Sovereign Network Homes (202232633)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232633

Sovereign Network Homes

4 December 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 leaseholder 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 is about the landlord’s responses to the leaseholder’s request for information about the renewal of cavity wall insulation in his building.

Background

  1. The complainant is the leaseholder of the 2-bedroom flat in question. He lets the property out. The landlord is the freeholder. As such, it has responsibility for repairs and maintenance of some structural elements of the building under the lease agreement.
  2. Available records show that the leaseholder was querying the characteristics of the cavity wall insulation from late 2021. This appeared to be connected to a damp problem around a window reported earlier in the year and which led to the landlord repointing the surrounding brickwork. He subsequently complained in November 2021 that the landlord had been unable to address his questions. In the landlord’s response, it advised it was investigating whether cavity wall insulation was in situ. It then later confirmed that the insulation needed to be renewed but was unable to give a timescale due to the scale of the work and the availability of its contractor.
  3. In mid-November 2022 the leaseholder reported a recurrence of a leak which he said was coming through an external wall into a bedroom. On 13 December 2022 the leaseholder registered a formal complaint about the response he received to the repair issue. He said:
    1. He believed the damp was caused by a problem with the cavity wall insulation and was seeking the outcome of an upcoming inspection to be shared with him.
    2. The Home Ownership team had not provided him with support with the issue and had directed him to claim for the resulting internal damage under the shared buildings insurance.

The leaseholder asked for help from the landlord with drying out the effected wall.

  1. An acknowledgment was sent on 16 December 2022 advising the leaseholder of the intention to share the outcome of the inspection. On the same day, the landlord informed the leaseholder that his case had been closed at stage 1, although he was invited to escalate to stage 2 if he remained unhappy. In its follow up responses between 21 and 22 December 2022, the landlord advised that:
    1. An inspection had been carried out on 19 December 2022 and on the same day the existing cavity wall insulation was removed.
    2. It was unable to give a date for when its external contractor would renew the insulation.
    3. The cause of the damp on the external wall was unclear but enquiries would be made and the leaseholder subsequently updated.
  2. On 6 January 2023, the leaseholder complained about the amount of information the landlord provided following its inspection on 19 December 2022. He said had he been given sufficient information he would not have hired a dehumidifier and made a claim under the building’s insurance. In further correspondence about the complaint, the leaseholder said he had been advised some works were done on 21 December 2022 and asked for confirmation of what this was.
  3. In the landlord’s response from 1 February 2023, it said that:
    1. The damp and mould could be caused by more than one issue. It advised the leaseholder to inform his tenant about practical ways to manage moisture in the home and to share any information learned from his insurance claim.
    2. If a defect with the cavity wall insulation was causing the damp, the works had, according to the leaseholder, been completed in December 2022.
    3. It does not hold information about repairs allocated to a contractor, therefore, staff were unable to advise when the work would start. The landlord said that this could have been sought from the contractor.
    4. It was unable to link the service failure to the leaseholder making a claim. It also said it was a condition of buildings insurance to pay an excess. As such, the landlord said it did not accept it should reimburse the £100 excess.
  4. The leaseholder wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 10 February 2023 because he disagreed with its position on his request to reimburse his excess. He asked again for the landlord to reimburse his excess and for confirmation that the cavity wall insulation would be renewed.
  5. With intervention from this Service because of delays, the landlord sent its stage 2 response in mid-May 2023. This said it agreed with the conclusions of the stage 1 response that it could have done more to obtain information from the contractors. The landlord did not accept a failing in advising the leaseholder about the possibility of making a claim against the insurance or that there was a link between the failings in service and the damage to his flat. It though recognised there was a delay in responding to the complaint and this led it to award £100 compensation.
  6. In reply to the final response, the leaseholder asked the landlord questions about what state the original cavity wall insulation was in and whether it was still going to renew it. It acknowledged his request and advised a further response would be sent. However, there is no evidence that it did and the leaseholder advised he has heard nothing more.
  7. The leaseholder referred his complaint to this Service because he believes the landlord’s responses did not answer his questions about the cavity wall insulation. He explained he is not reassured that the works have been carried out because of this. The leaseholder said he is seeking answers to his questions.

