Sovereign Network Homes (202116990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116990

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

26 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint concerns the landlord’s:

a.     management of the communal areas and;

b.     its handling of the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a shared owner leaseholder of a two-bedroom flat within a block owned and managed by the landlord. The block contains 27 flats split between leaseholders, tenants and supported housing residents and includes a library. The current landlord took over management in 2019/20 following a merger. The resident’s complaint concerns the level and quality of the management of the communal areas in and around the block. This included the following:

a.     Grounds maintenance (lack of specification, quality, and frequency of gardening provision)

b.     Cleaning provision (frequency, quality of service and coverage, both internal and external)

c.      Repairs (front door, carpet, bin store gates lock, door entry and installation of new door opener, and that multiple repairs were needed for the same job)

d.     The costs of the services.

3.     The resident complained to the landlord on 1 March 2021. He was unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding service charge increases as its text message and letter listed different amounts. He was unhappy with the level of the increase given that there was a lack of maintenance at the block. He pointed out that the external decoration had not taken place when due four years previously, and that the grounds were not being adequately maintained as residents were having to trim back hedges and remove weeds themselves. This, he stated, had been reported in October 2020 but the resident had not received any communication other than to be told that the matter was in hand.

4.     The landlord responded to the complaint on 19 April 2021. This confirmed that the residents’ service charge account had been checked and amendments made to reduce the estimated repairs charge. The lighting costs in the actuals account had also been corrected. The landlord advised it would make these changes and text the new payment amount to the resident which would apply from May 2021.

5.     In relation to the grounds maintenance the landlord had checked the site map attached to the contract. It noted that there were items missing, for example, the overhanging trees from next door. It confirmed that the map would be updated, and its contractors informed.

6.     With regards to the internal decoration the landlord confirmed it had been informed that a section 20 consultation had been undertaken prior to the merger but that the decision had been made to only undertake partial decoration due to the condition of the existing decoration. It was currently considering whether a new consultation was necessary or whether any required works could take place relying on the older consultation.

7.     The resident pointed out that not all of his queries had been addressed and he remained unhappy. The landlord’s internal emails confirm that the complaint was reopened and escalated to stage two of the complaints process on 21 April 2021.

8.     The resident continued to raise concerns and requested that his complaint be escalated. The landlord inspected and sent an update to the resident on 23 July 2021.

a.     Grounds maintenance – its inspection confirmed some areas had been missed, the specification was being sought and contractors would be again instructed to cut back overhanging branches and bushes and to remove weeds. In addition, a landscaper would be engaged for missing bushes.

b.     Cleaning – clarification was being sought as to the extent of the cleaning contract relating to the bin store.  Window cleaning was confirmed as being undertaken bi-monthly. The cleaning contractors had undertaken an audit which only identified a couple of minor areas for improvement. A sign off sheet would be added to the notice board for signing following each visit. Resident would therefore know when the cleaners had attended.

c.      Repairs – the landlord confirmed that the condition of the carpet meant that it would not currently be replaced. A slight tear had been noted which would either be replaced, or a wider nosing installed. Bin store locks would be replaced once new locks available. Other repairs would be picked up as part of communal/external decoration works.

d.     Costs – the landlord explained that it sought to provide value for money when undertaking repairs and reviewed all repair charges at the end of the year.  It also explained that it could not take any action regarding the lighting at the property which operated by a sensor which it was satisfied was working correctly.

9.     The resident responded with his comments on 24 July 2021 and the landlord sent a further update on 6 August 2021. 

10. The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 September 2021 and reminded it that he was still waiting for a stage two response in relation to the complaint made in March 2021. This email stated that the cleaning service had become worse since the original complaint and that problems with the bin store locks had only been resolved following the action of a resident.

11. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 October 2021 and a member of staff was assigned to investigate the complaint. He contacted the resident on 22 October 2021.

12. A further incident occurred in November when the resident’s parking sign was broken. The resident believed that this had been caused by the garden sub-contractors who had been working on site the same day. He reported the damage to the landlord on 6 November 2021 which he stated may have been done maliciously, given that it had been damaged previously.  He requested reimbursement for a replacement sign on 10 November 2021. The landlord referred the matter to its contractor.

13. On 19 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with the lack of action in relation to both his complaint and the service provision.  He raised the following issues:

a.     The grounds maintenance schedule/specification had not been provided.

b.     The shrubbery had not been replaced, weeds were still present on communal paving and gutters were blocked with plant growth.

c.      Areas were still being missed during cleaning visits, no schedule detailing the frequency and scope of the cleaning had been provided. The sign in sheet for the cleaning gave no detail as to where the cleaning had taken place.

d.     Smoking continued to take place in the bin store.

e.     The repairs to the broken section of the front door, and plasterwork adjacent to the smoke vent control box were outstanding.

f.        No update had been provided as promised.

14. The landlord’s investigator contacted the resident on the same day. He apologised that it was taking longer than expected to obtain all the information and explained that he was not based in the area and therefore was reliant on others to provide him with evidence. He confirmed that he would speak to the resident by telephone the following week to update him on the investigation.

