Sovereign Network Group (202400986)

Background

1. The property is a one bedroom bungalow. In February 2024, the resident reported issues with the rear garden fencing following a storm, which the landlord attended to on several occasions. The landlord completed the repair on 4 May 2024 but did not agree to replace all the fencing. The resident raised concerns that the entire fencing needed replacing as it posed a safety risk.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Fence repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of fence repairs.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of fence repairs

6. The landlord delayed completing the follow up works to the fence and should have acted more promptly given the security risk it posed.
7. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures, committed to improving the service provided by its contractors, and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
8. The landlord acted reasonably in assessing whether the entire fence needed a repair as its inspection found no safety risk.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

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.

10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs on the same day or within 24 hours of being reported, and to non-emergency repairs within 38 days. It also explains that in some circumstances an inspection might be needed to scope the remedial work required, this includes boundary and fencing issues. Follow-on works could be placed onto a programme for completion within 6 months.
11. The resident first reported on 5 February 2024 that the rear garden fence had collapsed due to bad weather. On the same day, a contractor visited the property as an emergency to make safe but follow-on works were required. This was in accordance with the repairs policy.
12. The follow on works were scheduled to take place on 5 April 2024 but the resident reported to the landlord afterwards that the works were not completed and had been rescheduled for May. The landlord recorded the repair as complete on 4 May 2024. We therefore consider 4 May 2024 as the completion date. This meant the repair was completed 3 months after the initial report. Given that the damaged fence backed onto a public area and allowed access to the resident’s property, this timeframe was not reasonable. Although the resident raised concerns about security and the timescale to complete the works, the landlord did not acknowledge that the follow up work should have been completed sooner. This was unreasonable.
13. There were also failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident about the repair appointments. After the initial inspection, the landlord promptly arranged a followup appointment for 5 April 2024. However, there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident. The landlord should have informed the resident of the date and sought confirmation of availability in line with its policy.The resident was inconvenienced by having to follow up with the landlord and seek details of the follow up appointment. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged communication failures and endeavoured to improve its future correspondence with the resident. This was appropriate.
14. In the escalated complaint dated 22 May 2024, the resident raised concerns about the poor condition of the entire fence and a loose panel. The landlord instructed an inspection on 20 June 2024, which confirmed the fence was stable and posed no health or safety risk. The landlord reviewed the findings and stated that no further work was required, explaining that it only replaces fences that have collapsed and no longer secure a boundary. The landlord relied on professional advice to assess the fence. It concluded that the completed repairs were appropriate and replacement was unnecessary. This was reasonable, as the landlord has the discretion to determine necessary repairs within its responsibilities and may choose to repair rather than replace where this is possible. Although the resident requested a £900 reimbursement for replacing the fence, we found no service failings to support this claim.
15.  In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there were issues with its contractor’s communication, scheduling of appointments and that contractors turned up unannounced. It offered £100 compensation in recognition of these failings, and committed to improving contractor coordination and provided feedback to the relevant teams. This was appropriate and the landlord demonstrated learning and insight from this complaint.
16. While the landlord has acknowledged its failures in relation to communication and taken appropriate steps to put those failings right, it failed to recognise that the repairs were delayed. Therefore, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fence repairs. To put things right we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay additional compensation of £100.

17. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 February 2024, 1 working day after it received the complaintand within the 10 working day timeframe set out in its complaintspolicy.
18. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint on 22 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day and issued its final response on 21 June 2024, in 21 working days. The one day delay was minimal and did not have an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

19. The landlord demonstrated learning and insight into the failures it had identified and provided feedback to the relevant teams.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s file lacked detail regarding the works carried out and its contractor’s correspondence with the resident. This made it difficult to determine when the contractor attended the property, rescheduled appointments, missed any appointments, and what work was completed. As a result, we had to rely on internal correspondence, as well as statements from both the landlord and the resident. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and effective complaint handling. It assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. It additionally assists the landlord to appropriately and fairly investigate and respond to any complaints.