Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202127436)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127436

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

21 July 2023

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

1.     The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:

1. Subsidence and related repairs at the resident’s home;
2. Its communication and record keeping regarding the work, and;
3. The subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house within an estate. The tenancy commenced on 27 November 1995 at a weekly rent of £70.74. The landlord has no record of any vulnerability recorded at the property although its contact notes record that the resident has a hearing impairment. The house suffered from subsidence. As a result, the resident reported roof and guttering leaks, damp and mould, cracks in walls, a bathroom ceiling becoming detached from the walls, gaps in window frames and windows that no longer closed causing draughts and increased heating costs. She has complained about the landlord’s response to these issues in that there has been delays in undertaking repairs, poor communication and record keeping. She was also dissatisfied with the handling of her complaint.

3.     From the evidence provided to the Ombudsman the earliest record of the resident reporting the repairs issues is dated 15 January 2021. However, from the contact log, the resident stated that the problem had been going on for a couple of years. This was supported by the repairs log which included entries in October 2018 to assess the roof and in June 2019 there was a report of a leak coming through the ceiling. In relation to report in January 2021 the landlord instructed its contractor to attend the property to erect scaffolding and repair the leaking roof. The resident chased the completion of this work on 25 January 2021.

4.     Problems continued at the property and in February 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the ceiling in her bathroom was becoming detached from the walls, that there was damp and mould in the property as a result of the roof leak, cracks in the walls and around the windows, plus low water pressure in the shower from the pipes in the loft not being straight. She also reported issues with the kitchen floor and tiling and reported that the internal doors in the property were flimsy and not fit for purpose. She requested an inspection of the property so that all the issues could be identified, and a plan put in place. There is no record of any action being taken by the landlord in either its repair or contact logs in response to the resident’s request.

5.     This pattern repeated itself with the resident contacting the resident again on 28 July 2021 regarding the issues. She asked again that the property be inspected. There is no record of an inspection taking place. She contacted the landlord again on 28 August 2021 expressing her dissatisfaction that an appointment the following day had been cancelled and that a roof appointment was not scheduled until September 2021.

6.     On 10 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as an operative had attended but only to look at the front door and not the windows as she had expected. The windows had ‘dropped’ and were not closing properly. The telephone note recorded that an offer of an inspection was made, but the resident’s preferred option was that someone in authority called her back. The resident chased again on 13 and 20 September 2021 to find out what was happening. This time she did request an inspection be arranged, given the number of outstanding issues at the property. She contacted the landlord again on 29 September 2021 asking that the windows be repaired as they were letting in the cold. She sent photographs to support this in October 2021.

7.     The landlord has advised this Service that it referred the matter to its insurer in October 2021 to survey the property for suspected subsidence. This involved a 12-month monitoring period, during which time the property was monitored for movement. Only minor repairs were undertaken, rather than full replacement/permanent repairs, pending the outcome of the survey. There is no record of the resident being advised that this was the situation at the onset of the 12 month period, although the correspondence indicated that she was aware that the property was being monitored. It appears that much of the liaison with the resident was verbal, either via the telephone or during visits. There is limited evidence of the content of discussions held during visits. It is therefore difficult to know precisely what was discussed or agreed.

8.     The landlord arranged for the windows to be covered in glazing film whilst it awaited a structural report on the property. This would not have addressed the cold entering through the gaps in the walls/frames and it is not clear from the records whether the resident allowed this work to proceed, given it would result in her being unable to open the windows at all.

9.     The resident submitted a formal complaint on 22 November 2021. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the situation in that the windows still had large gaps between the frame and the walls and the ceiling and wall cracks remained unresolved. She reported that the situation had resulted in her heating bills increasing rapidly. She also raised again her concerns regarding the shower and the internal doors at the property, which she had been told were her responsibility.

10. In January 2022, the resident expressed her frustration at the lack of contact from either of the two landlord managers she had been advised would be providing updates. She pointed out that although surveyors had attended on a number of occasions no work had been undertaken to resolve the situation. Her property was still full of cracks, gaps, and holes one year after reporting the problems.

11. On 4 February 2022, the resident sought to escalate her complaint which had been outstanding since November 2021. She explained that she had been advised that the work to remedy/replace the windows could not be undertaken until a surveyor had attended to look at the subsidence. The surveyor had attended before Christmas, yet no work had started, nor had she been provided with any updates. The resident confirmed that the issue with the shower had been resolved but she had still not received any response regarding the internal doors.