Assessment and findings

Cavity wall insulation

  1. The effectiveness of the landlord’s communication with the leaseholder is at the heart of his complaint to this Service. The Ombudsman’s September 2020 Spotlight report on ‘Leasehold, shared ownership and new builds’ highlighted the fact that homeowners “commit to a long-term relationship with their landlord.” The report said communication was essential in maintaining this relationship. It highlighted the need for landlord’s “to have…strong systems and record keeping so that knowledge and information can be readily accessed.”
  2. In its stage 1 response of 8 December 2021, the landlord said it held no records about the cavity walls. It advised that the previous landlord, from whom the building was acquired, did not provide any details. The landlord said it was investigating the matter and would share its findings with the leaseholder.
  3. The landlord did not have information that it was expected to hold as the freeholder of the building, which was a failing. Not having complete records following an acquisition of stock was a theme highlighted in the Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight on ‘Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’. In the report, we recommended landlord’s “identify gaps in the knowledge of incoming stocks…and to work to fill those gaps.” It was appropriate then for the landlord to carry out investigations to establish if and what insulation was present. This also appeared to resolve matters for the leaseholder as there was no evidence that he escalated this complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that “[a]ny remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” On 26 January 2022, the landlord updated the leaseholder on its investigation findings. However, it should be noted this was prompted by a request for an update from him, which was not in line with the Code. The landlord advised that the insulation had “dropped” and had caused “voids”. It said it had asked its contractor for quotes to renew the insulation, but that it could take some time because of the scale of the works and the contractor’s availability. It committed to letting the leaseholder know when a date had been agreed. While the landlord was not proactive in updating the leaseholder, as it should have been, the level of information it shared was reasonable. It explained what the issue was and that it was intending to address it.
  5. The fact the landlord was unable to provide a timeframe for when the work would likely be done, however, was not in line with the repair policy. This said it would give resident’s an expected completion date for complex repairs that required planning and specialist contractors, as was the case here. It also said it generally aimed to complete these works in 90 days. The Ombudsman though acknowledges that various factors can impact on a landlord’s ability to meet its published timescales. There is no record of the leaseholder reporting an ongoing damp problem at the time of the landlord’s update, which would have made renewing the insulation more urgent. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with the works under its planned programme. It also set the leaseholder’s expectations that the works would take some time, which was appropriate.
  6. The leaseholder reported a recurrence of damp on an external wall in his property in November 2022. He said he believed this to have been due to the problems with the cavity wall insulation. The landlord raised a repair order and informed the leaseholder that a “tradesperson” would attend on 19 December 2022 and it would update him following this. A few days after it updated him again that “trades have advised [the] cavity wall insulation has been removed and holes have been plugged awaiting new insulation.” It was appropriate for the landlord to act on the leaseholder’s reports because it was responsible under the lease agreement for damage to external walls. As well as updating the leaseholder, the landlord sent a photograph showing the work that had been completed. This was appropriate given the leaseholder’s enquiries. However, there was no evidence of the landlord updating the leaseholder about the planned works prior to his November 2022 contact. Again, the landlord failed to deliver on its commitment to update him.
  7. In his initial complaint of 6 January 2023, the leaseholder said that the information the landlord had shared did not “inspire [him with] confidence”. As well as reimbursing his excess, he asked when the works would be undertaken. He later added he had been informed that some works had been carried out on 21 December 2022 and that, had he known, he “might not” have made a claim. The leaseholder though again asked what work had been done.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy said that its responses should show that all aspects of the complaint have been “understood and acknowledged”. It also said it should demonstrate “what investigation has taken place.” The stage 1 response from 1 February 2023 appropriately acknowledged a service failing in not communicating effectively about when the works were scheduled to take place. However, it did not address any of the leaseholder’s concerns about what these entailed. Further, the landlord relied on the leaseholder’s account, rather than its own investigation, that the work had been completed in December 2022 because it referred to his “message” as being the source of the information. When he escalated his complaint in early February 2023, the leaseholder asked, “when the cavity wall insulation is to be renewed”. The delayed stage 2 response of 18 May 2022 was also lacking in detail about the works and, again, did not address this question. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the standard of the landlord’s complaints responses was poor and were, in fact, a continuation of the communication issues the leaseholder had been complaining about.
  9. Had an effective investigation been carried out, the landlord should have been able to consider the evidence which was shared with this Service. While these were not complete because they did not include the level of detail we would expect to see, they were sufficient to show the cavity wall insulation was renewed. The contractor confirmed this was completed on 21 December 2022 with some snags addressed on 24 January 2023.
  10. Where the landlord identifies failings, its complaints policy states it should consider taking action to put matters right. This is in line with the approach set out in the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on remedies’ and the Code. Appropriate remedies can include apologising, providing explanations, taking a specific action (such as a repair), and paying compensation.
  11. The landlord apologised for some failings in its communication and the delays in its complaint responses. It also offered £100 compensation because the stage 2 was considerably delayed, which it acknowledged was “unacceptable”. This was appropriate action given that the stage 2 response took twice as long as the 20-working day timescale that the complaint policy said it would take. The amount was also above the £50 maximum the compensation policy said it would make for delayed complaints. This was reasonable and consistent with the level the Ombudsman would likely have awarded. However, the landlord has not taken accountability for its failings in communication, which was an overriding theme in this case. It has not then taken sufficient action to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the leaseholder’s request for information about the renewal of cavity wall insulation in his building.

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the leaseholder apologising for the delays and poor communication highlighted in this report.
    2. Pay the leaseholder £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication around the cavity wall insulation work.
    3. Answer the questions the leaseholder raised in response to the stage 2 response.
    4. Explain to this Service how any current processes or policies will avoid the failures that occurred repeatedly in its communication with the leaseholder. Alternatively, explain what changes it will make to ensure it effectively communicates about repairs.
  2. The landlord should share evidence with this Service showing it has complied with the above.