Sovereign Network Group (202408355)

Background

1. The resident paid for an additional gate key fob, which was eventually refunded because he did not receive it. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue and raised a complaint. The resident had disclosed that he had a child with vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for a gate key fob.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the request for a gate key fob.
   2. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord recognised service failure during its internal complaints procedure and made an award of compensation at an appropriate level to put it right.
5. We found the landlord failed to follow its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), by not responding to the resident within the applicable timescales.

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’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.

6. The landlord’s records show that there had been issues with the pedestrian gate in April 2023 (stuck in an open position) and August 2023 (not locking and insecure).
7. On 15 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident requesting proof of payment for “the fob to the communal entry points,” as agreed by telephone. It advised that “Each communal remote fob costs £15”. On 20 September 2023, the resident provided a screenshot confirming his £15 payment. The landlord did not acknowledge this for a further 8 days. It apologised for the delay, citing workload, and confirmed it had forwarded the request to the relevant team to expedite the matter.
8. On 16 October 2023, the landlord’s records show it checked the “scheme overview” and identified 3 parking spaces: 2 allocated to specific disabled residents and 1 for a contractor. It stated, “Therefore if the fob in question is for car park, this [resident] is not entitled to access.” This indicates the landlord was uncertain what the key fob request related to and had not confirmed whether it was for car park access. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to clarify this point. We consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification from the resident at this stage.
9. The landlord’s records show no contact with the resident until 12 November 2023, when he emailed to report non-delivery of the key fob, almost two months after payment. The landlord responded the following day, apologised again for being busy, and confirmed it had referred the matter again to the relevant team.
10. There is no evidence the landlord progressed the resident’s key fob order until prompted by a third party, which asked it to advise when the fobs would arrive. The landlord then took a further 6 days to raise the job on 7 December 2023 to “supply 10 x ‘PAC’ door entry fobs.” This was 10 weeks after it confirmed receipt of the resident’s payment and just over 11 weeks after his request. The evidence suggests that the landlord only placed the order following the external prompt, and it has provided no explanation for this delay.
11. The resident stated he had informed the landlord “a lot of times” that one of his children had vulnerabilities. He had previously been issued 3 pedestrian gate fobs but required an additional one as his children grew older. Without it, they were left waiting outside in the cold on multiple occasions for another family member with a key fob to arrive home. We consider this timescale, without updates or explanation, to be excessive.
12. On 19 December 2023, the landlord contacted its contractor to request an update on the order. It stated it was “being chased by the residents for the fobs,” indicating the issue may have affected multiple households. The contractor advised the landlord that it was working on programming problems. There is no evidence the landlord shared this update with the resident or sought an alternative supplier. We found the landlord’s approach to have been unreasonable, particularly during winter months with the resident and a child with vulnerabilities on occasion having to wait outside.
13. The landlord chased its contractor several times in January 2024, but the issue remained unresolved. Its records show it last chased the matter on 15 January 2024 but there is no recorded response or any evidence that it updated the resident.
14. Two months later, the landlord reviewed why the issue had not been resolved for so long. It said the “Resident wanted a fob for a car parking gate as it is quicker route to their front door.” It further stated there had been “No call outs in 2024” relating to the pedestrian gate and that, regardless of any faults, the resident had access via an “override button on communal pedestrian gate.”
15. The landlord’s account contradicts its own records, which show extensive communication in March 2024 regarding an “Urgent Pedestrian gate broken.” Records show a separate resident reported the same issue, stating there was “no emergency release button to override the system”. Another entry confirmed “there is no way to override the system.” The landlord raised a job on 11 March 2024 and attended over the following 2 days, identifying faulty safety devices.
16. The landlord concluded that the resident did not meet criteria for a car park fob. It also decided that issuing car park fobs to all residents would leave the system “open to abuse” and that allocating them selectively would be unfair. It therefore aimed to improve access by other means when the pedestrian gate failed. It advised the resident it would hold discussions and update residents on a new plan. There is no evidence that this happened.
17. The resident had confirmed the main gate was for “cars with a disabled badge” and that his complaint was about an additional fob for the adjacent pedestrian gate, not the car park. We found that the resident’s account remained consistent, whereas the landlord’s account did not. Our investigation found its records were incomplete and in places were inaccurate. We consider this to have been a serious failing in the landlord’s record-keeping and in its provision of accurate information.
18. We sought clarification on whether the landlord had progressed its proposed discussions or identified an alternative solution. The landlord responded that, due to “time passed and colleagues leaving,” it was unable to find evidence of these discussions taking place.
19. Our compensation guidance provides that compensation is appropriate where maladministration has had an impact on the resident. The landlord knew the resident had a child with vulnerabilities but did not properly consider this or respond appropriately to his concerns. Had the landlord not acknowledged any service failure and offered to put it right, it is likely we would have found maladministration. The landlord had awarded £250 in compensation, and we consider this to be reasonable redress and proportionate to the impact. This determination is made on the understanding that the landlord will re-offer and pay this compensation to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage process. It states that the landlord will contact the resident “without fail” at both stages to introduce themselves and understand the complaint. The landlord will acknowledge complaints in writing within 5 working days. It will fully respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint definition and its timescales to respond are compliant with the Code.
21. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord contacted the resident to introduce themselves and understand the resident’s complaint. But the landlord acknowledged it in writing on 2 January 2024, which was 4 working days later. The landlord sent him its full response in line with its policy and the Code.
22. There is no evidence suggesting the landlord had contacted the resident at stage 2 of the complaint either. Therefore, the opportunity to clarify any issues was missed. Had the landlord followed its policy, the misunderstanding about the complaint that further negatively impacted the resident may have been avoided.
23. The landlord acknowledged the escalation in writing on 19 February 2024, within 5 working days and in line with its policy and the Code. However, its stage 2 response was 1 working day late. This demonstrated a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling but had minimal impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The resident said that the landlord’s email with the final complaint response attached was addressed to someone else. The landlord said it provided us with internal emails it “could find”. It is unclear whether some relevant internal records may be missing and 1 record noted the resident’s complaint date inaccurately. During the internal complaint process, the narrative of the complaint seemed to change from the landlord’s perspective. The landlord confirmed to us it had “Nothing recorded” about vulnerabilities when it had known that the resident had a child with vulnerabilities to be considered. It may want to consider training staff on the importance of keeping accurate and updated records.

Communication

25. We found several examples of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. Improved communications may have avoided the need to escalate his complaint. The landlord may wish to reflect on learning set out in our Spotlight report: Repairing Trust.