Sovereign Network Homes (202232195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232195

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

26 April 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the windows in the property.
2. The reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. The complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The resident and her son both have asthma.
The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised reports of defects with the windows in the property on the day she moved in, which was 5 February 2022. The landlord attended on the same day and the notes stated that the mechanism needed to be replaced and a job was raised for that. Notes made on 15 February 2022 stated that new double-glazed units were required and double gaskets. Since then, the landlord attended on numerous occasions throughout the year to attempt repairs and further issues were raised with the windows in the property. The landlord has since stated that there were issues with the contractor at the time and that lots of jobs were failing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 and stated that there were still ongoing issues with the windows. She said that the recent work carried out was not sufficient and raised issues with the contractor, she attached videos of the issues to her email. The resident said it had been over a year, and that her previous complaint was closed without the works being completed. She said it was costing more money in heating, taking time off work, and stress due to the work not being completed properly and she has had no response regarding compensation. The resident said she would escalate to the Ombudsman if the issues were not rectified.
The landlord responded to the resident to say that it was in the process of obtaining materials but was having issues with the supplier so it then used a different supplier. It said it passed on her comments to the contractor regarding workmanship and apologised. It also apologised for the time taken and said it was not for lack of effort but it had hit some stumbling blocks. It said the intention was to resolve the matter at the next visit.
The resident continued to raise issues with the windows to the landlord throughout April and May 2023. She said water was entering the house in multiple rooms and caused damp and mould to the surrounding surfaces and fittings. She informed the landlord that both herself and her son had an asthma diagnosis with no previous breathing issues. She said she felt all the windows needed to be replaced.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023. It stated that a surveyor assessed the windows on 30 May 2023 and confirmed that they were in need of replacement. It said it had added a full window replacement for the property to its Annual Maintenance Programme for 2023/24 and a contractor would be in touch to arrange a date for the work to be carried out. It apologised and upheld the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 June 2023. She said she previously made a complaint in July 2022 and was only receiving a response almost a year later due to approaching the Ombudsman. She said it had caused a lot of stress and when she contacted the landlord on 14 June 2023, she was told the job had not been forwarded to a contractor and there were no notes on the system. The resident wanted to know if the work had been allocated and who to, so she could liaise with them directly. She said compensation should be provided due to the stress and financial impact of using more heating. She said water poured through the windows which caused damage to the property and mould to the blinds and curtains. The resident referred to both her own and her son’s asthma diagnosis and that they were both now having to use steroid inhalers.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 August 2023. Its findings were:
1. There was no record of a written complaint closure letter being sent following her complaint made in July 2022, therefore it accepted that her previous complaint was not formally closed at the time. It upheld this element of the complaint.
2. It had attended and dealt with all but one of the faults reported since February 2022 within the timescales defined in its procedure. However, despite multiple visits it had failed to repair the problems or replace the windows as soon as it should have. It named the contractor and said they would be contacting the resident to arrange a date to measure the windows. It partially upheld this element of the complaint.
3. It apologised for not being able to provide the name of the contractor when the resident requested this. It explained that there had been changes in how it shares information through its maintenance management system. It reiterated the name of the contractor, confirmed that they would be in touch, and that they would also replace the resident’s back door at the same time as that was also due. It upheld this element of the complaint.
4. It would not normally pay compensation but could see there had been delays, multiple visits, and some increased fuel costs for the resident as a result. It offered £200 as a goodwill payment in recognition of the inconvenience the resident experienced. It advised that any damage to the resident’s personal belongings should be claimed back through her household contents insurance. It apologised and upheld this element of the complaint.
5. It was sorry to hear about the impact on the resident’s health. It did not uphold this element of the complaint as it said it would need to be provided with medical evidence before it could comment further.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. She reiterated the issues she raised in her stage 2 escalation and said she would like more compensation for the stress, emotional, financial, and physical damage to her health. The resident wanted the landlord to prioritise the windows as it continued to have a detrimental effect on her own and her son’s health.
