Sovereign Network Group (202332465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332465

Sovereign Network Homes

25 February 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. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of drainage issues and a rat infestation.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
In June 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to report multiple issues, including concerns about damp and mould, drainage issues, and a rat infestation. The evidence suggests that some works were carried out to remedy the drainage issues. However, it is unclear what action the landlord took at the time regarding the damp and mould. The resident was advised that pest control was his responsibility.
On 28 December 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about damp and mould. He said that he was experiencing mould throughout the property, and that despite his best efforts this had become unmanageable. He expressed concern about the impact this was having on his son, who suffered with chronic asthma, and the damage it was causing to his belongings. He also asked if he would be compensated for the costs incurred due to the delays to the drainage repairs and the subsequent rat infestation.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 3 January 2023. The inspection notes said that:
1. Mould was visible around angled ceiling areas and around vents in external walls. This was consistent with cold spotting condensation.
2. The fan in the kitchen was not working.
3. The fan in the bathroom was only partially working.
4. The property was possibly overcrowded as it was occupied by 2 adults and 4 children. The landlord noted that some areas were “cluttered”, and radiators were obstructed by household items.
5. The landlord would carry out the following remedial works:
  1. Remove vegetation against the rear wall.
  2. Install loft insulation in the angled ceiling areas.
  3. Install 2 new fans.
  4. Mould wash the affected areas.
  5. Brick up old external vents and insulate behind them.
On 23 January 2023 the resident contacted the local environmental health service to inform them that the damp and mould had returned. Within a further email sent to environmental healthon 14 April 2023, the resident said that he believed the damp and mould was being caused by an underlying issue. He said that the landlord had carried out some remedial works, but the problem remained.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord carried out a further inspection. The inspection detailed that the loft needed clearing of personal items to facilitate the insulation work. There was also a requirement for 3 roof vents to be installed to either side of the roof space to allow for adequate air flow. The roof insulation was replaced and upgraded on 9 March 2023 and the additional vents to the roof were installed on 3 May 2023.
The landlord carried out an independent survey of the walls and insulation on 5 April 2023. In an attempt to improve the thermal capacity of the building, it then cleared and refilled the wall cavities later that month.
Following a visit from the environmental health officer in May 2023, a new soakaway was installed to the rear of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 July 2023. It apologised for the standard of service and said that the repairs to the rear of the property (drainage/guttering) had now been completed.
On 23 November 2023 the landlord carried out another survey of the property. The resulting report said that “damp was only found in the dining room”. It attributed this to a missing section of downpipe.
On 19 February 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the issues had not been resolved and that he was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 April 2024. It said that:
1. It accepted the length of time taken to repair the drain was excessive.
2. Following the damp and mould inspection on 3 January 2023, a number of remedial works were completed between January 2023 and June 2023.
3. It had tried to contact the resident in August 2023 and October 2023 to check on the damp and mould, but was unsuccessful.
4. In October 2023 it sent the resident a decorating voucher (value unknown).
5. Following a further survey in November 2023 a repair to the downpipe was completed “ASAP”.
6. It offered the resident £450 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the delays to the drain repair.
  2. £250 for its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service in August 2024. In resolution of the complaint, he wanted the landlord to resolve the ongoing damp and mould concerns and to provide compensation for the costs he incurred due to the rat infestation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident stated the impact the damp and mould was having on his and his family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, we are unable to establish a causal link between the damp and mould and any impact these may have had on the resident’s health. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages (including damage to health) is more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
In this case, the resident says he has been reporting issues regarding damp and mould, drainage problems and pest infestations for several years. The landlord’s records confirm that an issue was reported in June 2018. However, there are no records to show further issues were reported or that a formal complaint was raised with the landlord until December 2022. Furthermore, if a complaint was raised and exhausted the internal complaint process, it was not referred to the Ombudsman at that time. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of events following the resident’s complaint in December 2022. Had there been evidence of reported issues in the 12-month period leading up to the complaint (from December 2021), we would have considered these too.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (effective from December 2022) states that the landlord will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp and mould. It will remain in “regular and effective” communication with residents once reports have been made. It provides residents with comprehensive advice and guidance to manage damp, mould and condensation.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out timescales to attend to repairs. These are dependent on the severity of the issue. The landlord will resolve routine repairs within 42 working days from the date of report. Where there are complex repairs, it will provide residents with an estimated completion date. It aims to complete complex and planned repairs within 90 days.
Following the resident’s complaint in December 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an inspection within a reasonable timeframe. This was completed on 3 January 2023. The inspection highlighted that although the property was well looked after, there were high levels of humidity throughout, possibly attributed to the size of the household. The landlord’s repair records show that following the inspection a mould wash was completed on 20 January 2023. The roof insulation was replaced on 9 March 2023 and the additional vents were installed on 3 May 2023. This was a reasonable response from the landlord in the circumstances.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset. In some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. It is also noted that the resident was unhappy with chemicals used during the mould wash procedure. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate, and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake in light of the resident’s concerns.
In this case, the landlord demonstrated its commitment to resolving the issue by instructing a further independent survey in April 2023. As a result of this survey, additional measures were taken to try and improve the “thermal capacity of the building”. This was a resolution-focused approach.
Despite the landlord taking reasonable steps to carry out remedial works, its handling of the issue at the time of its stage 1 complaint response on 23 July 2023 was inadequate. It did not demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to understand the resident’s experience. While it “upheld” his concerns, it did not explain what it felt had gone wrong, and it offered him no compensation or remedy for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him, which was unreasonable. Furthermore, it took no learning from the complaint.
The evidence shows that the landlord made attempts to contact the resident between August 2023 and October 2023 to monitor the damp and mould. The resident informs this Service that he was unavailable during this time as his wife had just given birth. While it is recognised that this was not a convenient time for the resident, the landlord’s attempts were reasonable and in line with its damp and mould policy.
During this period, the landlord said that it hand delivered a decorating voucher to the property as a goodwill gesture. The resident claims that he did not receive this. We have seen no evidence that the landlord made any attempts to put this right by re-delivering or re-issuing an electronic voucher. A recommendation has been made below in relation to this.
The distress that the resident felt is highlighted in emails he sent the landlord in October 2023 and April 2024. The landlord failed to respond promptly to his concerns about the wellbeing of his family, which demonstrated a lack of empathy. There is no evidence that it adopted a risk-based approach or considered what measures it could put in place to safeguard the resident. Furthermore, its vulnerability records were not updated to accurately reflect the additional needs within the household, which was unreasonable
The landlord’s final response on 15 April 2024 was an opportunity to put matters right for the resident. Despite acknowledging that it was “partially upholding” his complaint, it made no comment about what it felt had gone wrong or what it had learnt from his experience. Instead, it attributed partial blame to the resident by focusing on a small number of ‘no access’ visits. This was unreasonable. Its investigations failed to acknowledge that the resident was still experiencing damp and mould.
In summary, although the landlord took timely steps to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould following his complaint, it failed to carry out a lasting repair. The Ombudsman agrees that its compensation offer of £250 was reasonable in the circumstances. However, because the resident remains impacted by the presence of damp and mould within his property, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made. We have ordered the landlord to pay the compensation it offered as well as carrying out a further inspection and any necessary works.

