Sovereign Network Group (202222122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222122

Sovereign Network Homes

31 January 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the drainage pump in the resident’s wet room.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lived with their disabled adult son.
On 8 December 2022 the resident reported that the pump for the drain in their wet room had stopped working. The landlord treated this as an emergency repair and attended the same day but was unable to resolve the issue. It was identified that the pump would likely need replacing and correctly securing in place.
The landlord attended again as an emergency repair on 12 December 2022 but remained unable to repair the pump. The record for this visit noted that the shower in the wet room was the only form of bathing in the property. It stated the matter should be dealt urgently as there was a vulnerable person living in the property.
On 16 December 2022 the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. They said there had been no contact from the landlord about the repair and that they had been without a working wet room for 10 days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 December 2022 and advised that the required repairs had been chased up internally.
On 28 December 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and repaired the pump. The landlord’s records indicate the pump was tested after the repair and was working correctly.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 January 2023. It accepted that it should have made the repairs sooner than it did. It apologised for the delay in completing the work and the inconvenience caused. It offered £250 in compensation, which comprised £150 (3 weeks x £50) for loss of bathing facilities and £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
On 9 January 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process. They said that they had tried to contact the landlord nearly every day between 9 to 20 December 2022, but the landlord had only called them back on 20 December 2022. They had also been unable to reach the landlord on 27 and 28 December 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 January 2023 and asked the resident to let it know what they felt was still outstanding and what outcome they wanted. The resident replied on 16 January 2023 to say they believed the landlord needed training about how it manages the needs of disabled people. They also felt the landlord should have a system to allow it to identify disabled residents and respond to their issues urgently.
The landlord issued a response on 28 April 2023 that advised it would add a marker about the resident’s son’s needs to the resident’s record. The landlord also offered to increase the previously offered compensation from £50 a week to £200 a week. This brought the total offered compensation to £750.
Following the involvement of this service, the landlord issued its final response on 12 July 2023. It said:
1. It had failed to communicate with the resident about the repair and that, while it had attempted to call them, it should have sent emails to ensure they were kept updated.
2. It had attended the resident’s property on the day the resident had reported the failed pump. It had then completed the identified repair within its policy timescale of 28 days for a routine repair. However, it accepted it had not given enough consideration to the resident’s individual circumstances.
3. It accepted the resident would have communicated the urgency of the needed repair and that it should have responded more proactively to resolve the issue. It advised it had a system to flag vulnerable or disabled residents but that, at the time the resident had requested the repair, there was no flag against the resident’s address. It confirmed it would be adding a flag to the resident’s record.
4. It was still offering £750 in compensation.
On 30 July 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted to escalate their complaint to this service. They said they felt their son’s needs had seemed irrelevant to the landlord. They were also unhappy that the landlord had paid the offered compensation to their rent account and was refusing a refund to their bank account as it said they were in rent arrears.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their contact with this service the resident has referred to issues with the floor in the wet room which they stated needed to be replaced. Having reviewed the available information there is no clear evidence that the resident had reported this matter to the landlord, either as a repair request or a complaint about the landlord’s failure to carry out a requested repair.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident notified this service on 9 September 2024 that the landlord was re-fitting their wet room. If the resident remains unhappy about any issues relating to the floor then they should, in the first instance, raise it as a complaint with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the drainage pump in the resident’s wet room

There does not appear to be any dispute about the date the resident reported the need for a repair, the dates the landlord attended, or the date the landlord returned the pump to working condition.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have initially treated the resident’s repair as an emergency. It attended the same day which was in line with the timescale set out in its repair policy. As the repair did not meet the criteria set out in the policy for an emergency repair, it appears the landlord had taken the resident’s circumstances into account when deciding how to initially handle the request.
After the landlord had attended the resident’s property on 8 December 2022, it raised an appropriate work order to carry out the required repairs. Following contact from the resident on 12 December 2022 the landlord cancelled this work order and raised a new work order for another emergency attendance at the resident’s property. It is not clear from the available evidence why the landlord took this step. Having identified the required repairs the landlord should have clearly communicated to the resident what the next steps would be and the likely timescale for it to complete the repair. This would have better managed the resident’s expectations and may have given them confidence that the landlord was handling their request appropriately.
The landlord’s contact log supports the resident’s statement that they had made daily attempts to contact the landlord but had not received responses. The log shows that the landlord did acknowledge some of the resident’s contact attempts and had spoken to the resident on 12 December 2022. However, there is no clear evidence that the landlord provided the resident with sufficient information to allow them to understand what was happening with the repair or when they should expect the landlord to have completed the repair. This was not reasonable.
The landlord accepted, in its final response, that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident and that it should have taken additional steps to ensure it kept them updated. This was an appropriate finding for it to have reached.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it would prioritise repairs by recognising:
1. The health and safety of residents or members of the public.
2. The urgency of the work or nature of the accommodation affected.
3. The availability of the resident.
The landlord completed the repair within 21 days. This is in line with its repair policy which states it aims to complete repairs within 1 month. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered any of the above factors when dealing with the resident’s repair. There is a lack of clear information about what actions, if any, took place between the attendance on 12 December 2022 and the attendance on 28 December 2022. The available evidence suggests there was some internal discussion within the landlord, but there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude it took all reasonable steps and that it could not have completed the repair sooner.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did accept that it should have completed the repair earlier than it did. It also accepted in its final response that it had failed to take account of the resident’s individual circumstances. These were appropriate findings for it to make.
While the landlord agreed in its final response to add a flag to the resident’s record, it would have been preferable for it to have added, or offered to add, a flag as soon as it had become aware of the resident’s son’s circumstances. This would have been no later than 12 December 2022.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord recognised and accepted its failings in this case. The landlord had completed the required repair before it responded to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman considers the offer of £750 in compensation was a reasonable outcome to resolve the remaining elements of the complaint. The offered compensation was also an appropriate figure in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident has stated to this service that they are not happy with the landlord’s decision to pay the offered £750 compensation into their rent account. The landlord’s compensation policy states that, where a resident’s rent account is in arrears, it will set any compensation against those arrears. This is a decision that landlords are entitled to make.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s view that their rent account was not/should not have been in arrears. However, the evidence provided by the landlord indicates it considered the resident’s request for it to pay the compensation directly to them. It then explained to the resident why doing so would place their rent account back into arrears. There is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude the landlord’s decision was not in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 10 working days after the resident had made their complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
The landlord took 128 working days to issue its final response. This was significantly outside the timescale of 20 working days set out in its complaint policy or the Code and was not appropriate. The Ombudsman has noted that it was necessary for this service to contact the landlord twice before a suitable final response was issued.
When reaching a finding the Ombudsman must consider the detrimental impact of any failures. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the detriment caused by the landlord’s complaint handling was minimal. This is because:
1. The landlord had resolved the substantive complaint issue (the repair of the pump) before the stage 1 complaint was issued.
2. The resident was aware of this service from the outset of their complaint. However, they did not raise any concerns about the landlord’s delay in issuing the final response until May 2023.
The Ombudsman is also mindful that the landlord had offered a reasonable outcome to the complaint in its response of 28 April 2023. While it is accepted this was still outside the 20 working day timescale and did not have details of how the resident could escalate the complaint further, it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to ignore that the landlord had made this offer.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
The landlord did not recognise or offer any redress to the resident for its failures in complaint handling at any stage of its process. This was not reasonable. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the drainage pump in the resident’s wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.