15.  The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 December 2021 in relation to the damaged parking sign. He expressed his dissatisfaction that he had not yet received compensation for the damage. The landlord responded on 9 December 2021 and asked questions regarding any evidence linking the damage to the contractors. It also asked how much it would cost the resident to replace the sign. The resident advised the landlord that sign had been in place before he purchased his home and the parking bay formed part of his lease. Signage was required to prevent others from parking in the bay.

16. The complaint remained unresolved, and the resident contacted the landlord again on 4 February 2022 chasing a final decision. The landlord apologised and sent its decision at stage two of the complaints process on 18 February 2021. 

17. The decision letter apologised for the delays and explained that this was a result of staffing difficulties within the landlord and relevant contractors.  It noted that the resident was aware of the action plans for a number of the issues and set out its response to 32 different items of complaint. 

Ground maintenance:

a.     The bin and storeroom locks had been replaced.

b.     The gutters had been cleared.

c.      Cutting back the bushes had been completed.

d.     Moss build up and weeds had been treated but contractor had been asked to attend again.

e.     There was no current specification related to the grounds.  The landlord relied upon the terms of its contract.  This would be rectified during the next procurement.

f.        Replanting would take place in the spring.

Cleaning

a. The landlord had spoken to the contractors regarding non-attendance and had been assured that replacements were sent when staff were absent. It would monitor the situation.

b.     The contractor confirmed that it attended three times a week with different items of cleaning covered on each day.

c.      It admitted that the bin store had not been included, nor had it undertaken dusting at height. The landlord would apply a service charge credit for each household of £100 in relation to this.

d.     The completion of the cleaning sheet was an issued and this would be raised again with the contractor and cleaning specification would be added to the notice board.

e.     Notice would be given to residents before jet washing took place.

f.        The landlord confirmed that window cleaning took place every two months.

g.     The landlord has spoken to the supported housing staff regarding smoking and the disposal of cigarette butts in the bin store.

h.     It had also ordered a further recycling bin from the local authority.

Repairs

a. A temporary repair would be undertaken to the communal front door.

b.     Making good following the installation of a door closer would be completed as part of the communal decorations for which consultation was underway.

c.      Internal decorations regarding smoke vent would be undertaken once decorations were renewed.

d.     Repeat repair visits would be assessed at the end of the financial year. For £2020-2021this adjustment was £38.67.

e.     Rusty doorbell buttons were scheduled to be replaced on 29 February 2022.

f.        The torn stair carpet had been repaired.

g.     The landlord offered £20 for the resident to replace his parking sign.

Costs

b.     Internal lighting not efficient. This would be replaced with LED lights as when the units failed. It was not considered cost effective to replace the entire lighting system as it was fully functional.

c.      The timing of the lighting had been checked and the landlord was satisfied that this was operating as intended.

18. In response to a further complaint relating to an EWS1 survey the landlord confirmed that no remedial works were required.

19.  The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation and acknowledged that there had been significant delays in it responding formally to the complaint.

20. Following this decision, the resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord regarding the cleaning provisions, the bin store, and the service charge costs. He remained dissatisfied with the quality of the service provided and the landlord’s management of these issues.

21. The landlord conducted a further stage two review of the outstanding issues on 12 August 2022. This partially upheld his further complaints and acknowledged that there were a small number of outstanding actions. It confirmed that further information would be sent to all residents regarding the cleaning standards, the specification, the frequency of the cleaning and the apportionment of the service charge between the supported housing and the shared owners.  It confirmed that the cleaning had been reviewed and inspected by the landlord on a number of occasions and was found to be satisfactory. However, the frequency of the visits could be increased if the residents wished, and this would be included in the information sent out.

22. The letter noted that the service charge team had been unable to add the £100 credit to the previous year’s accounts therefore all residents had been received a refund to their bank account. This was paid to the resident on 4 August 2022.

23. The landlord was still waiting for the local authority to supply the additional recycling bin. This had been chased on a number of occasions and the scheme manager would continue to pursue this as well as responding to any ongoing queries. 

Assessment and findings

Scope

24. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns and to determine whether this was fair in all the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the service provided was reasonable, how often the contractors should attend or whether the service provided value for money.  Should the resident wish to challenge the service charge the matter would need to be referred to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) as the Tribunal can provide expert opinion on the reasonableness of the service and may, if it decides necessary, inspect the premises.

25. The resident’s lease contains provisions stating that the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and, if in the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required, to improve: the main structure of the building, including the doors; the common parts and parking spaces.  It also states that so far as practicable the landlord will keep the common parts of the building adequately cleaned and lighted.

26. Under the lease expenditure within the service charge included all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services, as well as delivery of the landlord covenants relating to common areas (7(5)).

27. Contracts are in place to deliver the cleaning and grounds maintenance at the property. These contracts continued throughout the course of the complaint. There has however been a break in the landlord’s knowledge of the scheme due to a merger, with new staff taking over.  This has had an impact on the landlord’s speed of response as it has had to undertake research to acquaint itself with the workings of the scheme and the contracts involved.