12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 February 2022 to find out what was happening, and when and where work would be carried out. The telephone note recorded that she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and not knowing what was happening with repair jobs. She was advised that the duty property manager had been sent a task asking that somebody call her back to explain what was going on. There is no record of any call being made.

13. On 1 April 2022, an appointment was booked to change the hinges on the windows. The resident was home but did not hear the operatives. She contacted the landlord and advised that she had a hearing impairment. The operatives returned on the same day and obtained access. The work to the window hinges however is not marked as complete in the repair log until 13 May 2022. On this date the resident contacted the landlord again and complained that although she had been promised that a scaffolding tower would be available, this had not been provided when the operative attended. She sought an update on the windows and the overall condition of the property.

14. The landlord responded on 20 May 2022. The contact log records that its insurers had found that trees and vegetation on land that was not owned by the landlord were the cause of the subsidence. The insurers had written to the local authority asking it to cut the trees down and were waiting for a response. The note recorded that unfortunately nothing could be repaired until this action had been completed and that the resident was advised of this.

15. Following the intervention of this Service a complaint response was provided on 26 June 2022. This confirmed the following:

1. The cracks throughout the property were related to the subsidence which was currently being monitored by the insurance loss adjusters. Works to rectify the cracks would be undertaken once the subsidence was rectified. This would include making good any damage caused. The landlord was waiting for a response from the council following its investigation.
2. Internal doors – these would not be replaced as, although the doors were old, all were in working order.
3. Wall bumps – no works would be taken to rectify any bumps as the walls were not in need of repair.
4. Boxing in of pipes – the residents request that pipework in the downstairs bathroom be boxed in was refused as the pipes were not in need of repair.
5. Guttering – this would not be replaced as it was not in need of repair or replacement and was of the same type as other properties in the street.

16. The letter also detailed works that the landlord did agree to undertake including the resealing of tiles and kitchen cupboards, clearing the gutters, stain-blocking, and preparation of ceilings, making good an Artex ceiling, and it agreed to inspect gaps around windows to see if these could be temporarily sealed pending replacement. These gaps had been present for 16 months.

17. The landlord confirmed that it needed to wait for the outcome of the subsidence recordings before it could plan the works but assured her that all cracks and subsidence would be rectified once the monitoring was finished.

18. The landlord consulted with the neighbouring owner regarding the removal of trees however there is limited evidence of it undertaking the promised work at the resident’s home. She chased for updates on 29 July and 12 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs had not progressed in its letter of 22 August 2022. It apologised for this and explained that the staff member had left the organisation. It arranged for weekly telephone updates to take place. The work promised in the letter of 26 June began in September 2022.

19. The resident was dissatisfied by the temporary nature of the repairs as she continued to experience problems due to the subsidence and was reporting difficulties with the doors in the property. She requested compensation for the problems, the poor communication she had experienced, and delays.

20. The trees were removed by October 2022 and the landlord confirmed to this Service that its loss adjuster undertook minor works to make the property safe on 14 October 2022. It is not known what this comprised. On 28 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was compiling a list of external and internal works that would be undertaken. The landlord confirmed it would be replacing the kitchen flooring as a good will gesture.

21. The landlord’s final complaint response dated 23 June 2023 confirmed that the final report had been completed and that it would be undertaking the recommended work at the resident’s home. It is not clear precisely what work was recommended.

22. The landlord apologised for the poor service that the resident had received. It offered to replace the internal doors and shower at the resident’s home which it had previously refused. This was offered in recognition of the length of time that the resident had to wait for repairs to be completed. It also offered £200 towards any increase in heating bills and confirmed that the windows would be replaced within the current budget year. It also advised that the service charge team would be in touch with the resident to discuss any reduction in service charge. It is difficult to ascertain what any service charge payments relate to as there is no provision for this within the tenancy agreement provided to this Service and no other details have been provided.

Complaint handling

23. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 22 November 2021. The complaint was forwarded to a manager but there is no record of any response being sent to the resident.

24. The resident chased for a response to her complaint on 4 and 15 March 2022. As no response was forthcoming, she contacted this Service on 29 March 2022 who also chased the landlord for a response.

25. The landlord sent a response dated 6 April 2022 that stated the complaint was at stage two of the complaint’s procedure. No response at stage one appears to have been issued. The stage two response apologised for the length of time that it had taken to carry out the repairs to the windows which it agreed had taken too long to complete. It stated that the work had now all been done and offered £20 Love to shop voucher as redress for the delay. It was not correct that the works had been completed.