The windows were replaced on 15 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting their health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows in the property

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the window cills, window catches, and window frames.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and it will offer its first available appointment or an appointment slot to suit the customer for responsive repairs. It also states that for follow on works for repairs where it has not been able to complete at first visit, it may be more appropriate for someone else in its team to visit to identify the cause of the issue and fully scope the remedial work required. It states that follow on repairs may be placed onto a programme for completion within 6 months of the date of the original repair visit.
As highlighted above, the landlord is responsible for keeping the windows in the property in a good state of repair. However, social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. If it is not clear whether the windows can be repaired or should be replaced, the landlord should have a surveyor attend the property and assess the condition of the windows to determine the next steps to take.
In this case, the landlord’s records show repeated attempts at repairs for over a year from the resident’s first report in February 2022. While the landlord appeared to attend to the reports within a timely manner on most occasions, the repeated repairs raise concerns about the relationship between the landlord and its contractors. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors for managing the repairs, but only up to a point where multiple reports of reoccurring issues were raised. The landlord has stated that there were issues with its contractor at the time. It should have acknowledged the number of repairs completed on the windows over an extended period and the increasing complexity of the issues. In doing so, it may have identified the need for a survey of the property prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
On 12 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord that water was entering the property in multiple rooms and provided a video. The landlord responded to say the glass was still on order. It said it could see from the video that there were issues and it was not disputing that. The resident emailed again on 28 April 2023 about the leaking of rainwater in multiple rooms causing damp and mould, to which the landlord did not respond. While the landlord was waiting on the glass, this was not a sufficient reason not to complete any further repairs in the property. The landlord remained responsible for keeping the property in a good state of repair and it was not appropriate to leave the resident with windows that were allowing in water. The landlord should have attended the property and assessed the damage reported by the resident.
The survey took place in May 2023, 15 months after the resident’s first report of the issues, which was not appropriate. The survey identified that all the windows needed to be replaced and the notes stated “multi visits from trades to try and fix the gaskets but in some cases have made the window worse”. If the survey had taken place sooner this may have assisted in a quicker resolution for the resident and saved the landlord on resources.
The window replacement took place on January 2024, a further 8 months after the survey. It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance and to have a programme of works so multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, the landlord should have considered the condition of the particular property and the impact on the resident resulting from any further delay. The resident repeatedly made the landlord aware of the impact to her own and her son’s health and the damage to the property due to the water ingress. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this when scheduling in the works.
The resident requested that the landlord consider the increase in her energy bills due to needing to use more heating because of the windows. The landlord acknowledged fuel costs in its stage 2 response and offered £200 for the resident’s inconvenience. However, for the landlord to determine whether this request was reasonable, it could have requested sight of the resident’s utility bills to consider whether the amount charged was typical for the household and if they had increased over time. There is no evidence that the landlord requested this and it is difficult to determine whether the compensation amount offered for this was appropriate in the circumstances.
It is clear the landlord tried at points to deal with the issue, however, there were unnecessary delays and it could have done more to monitor the progress of the repair. It is also a failing that the landlord did not attend to the resident’s reports of water ingress caused by the windows. Overall, it has taken the landlord almost 2 years to complete the repairs to the windows, which is not appropriate. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows in the property.
The landlord should pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an offer to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the Ombudsman’s findings. The resident has stated that her heating bills increased because of the windows. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, it is reasonable to consider this was likely and consideration has been given to it in the compensation awarded.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess and protect against hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will respond quickly to reports of damp and mould, addressing any structural issues and providing support to customers. It states that it will respond within 10 working days, where possible, to all complaints of damp and mould, providing clear timelines and completion repairs as quickly as possible. It states that where customers have young children or vulnerabilities, it will prioritise a response, aiming to assess the damp and mould within 3 days.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the only reports of mould from the resident were for her blinds and curtains due to the issue with the window. It said it had no repairs or reports for damp and mould. It is concerning that the landlord has not acknowledged all the reports made regarding damp and mould, and the impact the resident reported regarding the health and safety of the household. This includes her son who was 10 years old at the time and diagnosed with asthma.
The landlord failed on more than one occasion to risk assess and respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the damp and mould. In line with the HHSRS guidance and its own policy, a landlord must promptly assess any potential health and safety risks that are brought to its attention. The resident stated that her health and her son’s health had become worse but the landlord did not take any action in inspecting the property. It is a further concern that the landlord stated it had no medical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, even though the resident highlighted both her own and her son’s asthma on more than one occasion.
