Sovereign Network Group (202429937)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident pays a service charge to the landlord for services it provides.
2. On 22 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up on repairs to the gutters. The landlord said it had phoned him during March and left a voicemail to update him. In April the resident raised concerns about whether his service charge was value for money. He also raised concerns about the quality of services covered by his service charge including cleaning and grounds maintenance.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s enquiry about repairs to guttering.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of his service charge and evidence of how it provided value for money.
   3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of services provided.
   4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about repairs to guttering.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for request for a breakdown of his service charge and evidence of how it provided value for money.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of services provided.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to guttering.

5. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out works to the guttering.
6. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
7. There were record keeping failures which meant its response was inconsistent with its records. There are also examples where its failures meant the information it gave to the resident was incorrect.

Service charge.

8. The landlord tried to put right its failure to provide a breakdown of the service charges. However, it failed to recognise its failure to clarify the specification of each service and how it ensured service charges were value for money.

Quality of services.

9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s original enquiry was unreasonably delayed.
10. It failed to inspect the quality of the cleaning as part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
11. It failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about the frequency of estate inspections.

Complaint handling.

12. The landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation it offered was in line with our Remedies Guidance.
13. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint therefore the offer of compensation does not prevent an adverse finding.

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.

14. An entry on the repair log dated 18 September 2023 shows that works were raised for a leak coming from the roof. It notes that the landlord inspected on 21 September.
15. A further entry dated 20 November 2023 confirms the landlord attended to replace the guttering. The completion date was recorded as 2 April 2024.
16. A note against the entry says it was unable to complete works because scaffolding had not been booked. It’s unclear if the issue with the scaffolding related to the appointment on 20 November 2024 which is a record keeping failure.
17. It took the landlord over 4 months to complete the repair. The reason for the delay is unclear therefore the delay was unreasonable. Its Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will communicate and agree target dates for major works with residents. There is no evidence that it did this.
18. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed the landlord on 22 February 2024 to seek an update. He said water was still running down the building from the overloaded gutters.
19. The landlord failed to respond causing the resident to email again on 8 March 2024.
20. A note in the outcome column against a contact record dated 11 March 2024 said the gutters had been cleared on 22 June 2023 and no other works were raised. It said a voicemail was left for the resident to update him.
21. Its assessment of the repair history was not in line with the information recorded on its repair logs. Therefore the information it provided was incorrect.
22. The resident sent further chaser emails on 20 March and 9 April 2024. On 10 April the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had left a voicemail for him on 25 March 2024 to provide an update.
23. As set out above the landlord’s complaint responses confirmed there was no record of its call to the resident on 25 March. Therefore it’s unclear why this information was provided to the resident.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the delayed works to the guttering had been escalated to a manager who would contact the resident. There is no evidence that this was actioned. This was inappropriate because it was part of its complaint resolution.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 3 October 2024 said that following the inspection in September 2023 it carried out works to the roof in April 2024. It said there were no issues with the guttering during the works so no works were carried out to it.
26. This is at odds with the repair record of November 2023 which says works to the guttering were in fact completed in April 2024. It also does not reflect that the resident reported ongoing issues in his email of 22 February 2024. This is a record keeping failure.
27. It said another resident had reported an issue with the guttering later in 2024. It carried out an inspection and arranged for scaffolding to be erected and works carried out on 20 November 2024. The repair logs shows that it raised a job to replace 40 meters of guttering and down pipes which was booked to commence on 15 April 2025.
28. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. It offered the resident £125 for its failures in relation to the guttering including record keeping. This is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays, communication and record keeping failures.
29. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation which is in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the £125 it has offered if this has already been paid.