26. The resident was not happy with this response and sought to escalate the complaint on 22 April 2022. This Service also contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022 and asked that it respond to the other aspects of the complaint including the cracks in the wall, subsidence of the property, the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping, its communication with the resident, compensation and reimbursement of increased heating costs, as well as its handling of the complaint.

27. A further complaint response was sent at stage two on 26 June 2022. This set out the work that would be undertaken and that which would not (see paragraphs 15-17). The letter apologised for the previous offer of compensation (£20 voucher) and explained that the author had his wires crossed on the complaint. The letter informed the resident that once the subsidence was rectified and all issues were resolved it would consider what may be an appropriate amount for compensation. It asked the resident what sum she had in mind.

28. A final letter was sent on 23 June 2023 some 19 months after the complaint was first made, and almost 12 months after the last complaint response. This acknowledged that there had been both complaint handling and communication failings. It offered £300 compensation for this (£200 for complaint handling, £100 for communication failings). As detailed above the letter indicated that the final works were still outstanding. The landlord offered redress for these delays by offering to undertake work which, it believed, fell outside of its repairing obligation (replacement of shower and internal doors), and offered £200 towards the additional heating costs caused by the gaps in the windows.

Assessment and findings

Subsidence

29. This Service has determined this complaint on the basis of the evidence available to it. However, the landlord is reminded of the need for thorough record-keeping, especially when dealing with complex matters potentially involving third parties. On this point it must be noted that there is a lack of detailed supporting evidence for some of the issues that occurred, and the landlord has not always fully evidenced its actions (the asbestos report and EPC certificate for example).

30. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the landlord and the resident. This included an obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This included the drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, the external walls and windows, the internal walls, floors, ceilings, doors and door frames and major plasterwork.

31. The landlord must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:

1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have modern facilities and services, and;
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

32. There were significant delays in the landlord’s fulfilment of these obligations which resulted in the resident living in a home with gaps around the windows, cracks in the ceilings and walls, and ceiling detachment. There were delays in the landlord arranging for a building survey, despite the resident’s requests for a property inspection. At the time the cracks around the windows and across the ceilings were reported (February 2021) the landlord should have considered that these may potentially be indicative of an underlying problem. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to arrange a building survey to establish the cause, however, it is not clear when/if this took place. The landlord’s insurers were instructed, and loss adjusters were in place by October 2021. This was eight months after the issues were first raised by the resident, which was not a reasonable length of time.

33. Once the landlord instructed its insurers it was aware that the assessment would involve a 12-month monitoring period. During this time no permanent repairs would be undertaken at the property. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord considered decanting the resident for the duration of the monitoring period. This should have happened. As it was, the resident continued to pay the full rental charge for a period of time when the structure of the property was being undermined by subsidence.  This meant that the resident was living in a home full of cracks, with windows that were not fully functional, and a bathroom ceiling had become detached from the walls.

34. Whilst the landlord took appropriate action by referring the matter to its insurer there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of certain aspects of this case. These failures relate to its lack of urgency and clarity of action in its responses to the resident’s concerns and reports. For instance, it is difficult to ascertain what actions were taken by the landlord to limit the impact of the cracks and gaps within the resident’s home. Whilst the landlord was right to refer the wider subsidence issue to its insurers, it still nevertheless retains a responsibility to the resident to ensure that any repair reports are correctly responded to. There is little evidence to show the landlord responded with any urgency to the resident’s emails where she reported the cracks and problems with windows and if it was not possible for it to do this, it should have considered providing alternative accommodation.

35. The landlord has confirmed that its insurer undertook works to make the property safe on 14 October 2022. However, the resident had been living with these conditions for 21 months by this time.  It is also unclear as to what this work comprised as the landlord’s final complaint letter makes clear that the plasterwork and window replacement were still outstanding in June 2023, over 29 months after the issues were first raised.

36. The landlord has accepted that there were failings within its handling of these matters. It has apologised and offered to undertake work that it had deemed outside of its repairing obligation (the replacement of the internal doors and the bathroom shower). However, it has not fully recognised the length of time that the resident was required to live in a property where repairs were not undertaken, the distress and inconvenience that this caused and the time and trouble she had to take to get the landlord to respond to the issues.