It is acknowledged that without remedying the windows, it may have been difficult to fully complete remedial works to any damp and mould in the property. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not demonstrate any proactive attempts to inspect the resident’s property and offer a view on any of the living conditions that she reported. If it had done so, it could have assessed whether there were any simple actions it could take to provide temporary relief to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have made the resident feel heard and understood, improving the landlord/resident relationship.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the impact on her health without being provided with evidence. The Ombudsman has seen medical evidence from the resident’s GP in relation to the resident and her son’s health. If the landlord is now in receipt of the evidence, it should review its response, and handling of the matter. While the landlord may not have had evidence of a deterioration in the resident’s health, it still should have taken action in response to her reports.
Overall, the landlord failed to take any action in response to the concerns raised by the resident. It is therefore unable to evidence that it assessed the property and managed any presence of damp and mould in the resident’s home, in line with its policy. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not respond to the resident in its responses and that the issue may be ongoing. As a result, it appeared dismissive, and lacked empathy when considering the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord should pay a further £600 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould in the property. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord made no attempt to put it right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint, including the level of compensation offered

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to give a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it is not possible for the landlord to respond within these timescales, it will let the customer know and may take a further 10 working days.
It states that while customers may not use the word ‘complaint,’ if it is evident that they are dissatisfied, it will always give them the option to make a complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that the resident reported the issues with her windows via the Ombudsman. It was not appropriate that the landlord only provided a stage 1 response after intervention from the Ombudsman. In her email dated 14 March 2023 the resident clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the window repair and that she expected the landlord to respond to the issues raised and offer compensation. She also referred to a previous complaint she made which was closed without the works being completed and that she would escalate to the Ombudsman if it was not rectified. The landlord should have treated this correspondence as a complaint, or at least clarified with the resident whether she wished to raise a formal complaint, which would have been in line with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed by 11 days which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord should have contacted the resident prior to exceeding the 20-working day timeframe if it was unable to provide a response. This would have been in line with its policy and would have avoided causing the resident further time and trouble in chasing a response.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident’s previous complaint in July 2022 was closed and the resident was not properly informed. It apologised for that and confirmed that it would ensure all stage 1 complaints are closed with a formal letter in future. While it is positive that the landlord addressed and apologised for the lack of response to the resident’s previous complaint. It should have considered the impact on the resident and offered compensation for its failing. The complaint handling delays blocked access to the complaints process. It also prevented the resident from accessing the Ombudsman service sooner and contributed to further delays in resolving the substantive issue.
The stage 2 response was thorough and addressed most of the issues raised by the resident. As already highlighted in this report, the landlord should have also addressed the damp and mould. The landlord also advised the resident to claim any damage to personal items through her contents insurance which was not appropriate. The landlord should have provided its own insurance details for the resident to make any claims, should she wish to do so. Orders have been made to ensure the landlord puts right these elements of the complaint.
The landlord offered £200 as a goodwill payment in recognition of the inconvenience experienced by the resident. While it is positive that the landlord recognised its failings in the delays in carrying out the work and the resident’s fuel costs, the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings identified. Orders of compensation have been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
To conclude, there were delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. While the stage 2 response acknowledged some of the failings, its lack of response to the damp and mould failed to address the detriment to the resident and as such, it did not put things right. Its offer of compensation was also not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration. Further compensation will be awarded for the landlord’s complaint handling failures and the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the windows in the property.
2. The reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. The complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord must carry out an inspection of the property. Once this has been completed it must contact the resident with its findings in relation to damp and mould, and any additional damage caused by the windows and water ingress. It should complete a risk assessment and a written action plan for any required repairs.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,400 compensation comprising of:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs. This is inclusive of the £200 the landlord previously offered to the resident.
2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address the damp and mould in the property.
3. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord must provide the resident with its insurance details to enable her to make a claim for damages to belongings, should she wish to do so.
The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within her household and ensure its internal records reflect those vulnerabilities.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.