Sovereign Network Group (202337797)

Background

1. The resident lived at the property at the time of the complaint. The household have since moved. The resident’s husband has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and her adult son has autism. She is a carer for both her husband and son.
2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property in January 2023. The landlord carried out a mould wash and raised works to the roof. The resident subsequently made a complaint on October 2023 as the mould had come back.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property

5. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the household vulnerabilities in how it responded to the reports of damp and mould. The landlord did not inspect the property promptly in line with its repairs policy. It took too long to complete the necessary works to treat the damp and mould at the property. It did not offer compensation during its internal complaints procedure.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to register anew complaint when one was reported by the resident. This resulted in the landlord not following the provisions of the our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the resident being denied access to a 2 stage complaints process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we have the discretion to make recommendations.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the damp and mould impacted the health of the household. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident has raised additional issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have seen that resident made another complaint about these concerns but there is no evidence these matters have exhausted the internal complaints procedure. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the following concerns:
   1. Not being able to use the bedrooms for periods from December 2023.
   2. The condition of windows.
   3. The condition of radiators.
   4. Heating costs since October 2023.
   5. The cost of running a dehumidifier.
   6. Damaged possessions.
   7. Missed appointments in December 2023.

What we did investigate

9. The resident reported damp and mould on 9 December 2022. The landlord arranged for a contractor to identify the cause and treat the mould on 26 January 2023. This was 31 working days after the report. As such, this timeframe was in line with the landlord’s repairs response timeframe. We note that the resident asked to rearrange this appointment. The landlord did so and subsequently inspected the mould and carried out a mould wash on 10 February 2023. This timeframe was reasonable given the resident was not available for the original planned appointment.
10. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job on 13 February 2023 to move the roof vents higher to allow for better ventilation. A contractor attended on 8 June 2023 to carry out this work but could not gain access. The work was subsequently completed on 30 October 2023. This was around 8 months after the work had been identified. The first appointment for the works to take place was within the timescales permitted by the landlord’s policies to complete follow on works.
11. The landlord had provided its stage 1 response on 26 October 2023, just before the work was completed. Although it acknowledged that the contractor’s communication could have been better, it did not explain why the required work had been delayed. Our investigation has identified that it took from 9 December 2022 to 30 October 2023 to complete the required works to the roof. This was over 10 months. This timeframe was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and was not reasonable. At stage 1, the landlord failed to acknowledge the effect of this delay on the resident, particularly in light of her concerns about the household vulnerabilities. In addition, we have not seen any evidence that it considered compensation to acknowledge the delays or impact on the resident.
12. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk (such as damp and mould), the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
13. Although the landlord carried out a mould wash, there is no evidence it considered additional options to manage the damp and mould such as providing a dehumidifier during the time the repair was outstanding. As such, the lack of interim action in circumstances where vulnerabilities were present was unreasonable.
14. The resident made a new complaint on 3 October 2023 and said the contractor had caused damage when carrying out work. The landlord treated this as an escalation request and responded at stage 2. It apologised that damage had been caused. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to attend. This was in line with what the resident had sought as an outcome to this complaint.
15. Despite the landlord’s commitment, it took until 22 November 2023 for the surveyor to attend. This was around 6 weeks after the resident had raised her concerns. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay or provide an explanation for this within its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable.
16. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the resident raised new aspects of complaint and requested compensation. The landlord offered her compensation. This included compensation for the matters considered in this investigation. It also included compensation for issues which happened after the completion of the complaints procedure. The compensation we can consider, which related to the substantive issues raised in this complaint, totalled £800. This was made up as follows:
    1. £50 for clearing up after the contractor.
    2. £40 for the lack of communication.
    3. £30 for damage to the ceilings.
    4. £170 for additional heating costs prior to October 2023.
    5. £10 for a missed appointment in January 2023.
    6. £500 in recognition of “stress” and personal circumstance.
17. We encourage landlord’s to find a resolution, no matter the stage a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should be to ensure that a case receives a fair resolution during its internal complaints process.
18. The landlord did not consider compensation until the resident specifically asked it to and it increased this following our involvement. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, there was little evidence of this at the time of the original complaint investigation.
19. The total amount the landlord offered for the substantive matters in this case, £800, was within a range we would recommend where there has been a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident.
20. Although the compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to consider this during the internal complaints procedure. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances.
21. The failure to provide appropriate compensation as part of the complaints process leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £150 in light of the inconvenience to the resident at having resolution to her complaint unnecessarily delayed.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time said that it aimed to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
25. The resident made her first complaint on 16 October 2023. This was about the time taken to arrange damp and mould works. The landlord responded to this on 26 October 2023. This was 8 working days after the complaint and in line with its published response timeframe.
26. The resident made another complaint on 7 November 2023. This was about damage that had been caused during the works. Although this was linked to the first complaint, the issues raised by the resident were new. Instead of raising a new complaint, the landlord treated this as an escalation request. This was contrary to the process set out in the Code which stipulates new complaints should be dealt with at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. The failure to do so effectively denied the resident access to a 2 stage complaints process.
27. The landlord subsequently responded at stage 2 on 23 November 2023. This was 12 working days after what it took to be an escalation request. This was in line with its stage 2 response time frame. We have noted that the stage 2 response was inaccurate as it gave the date of the first complaint as “16 December 2022”. It appears this should have said “16 October 2023”. Within this response, the landlord acknowledged the damage caused and set out how it would put this right by instructing a surveyor. This was in line with the resolution the resident had asked for.
28. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered its handling of the complaints until the resident referred her case to us. It subsequently reconsidered the matters in November 2024. This was around a year after its stage 2 response. The landlord offered £300 in recognition of complaint handling failures. However, it did not specify what failures it had identified or what learning it would take from this. This was a missed opportunity to show that it had taken steps to prevent his from happening again.
29. Although the landlord’s complaints handling was confusing, it did not delay the resident from being able to refer her case to us.
30. Despite this finding, we have not ordered any further compensation. This is because the £300 compensation the landlord offered after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, was within a range we would recommend where there were failures which adversely affected a resident and it provided appropriate compensation to put things right for all of the complaint handling failures identified by our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. We have seen that the landlord kept logs of the repairs and the actions it had taken.

Communication

32. The landlord should reflect of how it could have been more proactive in chasing the works and communicating with the resident. This is likely to have reduced the time spent by the resident in chasing the issues and led to an improved service delivery.