37. The resident was left in a property suffering from subsidence for over two years. During this period, she was in constant contact with the landlord and chased for repairs and updates. The permanent repairs were still outstanding in June 2023. Throughout this period the resident was paying full rental for the property. The landlord’s offer has not provided sufficient redress for the length of time the resident had to live in, and pay rent for, a property that was not in good repair. The landlord’s offer does not fully recognise the adverse effect caused to the resident.

38. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident a further £1,694 compensation. The figure represents 20% of the rent paid for a two-year period which represents the time by which a reasonable repair period was exceeded. This figure has been calculated on the basis of an annual rent of £4,235.40 for two years totalling £8,470.80. During this time, the resident was living in a property and paying rent for a property that was in poor condition. The figure of £4,235.40 per year has been based on the current average rent level for the locality listed by the Regulator of Social Housing for 2021/22. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Communication and record keeping

39. there is no evidence that the situation regarding the 12-month monitoring period was clearly explained to the resident at the beginning of the period. She continued to report the issues unresolved and became increasingly frustrated as a result. The landlord’s communication on this point was poor. The landlord did however improve its contact with the resident as the situation went on and put in place a system for regular updates.

40. It should also be noted that there is evidence of contact with the resident that is not recorded with the landlord records provided to this Service. There were a number of visits to the property and telephone conversations the contents of which are not recorded. It is difficult to clearly ascertain what information was given and this resulted in contact staff having difficulties in providing information to the resident and having to, both chase and rely upon, other staff to update the resident. Further there are extensive calls from the resident chasing for repairs and updates which were not always responded to.

41. The landlord is also reminded of the need for thorough record-keeping, especially when dealing with complex matters potentially involving third parties. On this point it must be noted that there is a lack of detailed supporting evidence for some of the issues that occurred, and the landlord has not always fully evidenced its actions (the asbestos report and EPC certificate for example).

42. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings within its communication and offered the resident £100 as redress for this. Whilst this provided redress for the landlord’s failings there is no evidence that it identified areas for improvement to prevent such problems occurring again. In all the circumstances of the case, a further finding of maladministration has been identified in relation to the landlord’s communication and record keeping throughout, with an order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident to reflect the additional detriment she experienced as a result of these failures.

Complaint handling

43. There were significant delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint and the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord and finally this Service in order to obtain a complaint response. No response was issued at stage one, but a stage two response was sent on 6 April 2022, over four months later. This offered the resident a £20 voucher as a goodwill gesture. This did not provide adequate redress for the adverse effect caused to her living conditions by the subsidence.

44.  The request to escalate the complaint was made on 22 April 2022 and again the resident and this Service had to chase for a response. This was issued on 26 June 2022. This set out the works that the landlord would and would not undertake to put the property back into good condition. It asked the resident what level of compensation she would consider.

45. A final letter was sent a year later. Neither of these letters included details as to how the resident could escalate the complaint or refer to the Ombudsman should she remain dissatisfied and none of the letters were sent within the time period set out in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

46. The landlord has recognised these failings and offered reasonable redress to the resident through its offer of £200 compensation and its offer to undertake improvement works to the internal doors and shower.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the subsidence and related repairs at the resident’s home.

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s communication and record keeping.

49. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

50. The landlord delayed in taking initial action to resolve the issues reported by the resident and the resident was left in a property with gaps in the windows, cracks in the walls etc for a significant period of time. The landlord failed to fully recognise the impact of this on the resident and the distress and inconvenience caused to her, and the time and trouble she was required to take to obtain information and updates regarding her home.

51. The landlord has acknowledged that there were communication failings, though record keeping has also been identified as a significant issue here and the landlord’s offer of redress did not offer a suitable remedy..

52. Although there were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, it has acknowledged this, offered an apology and suitable redress through its offer of compensation and improvement works within the property.

Orders

53. That the landlord pays an additional £1,894 compensation to the resident. This will bring the total compensation payable to £2394. This comprises:

1. £1,694 for the landlord’s handling of the subsidence and related repairs the resident had to take to progress the complaint about the fire door.
2. The £200 compensation offered during the complaints process for any increase in heating costs caused by the gaps in the walls and windows.
3. An additional £200 for the failures identified with the landlord’s communication/record keeping (in addition to the £100 offered during the complaints process).
4. £200 offered as reasonable redress by the landlord for its complaint handling.

54. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four calendar weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

55. That the landlord considers offering decant accommodation or a reduction in rent when requiring a resident to live in property undergoing subsidence monitoring.