Sovereign Network Group (202306221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306221

Sovereign Network Homes

27 June 2024

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. The resident’s reports of repairs to the garden.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the back door.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed terraced house under an assured tenancy which began on 6 September 2021. The resident’s young son also lives in the property.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded the for the resident. The resident said in her correspondence that she has a visual impairment, and the evidence shows that the landlord was aware of this.
The resident’s complaint centres around a repair or replacement to her back door, following a break in attempt and safety concerns about her garden. In particular, the resident reported that part of her fence and patio were broken and that sets of metal railings and brick posts were unsafe. The resident attributed this in part due to her impaired vision and having a young child in the house.
The resident raised a complaint on 21 January 2023. She said that she had notified the landlord of the hazards in the garden many times since she moved into the property, but it remained unresolved. The resident said that the voids team committed to resolving the issues in the garden, but that this work was never undertaken. The resident said that she and her son had both had “minor accidents” in the garden as a result of the hazards.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2023 in which it said:
1. The resident had reported damage to her fence on 28 March 2022 and works to repair this were completed on 15 September 2022. The landlord apologised for this delay and offered £130 compensation.
2. The broken and unlevel patio was the responsibility of the resident to upkeep.
3. The resident had reported damage to her rear door on 20 November 2022 and the landlord’s contractor attended the same day to make it safe. The landlord had subsequently closed the case in error, until the resident made her complaint. The landlord re-raised works to repair the glass in the door.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 February 2023. The resident reiterated that the voids team had committed to removing the hazards in the garden prior to her moving into the property. The resident stated that the following works were outstanding:
1. 3 metal railings, which were cemented into the ground, were presenting a hazard and needed removing.
2. 4 brick posts, each around 3 feet high, presented a trip hazard and needed removing.
3. A large concrete slab was broken and tilted, presenting a trip hazard.
4. The rear door of the property could not be locked and needed replacing.
5. A skip was needed for general clearance of items and garden waste.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023. The landlord said that the garden was the resident’s responsibility to maintain and that it would not provide a skip. The landlord committed to undertake “make safe visits”. The landlord also said that works to replace the rear door were now complete, but apologised for the delay in undertaking these works and offered £429 compensation in respect of this.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 June 2023. The resident was seeking for the garden to be put into a safe and manageable state. After this, the resident was prepared to take responsibility for the ongoing upkeep and maintenance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that she first raised the issues with her garden in September 2021, when she moved into the property.
Paragraph 42(c) says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be 6 months of the matters arising.
On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident from 21 July 2022 onwards, as this was 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint. Matters raised prior to this time were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period and will not be considered as part of this determination.
As part of the complaint, the resident said that both she and her son had suffered injuries from the unsafe nature of the garden.
Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or other procedure.”
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. Claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or her son’s health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof, by the landlord.

