Sovereign Network Group (202334016)

Background

1. The resident lived in a new build development, which was not adopted by the local authority at the time of her complaint. The resident was concerned about the lack of street signs and streetlights on the development.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage

6. The landlord’s initial communication was poor. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged this, apologised and explained it put actions in place to improve. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 in line with its complaints policy timescale.

Putting things right

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.

Our investigation

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.

8. The resident said the number of lamp posts did not provide enough street lighting. She said the lack of street lighting enabled anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) and she wanted the developer to install more. We cannot order the developer to install more streetlights. Our role is not to investigate the terms of the contractual relationship between the developer and the landlord. However, we have looked at how it handled her concerns overall.
9. On 12 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report the streetlights were not on and there was no street sign. She did not receive a response and contacted it again in January and February 2023. Its lack of response caused her time and trouble complaining on 24 February 2023.
10. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord made enquiries with the developer and chased it to confirm when the street lighting would be live and if it would install a street sign. It made the developer aware of the resident’s ASB concerns and raised this regularly in its board meetings, which was good practice. As a result, the developer installed temporary street lighting in September 2023 and street signs in June 2023.
11. In December 2023 at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, only half of the permanent streetlights worked because of technical issues. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay and said because of its contract it could not make the developer work faster. It said the delay was unacceptable and it had learnt from this complaint for future developments. This was positive as we encourage landlords to learn from complaints. 
12. Overall, the landlord was proactive in its handling of the resident’s concerns. It could have referred her to the developer and taken no further action, but it worked with the developer to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. It gave her detailed information on the technical issues with the streetlights and a plan of action, which was reasonable. Its updates were not frequent, which may have caused frustration. However, the developer’s responses and technical issues were out of its control.
13. The landlord’s initial lack of response caused the resident time and trouble in complaining. When we identify a failure, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In line with its compensation guidance, it acknowledged its initial poor communication, explained what went wrong, apologised and identified ways to improve, which was positive. At the resident’s request, it also obtained an apology letter from the developer and provided an action plan. In view of this, we found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. This is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code). The landlord did not respond to the resident in line with its complaints policy. It took 37 working days to respond at stage 1, and 137 working days to respond at stage 2.
15. The resident did not agree to the landlord closing her complaint until it resolved all her concerns. However, in accordance with the Code it must provide a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it completes the outstanding actions to address the issue.
16. Due to the delays in the landlord sending its stage 1 and 2 response and its failure to acknowledge this in its complaint responses, we found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for service failures which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory with no concerns identified.

Communication

18. The landlord’s initial communication was poor but its communication following the resident’s complaint was reasonable. It updated her when it could and gave her extracts of updates from the developer.