Drainage repair and rat infestation

It is not disputed that there was a delay in the landlord completing the drainage repairs. The issue was originally reported on 4 January 2023 and not resolved until 20 February 2024, more than 13 months later. This was an unacceptable delay and far exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. A substantial delay of this nature amounts to maladministration.
In addition, the resident informed the landlord that he was experiencing an issue with rats in and around his property. He attributed this to the outstanding drainage repairs.
The resident understood that pest control was his responsibility under the terms of his tenancy agreement. However, he felt that the landlord’s delays had incurred him additional costs in dealing with the matter. The evidence shows that the landlord did identify defects which had resulted in rats gaining access to the drains. Although it took steps to remedy this, it is reasonable to conclude that the delays would have had an adverse effect on the eradication of the rat infestation. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s request for compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that the delay was “excessive” and said that it had failed to raise the guttering works. However, its offer of £100 compensation did not reflect the extent of the delay and the distress this caused to the resident. He spent a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord and involving environmental health before the matter was resolved. While we recognise that the landlord’s complaint’s policy states that as a charitable organisation it rarely offers compensation, It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £250 compensation provides adequate redress for the distress caused by these delays, and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that residents should expect to receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days, as is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). However, following the resident’s complaint on 28 December 2022, a response did not follow until 23 July 2023. This was 141 working days (almost 7 months) later. This delay was unacceptable, and yet the landlord made no acknowledgement or apology for its service failure, which was unreasonable.
At stage 2 the landlord also exceeded the response time set out within its policy by 19 working days. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 19 February 2024, but the landlord did not provide a response until 15 April 2024. On this occasion the landlord did acknowledge the service failure and offered the resident appropriate redress.
As highlighted in paragraph 22, in addition to the delays, the landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The evidence shows that the resident specifically asked the landlord if it would “provide compensation for the costs incurred relating to the ongoing rat problems”. In omitting to provide a response the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had undertaken a thorough investigation. This was a further service failure.
The Code expects a landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord must set out the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, and the details of any outstanding actions. Outstanding actions must then be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. The landlord failed to do this at both complaint stages. This is a significant complaint handling failure and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking his complaint seriously.
In summary, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a timely response at both stages of his complaint. It did not appropriately respond to all of the issues raised and failed to demonstrate any learning. This amounts to maladministration. Compensation has been ordered in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues and a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £700 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 already offered for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £250 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its handling of the drainage repairs.
  3. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. Arranges a further inspection of the property to assess the current damp and mould. A copy of the resulting report should be provided to this Service within 2 weeks of the inspection taking place. The landlord should then confirm its intention to complete any necessary repairs within its policy timescales.
4. The landlord must give consideration to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the costs incurred due to the pest control issue and update this Service of its intensions.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-issues the decorating voucher that the resident did not receive.