Sovereign Network Group (202339751)

Background

1. The resident lives in 2-bedroom property and has physical health vulnerabilities. She informed the landlord she had been unable to clear a blockage in her kitchen sink.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s sink and drainage repair.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s sink and drainage repair
   2. service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

4. The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. did not communicate effectively with the resident or its contractors
   2. did not demonstrate effective resource planning or monitoring of the resident’s case
   3. did not demonstrate learning from its stage 1 investigation
   4. did not acknowledge or apologise for sending its stage 2 response late
   5. did not address the resident’s dissatisfaction about its failure to discuss matters with her daughter

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.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

5. We asked the landlord to provide copies of its relevant policies and procedures to support our investigation into the resident’s October 2023 complaint. The landlord sent its repairs policy dated April 2024. This version was not in effect at the time of her complaint and was therefore not relevant. This indicates a knowledge and information management failure which has affected our ability to accurately assess the landlord’s obligations.
6. Using the landlord’s April 2024 repairs policy as a guide, we can see that a resident is responsible for unblocking sinks. As the resident had tried unsuccessfully, it was reasonable for her to expect the landlord to resolve the drainage issue in line with its repair timescales.
7. The landlord attended to the resident’s initial repair report as an emergency within 24 hours. This was in line with its repairs policy. However, it took approximately 8 months to resolve the routine repair based on a target time of 1month.
8. Under communication and accountability, the landlord’s repairs policy states it will keep residents informed. However, throughout the investigation, we have identified poor communication, poor monitoring, and inadequate record keeping by the landlord. Often, evidence shows matters may not have progressed had the resident not chased the landlord for updates. Examples include:
   1. no communication or updates until chased by the resident on 21 September 2023
   2. no record of the need for a CCTV inspection
   3. operatives not attending as arranged, not communicating any changes, or arriving unannounced
   4. no communication or updates until chased by the resident in October 2023
   5. poor communication while sourcing alternative contractors to clear the rubble
   6. failure to record the resident’s consent to discuss matters with her daughter
   7. further delays clearing the rubble due to poor resource planning and communication between the landlord and its contractors
9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would review its compensation offer if further delays occurred. However, there is no evidence that the landlord maintained contact with the resident while the repairs remained outstanding. It did not revise its offer until after we contacted it. By failing to monitor the case effectively, the landlord did not take steps to resolve the matter of compensation on its own initiative.
10. When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. And whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
11. The landlord’s revised compensation offer of £1,047 was consistent with our remedies guidance. However, it only made this offer after our involvement. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident between completing the works in May 2024 and the start of our investigation in August 2024.
12. Our guidance states that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined where a landlord fails to resolve a complaint on its own initiative. In this case, the landlord’s delays caused avoidable distress and inconvenience, and the extended process was not in line with the Code or the principles of providing an early and effective resolution.
13. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter and order it to pay the £1,047 it offered, if it has not already done so.
14. We also note that the resident said she incurred expenses due to the need to use a laundrette. However, there is no evidence she provided receipts to the landlord. That said, nor have we identified any communication from the landlord to assess how the loss of a washing machine and sink affected her. Had it done so, it may have had opportunity to explain that its compensation policy may consider out of pocket expenses, if it received receipts. The lack of an assessment and discussion with the resident does not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to her circumstances.
15. We cannot accurately determine how much the resident may have spent while she had no washing machine. This matter requires evidence for the landlord to consider. While the decision to reimburse laundrette costs is discretionary, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider this. This would require the resident to provide the landlord with receipts or evidence which quantifies her expenses.

16. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
17. The landlord has not demonstrated how it acknowledged the resident’s original complaint. Nor her escalation request. This was not consistent with the Code.
18. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on time. However, the resident disputed the accuracy of its investigation. This led to her escalating her complaint. Had the landlord used its complaints process to communicate effectively with the resident, and resolved her repair, this may not have happened. This caused her avoidable time and trouble.
19. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would learn from the resident’s complaint. It said this would include improved repair planning, record keeping, and communication with its contractors. Given the evidence that these issues continued, it is unclear what learning the landlord actually achieved at this stage.
20. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 4 working days late. While the detriment of this delay may be minimal, the landlord did not acknowledge this or offer an apology. Given a key theme throughout this investigation is the landlord’s poor communication, this did not show how the landlord had learned from its handling of her complaint.
21. The resident’s escalation request expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s failure to discuss matters with her daughter, as she had already given it her consent. The landlord did not address this within its stage 2 response. While it would have been consistent with the Code to have treated this as a new complaint, the landlord did not offer this option either.
22. Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, we order it to pay £75 to appropriately acknowledge the identified failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord did not take the necessary action to implement the learning identified during its stage 1 investigation. Gaps remained with its monitoring and communication beyond its complaint process, until the resident brought her complaint to us.
24. Evidence shows gaps in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. This included ineffective records following initial works, ineffective monitoring, and ineffective resource planning.
25. When asked, the landlord did not provide us with a copy of its repairs policy, relevant at the time of the resident’s complaint.

Communication

26. The landlord failed to demonstrate effective communication throughout. The gaps in its communication with its contractors, and the resident, caused avoidable delays to progress repairs.