30. In his email to the landlord of 16 April 2024 the resident requested an itemised statement which separated out costs. He wanted to be able to assess if he was getting value for money.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it had requested an itemised breakdown of charges be issued to the resident. There is no evidence that this was provided. This was inappropriate considering it was part of its complaint resolution.
32. On 28 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to set out his dissatisfaction with the cleaning charges. He queried how the landlord ensured it provided value for money. He also asked for a breakdown of the management fee.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 3 October 2024 provided the estimates for the previous financial year. The document set out the estimated costs for services including cleaning and grounds maintenance.
34. The landlord failed to clarify what works were expected under each service cost such as those set out in its service charge factsheet. It also failed to provide a response on how it ensures its service charges are value for money.
35. Its stage 2 response appropriately offered compensation to put right its failure to provide a copy of the breakdown of charges following the stage 1 response. However, it failed to recognise it’s other failures as set out above.
36. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Its offer of £50 compensation is not proportionate because it failed to acknowledge all the failures identified in this report. Therefore it is ordered to pay the resident £100 in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

37. In his email to the landlord of 16 April 2024 the resident raised concerns about the frequency of estate inspections and cleaning of the communal areas.
38. The landlord provided its response 3 months later when it issued its stage 1 complaint response. It was appropriate for it to address the matter as part of the complaint. However it was unreasonable to delay its response to the substantive issue in the meantime.
39. In its stage 1 response the landlord set out the expected frequency of the cleaning visits. It said it had addressed the concerns with the cleaning team and would carry out an audit.
40. While this was positive it would have been appropriate for it to have carried out an inspection as part of its investigation into the complaint. This would’ve reassured the resident that it took his complaint seriously. It would also have provided an opportunity to put things right if necessary.
41. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2024.  He asked when the audit would take place because he believed it had not carried out an estate inspection in the past 18 months. He also raised concerns about the standard of its ground maintenance service.
42. An internal email dated 4 September 2024 confirmed that the August clean was delayed but otherwise they had been carried out in line with the schedule. It attached the log sheet which had been signed by the contractors (not seen by us).
43. While this was positive there’s no evidence that it carried out the audit check referred to in its stage 1 response. Its failure to action part of its complaint resolution was inappropriate. There’s also no evidence that it updated the resident accordingly.
44. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident regarding estate inspections which was inappropriate.
45. It’s noted that the landlord carried out a “walkabout” on 3 October 2024 and wrote to the resident to update him on the outcome.
46. While this was positive there’s no reference to an audit of services including the cleaning. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident that it took his complaint seriously.
47. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out how it would monitor the cleaning team’s performance in future. Its response was appropriate. It confirmed the frequency and purpose of its estate visits but failed to demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s assertion that they had not been carried out.
48. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

49. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaint. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has published a complaints policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
50. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 65 working days (16 April to 18 July 2024). It had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to respond to the complaint (up to 15 working days). Its response was 50 working days out of time.
51. The resident was caused time and trouble when he emailed the landlord to chase the response on 3, 19 June and 17 July 2024.
52. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right.
53. The landlord apologised for the delay however it failed to consider offering compensation to try to put things right. It failed to comply with its complaints policy which says it will consider discretionary payments for time, trouble and inconvenience.
54. Its response contained inaccurate information regarding works to the guttering. It’s acknowledged this was put right to some extent in its stage 2 response.
55. The Code requires landlords’ complaint responses to set out in plain language the complaint definition and to respond to all points raised by the resident. The landlord’s response failed to do so which was inappropriate.
56. The landlord responded at stage 2 within 48 working days (28 July to 3 October 2024). It had 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to respond to the complaint (up to 25 working days). Its response was 23 working days out of time.
57. The resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he emailed the landlord to chase its response on 2 and 30 September 2024.
58. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It apologised and offered compensation.
59. It was positive that the landlord referred to learning in its complaint responses. However the paragraphs lacked meaningful feedback that reflected the individual circumstances of the case. They appeared to take the form of standard paragraphs which was a shortcoming.
60. Both complaint responses were provided by the Customer Insight Team. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which says that stage 2 responses will be issued by a senior manager.
61. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with our Remedies Guidance where its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. However, it failed to demonstrate meaningful learning so this does not prevent an adverse finding.
62. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.