Repairs to the garden

The resident said that her garden was unsafe to use due to metal rails, uneven patio slabs, low brickwork and other general items and waste in the vicinity. The resident’s position throughout her complaint was that she was willing to take responsibility for the garden once it was brought into a manageable state.
While outside the scope of this investigation, the resident said that she first raised these concerns prior to moving into the property in September 2021. She also said that the landlord’s voids team committed to completing various works before she moved in, to make the garden safe and manageable. Within the scope of this investigation, the concerns were first raised on 22 December 2022.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents must “keep [their] garden tidy and free from weeds and rubbish and keep the paths in a clear and safe condition. [They] must not deposit refuse, furniture or household appliances of any description whatsoever in the garden.” The agreement also says that the landlord may complete work and recharge the resident if their gardens are not maintained to this standard. In cases of non-compliance, the landlord also retains the right under the tenancy agreement to begin possession proceedings.
The landlord’s repairs policy reaffirms the landlord’s position on garden maintenance. The policy sets out three repair timescales, dependent on the priority:
1. Emergency repairs – the landlord commits to attending within 4 hours to make the property safe.
2. Routine repairs – the landlord commits to attending within 2 weeks and completing a full and lasting repair within 1 calendar month.
3. Complex repairs – which include multiple trades or major works. The landlord commits to completing these repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s vulnerable customers policy outlines what vulnerabilities the landlord recognises and the additional steps it will put in place to assist these residents. In particular, it states that vulnerability can include “[having] a physical or sensory disability” and that in these cases it may consider providing additional support including:
1. Undertaking home visits.
2. “Providing assistance to maintain the homes and gardens of vulnerable residents who have no other help available to them.”
3. “Accelerating repairs for people with particular health / vulnerability issues.”
The resident’s initial complaint highlighted that the resident had been raising repair requests since before she moved into the property and that both she and her son had “minor accidents” due to the garden not being safe. The resident also reminded the landlord that she had poor eyesight and was awarded points for this when she was moving properties.
In response to the resident’s concerns there is evidence that the landlord:
1. Repaired a damaged fence in the garden on 15 September 2022. This repair was raised 6 months earlier on 28 March 2022. This delay was attributed to internal communication issues and a missed contractor appointment. The landlord apologised for this delay in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £130 compensation in respect of this.
2. Assessed whether it would make repairs to the broken and unlevel patio area, following concerns from the contractor who attended to repair the fence on 15 September 2022. The landlord stated that its surveyor declined to complete these works as they were a resident responsibility, however this outcome was not communicated to the resident. This was a communication failing.
3. Offered “make safe” appointments to the resident on 6 January 2023, if there were any hazards present in the garden. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it had no evidence that a “make safe” visit was arranged. This was a failing as it left the resident and her son in a potentially hazardous garden. The landlord had not assessed this risk itself and it was inappropriate to allow this potential risk to continue.
4. Considered the resident’s requests to remove a metal railing and brick posts, and to provide a skip for disposal of garden rubbish. The landlord declined this request in its stage 2 complaint response as it felt this was the resident’s responsibility, as part of maintaining the garden.
5. Reiterated its offer of “make safe” visits in its stage 2 complaint response.
Following its stage 2 complaint response, there is evidence of the landlord arranging a contractor to remove concrete posts, a washing line and a railing in the garden on or around 23 June 2023. Alongside this, a job was also raised for clearance of bricks and other debris.
In a follow-up response on 10 August 2023 the landlord said that its surveyor had “attended and felt that there were works that could have been carried out before [the resident] moved into the property and so agreed to carry some works out”. This was referencing the works outlined in paragraph 23 above. The resident had requested further works to remove a sofa, a table, soil and cut down trees. The landlord declined this request and reverted to saying that this was the resident’s responsibility.
The evidence shows that, following a visit by its own surveyor, the landlord did undertake some of the works that the resident had been requesting in her complaint. It is unclear why the landlord’s staff did not attend the property at any time in the preceding 6 months, since the resident first raised concerns. This delay caused the resident additional and avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
It is also not clear why the landlord undertook some of the works but would not finalise the works and clear the remaining items in the garden. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this. If the landlord was not prepared to do this, it should have scoped the works more accurately at an earlier stage and communicated this more clearly with the resident.
Throughout the course of this complaint, there is no evidence that the landlord considered or applied its vulnerability policy to this resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have assessed the resident’s disability and any additional risks posed to her from the garden. It should also have considered how able she was to complete the maintenance of the garden.
In line with its policy, the landlord should have considered home visits at an earlier stage (as the resident requested in December 2022) or assistance with managing the garden. This would have been reasonable and would have resulted in a garden that the resident was able and willing to maintain moving forward.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s garden due to:
1. Delays of over 6 months to repair the resident’s fence satisfactorily. This was exacerbated by poor internal communications and missed contractor appointments.
2. Delays of over 6 months between the resident first reporting concerns and the landlord’s surveyor attending the property.
3. Failing to undertake a “make safe” visit at the earliest opportunity, leaving the resident and her son with a potentially hazardous garden in the interim.
4. Unclear communication around the works that the landlord would, or would not, be responsible for.
5. Failing to consider or apply its vulnerability policy at any point in the complaint or repairs process, or to apply any reasonable adjustments.
6. Treating the resident in an unfair and heavy-handed manner in the changing application of its repairs policy. This included initially refusing to undertake any works, then completing some, before declining the remainder.

