the property with 3 children. The resident has not reported any additional needs. In February 2024, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of flooding in the garden and dampness inside the property. The resident said the flooding was caused by her neighbour’s actions and asked the landlord to resolve the issue. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and brought her complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden flooding and the resulting damp in the property.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden flooding and the resulting damp in the property.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of garden flooding and the resulting damp in the property.

5. After receiving a report of flooding, the landlord did not carry out an inspection to identify the cause. It also did not assess what remedial action was required or who was responsible for carrying it out. Instead, it placed responsibility on the resident to obtain an external report, including to identify whether the landlord had any responsibility for the issue. This created avoidable delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience. The landlord also did not consider discretionary compensation, despite these impacts on the resident. Taken together, these shortcomings meant it did not reasonably manage the report or support her in progressing the issue.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its policy or in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. This delay created unnecessary inconvenience for the resident. The landlord also did not consider discretionary compensation for the shortcomings in its complaint handling, including its failure to follow its policy, its failure to meet target response times, and the avoidable time and trouble the resident experienced. Its responses did not acknowledge the impact on the resident or demonstrate evidence of learning from the issues raised.

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.

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 did not investigate and why

7. We acknowledge that the resident reports that the flooding to the garden and the complaint process caused her distress. The resident raised concerns about the potential impact on her mental health, and we understand those concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot determine the cause of any health issues or establish liability and award damages. Such matters are usually addressed through legal action or a personal injury claim.
8. This Service does not typically consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident reported a deterioration in her relationship with her neighbour, which led to her concerns about antisocial behaviour. This Service has not seen evidence that this issue has completed the landlord’s complaints process, so it has not been considered as part of this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord handled this matter, she can raise it as a formal complaint with the landlord.

What we found

9. Under the terms of the shared ownership lease, the property plans show that the plot includes the rear garden, which forms part of the resident’s property. The leaseholder is responsible for maintaining this area in a good state of repair. The landlord has reported that the neighbouring property is a social tenancy under its management rather than a shared ownership lease.
10. On 25 October 2023, the resident reported flooding in her rear garden. She said her neighbour had recently laid paving slabs in their rear garden without adequate drainage, and she believed this had funnelled water into her garden and caused the flooding.
11. On 29 December 2023, the landlord left a voicemail for the resident advising her to contact the local authority to arrange an inspection, and to ask its building insurer to carry out an assessment. This Service has not seen an explanation for the 2-month delay between the resident reporting the flooding and the landlord providing this advice.
12. On 20 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that its building insurer had sent a surveyor the previous week. She said the surveyor had tested the walls again, and no dampness was detected on the day of the visit. This Service has not seen a copy of this surveyor report.
13. The landlord told the resident that she needed to provide a RICS surveyor’s report to establish the cause of the flooding and identify any remedial action. It said it would not take further action until it had received this report, and it repeated this position in its complaint responses.
14. Based on the available evidence, this Service cannot determine the cause of the flooding. Possible causes included a defect to the resident’s property, actions taken by the neighbour that were potentially outside the terms of their tenancy agreement, or an issue with garden maintenance. However, the landlord did not inspect the resident’s garden or property. The repair log for the neighbouring property confirms that it did not inspect the neighbour’s garden either to identify whether the alterations had contributed to the flooding.
15. As a result, the landlord did not establish whether it had obligations to act under the occupancy agreements or rule out those obligations. This created an impasse and became a barrier to a resolution.
16. Instead of conducting its own assessment, the landlord placed the burden on the resident to pursue the issue with the building insurer and said it would act only if she obtained an independent RICS report showing that any part of the cause was its responsibility, in whole or in part. It repeated this position despite having no evidence that the flooding was solely the resident’s responsibility under the terms of her lease. This meant the signposting may not have been appropriate and that the landlord potentially failed to act on an issue it was responsible for. If the landlord had carried out an inspection and identified the cause of the flooding, both parties would have had an accurate view of liability and therefore how to progress the issue.   Alternatively, the landlord might have been more proactive and undertaken to commission such a survey with the cost to be born by the resident if the report failed to confirm her assertion.
17. Taken together, these shortcomings meant the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s report of flooding or progress the matter towards a resolution in a sufficiently timely manner.
18. Taking into account the delay, the uncertainty caused, and the inconvenience to the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident to reflect the inconvenience, and the time and trouble caused by its delays.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it operates a 2 stage complaint process, which is in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 36 working days (20 February 2024 to 11 April 2024). The landlord then issued its stage 2 response after 29 working days (11 April 2024 to 23 May 2024).
21. The landlord took 3 months from the resident’s initial complaint to issue its final formal response. This meant the resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution and had to invest avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience in seeking progress.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy includes provision for awarding discretionary financial redress where there has been poor complaint handling, a failure to follow policy or procedure, or a failure to meet target response times. In this case, the landlord did not make a payment despite its shortcomings in these areas, and it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident created by its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not demonstrate a refreshed investigation and was largely a reiteration of the position set out in its stage 1 response. In addition, no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered compensation for the delay in establishing a clear position on the cause of the flooding, or for the time and trouble this placed upon the resident.
23. There was also no demonstrable commitment to learning from these failings in its responses. Reasonable redress cannot be determined in such circumstances.
24. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect this failure, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 to the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

25. The landlord should ensure that liability for repair needs are established promptly. Early investigation allows it to establish whether it has responsibilities under the relevant occupancy agreements and helps prevent delays or incorrect signposting.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord should ensure that complaints are managed within the timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

Communication

27. The landlord should consistently apply its compensation policy when delays, missed timescales, or poor communication affect a resident. It should recognise the inconvenience caused, consider discretionary redress where appropriate, and demonstrate learning from the shortcomings identified to prevent similar issues in future. The landlord should ensure a fully informed and refreshed review is carried out in its stage 2 processes.