Grounds maintenance

28. The resident was clearly unhappy with the ground’s maintenance provision and the lack of any specification. The landlord explained that the contract defined the areas of work to be undertaken. It checked the mapped area, noted that there were some omissions and took steps to get these added into the contractor’s rota.  The landlord acknowledged that it was not ideal to work without a specification and that this would be rectified when the contract was re-procured.

29. The landlord undertook onsite inspections and arranged for reattendance when it was not satisfied with the works.  It provided explanations and also offered £20 to the resident for the replacement sign. 

Cleaning

30. Throughout the complaint the landlord liaised with the contractor to improve the level of cleaning. It sought clarification on the specification, confirmed that the bin store and high-level dusting had not been taking place and arranged for a refund for residents for this element.  It increased visibility of the cleaning specification and schedule by posting these on the noticeboards and arranging sign off when work was completed.  It also undertook its own inspections to ensure that the cleaning was to an acceptable standard.

Repairs

31. By the end of complaint, the landlord had undertaken a number of repairs, provided an explanation as to when others would be completed. It also explained how it assessed whether the repairs undertaken provided value for money: this was considered as part of the end of year accounts and if, for example, a repair had taken too many visits, a refund may be made to ensure that residents were fairly charged.

Costs

32. The current landlord started processing the service charge statements from 2019/20 (estimates) and 2018/19 (actuals) following the merger.

33. As part of its response to the complaint the landlord looked at how service charges were apportioned across the scheme and made some changes to the apportionment of the cleaning charge to ensure that this was fair. This reduced the apportionment of charges to the leaseholders and increased that of the supported housing residents. It also agreed to look back to the previous years to see if this resulted in reductions in costs.

34. The landlord took the complaints seriously and its investigations were thorough. It actively sought to resolve the issues fairly and to provide explanations to the resident. 

Complaint handling

35. There were significant delays in the landlord providing its complaint responses. As set out above, it was clearly investigating and seeking resolution but there were lengthy periods of inaction. The delays exacerbated the resident’s frustration and sense that no action was being taken.

36. The landlord has acknowledged this delay and has offered compensation to the resident; however, this does not fully recognise the time and trouble the resident had to take to pursue the matter over a number of months.  Nor does it recognise that both complaint responses were outside the timescales set within its own policy, or the timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.  For stage one responses the landlord’s policy states:

“When we first receive a complaint, we aim to agree a solution with our customer within ten working days. If this isn’t possible (for example, if the complaint is complicated), we may need a further ten days.”  The complaint was made on 1 March 2021 with the response sent on 19 April 2021.  This exceeds the 20 days by 15 days, or 2 weeks in total. 

37. The request to escalate the complaint was accepted on 21 April 2021 but a response was not sent for almost 10 months (18 February 2022) with a further final decision sent on 12 August 2022. According to the landlord’s policy the landlord’s aim was for a decision to be sent within 20 working days, or if extra time was needed to make the right decision, it may not be able to respond for a further 30 days. The landlord’s final decision was sent significantly outside of this timescale.  

38. It is noted that the volume of complaints made by the resident was high and that the issues changed slightly as the management of the communal areas continued. However, the resident was entitled to expect a response to the bulk of his complaints within the promised timescales. The compensation offered was low, amounting to approximately less than £10 per month.  The resident was caused detriment as he continued to chase responses. Whilst it is clear that the landlord was seeking to get to grips with the previous arrangements and contracts in place at the scheme, the delays had a negative impact on the resident’s perception of the landlord and caused damage to the landlord/tenant relationship. The compensation does not fully address this service failure.

39. It is also noted that the landlord does not appear to have informed the leaseholder that he could raise his concerns with the relevant Tribunal or the Leasehold Advisory Service when it responded to his continued disputes. This would have been reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, particularly given the dispute regarding the quality of the work.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman makes the following determinations:

a.     there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s management of the communal areas.

b.     There was maladministration in relation to its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

41. The landlord has investigated each of the residents concerns and provided him with details of its position.  Whilst there have been some delays, and there are some issues that are still outstanding, the landlord has evidenced the action it is taking and where possible, has given timescales as to when the action will be undertaken. There are a number of issues that require consultation with residents, and this will, in part, determine the activities that are delivered. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has responded to the residents concerns in an appropriate manner and is continuing to explore ways to improve the service delivery at the scheme.

42. The landlord took too long to reach its final decision and there were lengthy periods where it was not in contact with the resident or providing him with updates.

Orders

43. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay additional compensation of £200, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to adequately respond to the complaint.  This compensation is additional to the £100 already awarded.

44. The landlord should comply within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

45.  The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations.

a.     That, if not already in place, the landlord puts in place a regular system of monitoring contractor performance at the scheme, that allows it to report back to residents.

b.     That, if not already provided, the landlord sends a copy of the ground’s maintenance specification to the resident along with details as to how it monitors performance.

c.      That the landlord involves residents in the procurement process when the cleaning and maintenance contracts are re-procured.

d.     That the landlord continues to pursue an additional recycling bin for the scheme and continues to address any problems with staff smoking in the bin stores.