Repairs to the back door

The resident raised a repair request for her back door following a break-in on 20 November 2022, as the glass had been broken. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor attended on the same day (as an emergency appointment) to make safe the broken glass by boarding up the window.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, a subsequent repair should have been raised to replace the glass and make any other necessary repairs to the door. The landlord’s records indicate that the follow up repair was raised, however this was later closed in error. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response attributed this to a conversation between the resident and contractor, in which she stated that the door needed replacing, rather than repairing.
It is unclear why the repairs order was closed, as it would have been required whether the door was being replaced or repaired. Particularly given the recent break into the property, the landlord should have attended to make good any damage to the door and assess whether further works were needed to secure it.
The resident said, in her initial complaint, that the door was beyond repair as it was warped, and the bolt could not be used to lock the door. Given that the resident could not secure her property, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair and respond within 4 hours of notification.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that it closed the works order in error and did not re-raise this until 10 February 2023. When the contractor attended on 20 February 2023 it noted that the door required replacement. The evidence shows that the resident chased this repair at least twice before it was completed on 20 March 2023.
The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised and offered compensation of £429 in respect of this. There is no evidence that the landlord has reviewed the reasons for this delay or applied any organisational learning to prevent a reoccurrence in similar cases in the future.
Overall, the landlord was aware of the break in during November 2022 as it attended to board up the window. There were failings in its management of the subsequent repair process, including a repair being closed in error and delays in re-opening the works. This led to avoidable time, trouble, distress and inconvenience for the resident, including a period of time when she could not secure her home. Whilst the landlord has attempted to provide redress in this situation, this is not sufficient to account for these factors.
Taking these factors together, along with an overall delay of around 5 months to make a lasting and effective repair, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s back door.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It commits to responding to complaints within:
1. 10 working days at stage 1.
2. 20 working days at stage 2.
The evidence shows that both complaint responses were issued outside of these timescales. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued after 14 working days and its stage 2 response after 31 working days.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the impact of these delays would have been moderate, neither of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledge the delays, apologise or provide any redress to the resident. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to repair the landlord and tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman expects complaint processes to be used to generate organisational learning to prevent a reoccurrence in similar cases. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has identified any learning or altered any practices within its complaint handling or repairs teams as a result of this case. This is a failing and the landlord must now undertake a case review to identify and embed any relevant learning.
Overall, there were delays in the complaint handling process and missed opportunities to repair the relationship with the resident or learn from this case and this amounts to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the back door.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:

Pay the resident directly £1,300 compensation, comprised of:
1. £600 for over 6 months of delays in completing works to the resident’s garden, which caused her additional time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
2. £500 for over 5 months of delays in completing repairs to the resident’s back door, leaving her with an insecure property.
3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified in this case.

The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to her rent account, unless she requests this. This compensation is in addition to the £429 previously offered in the landlord’s complaint responses, which it must also pay if it has not already done so.

Arrange for an independent survey of the garden. This survey must identify any remaining hazards in the garden and provide a schedule of works to make these safe in a period not exceeding 4 weeks. When assessing items that may be hazardous, and which the landlord might reasonably be expected to take responsibility for, the landlord must give due consideration to the resident’s disability and its vulnerable customer policy and evidence this in its findings.
Outline clearly what elements of the garden will be maintained or repaired and provide this in writing to the resident.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review which must:
1. Identify the cause of the delays in repairing the resident’s back door.
2. Identify the causes of the delays in issuing the complaint responses.
3. Outline what learning needs to be applied to the organisation to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified in this report and when this will be implemented.
4. Be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.