Sovereign Network Homes (202302717)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302717

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

15 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 resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. It is situated on the top floor of a 2-storey block directly under the roof. The tenancy commenced in November 2015. The resident occupies the property with his partner and their children.
On 6 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that water was coming through the roof and loft space and saturating the bedroom ceiling. He pointed out that this had been a recurring problem for a number of years. On 28 October 2022 a repair was carried out to the roof, but the contractor reported to the landlord that it was in poor condition generally. The resident made further report, on 2 November 2022, that mould was now affecting the ceiling and walls in the bedroom and the plasterwork was bubbling and splitting. He had inspected the loft space himself and noted that some insulation was wet and there were missing parts. The landlord attended the property to treat the mould on 11 November 2022 noting at that attendance that the ceilings contained asbestos, and a survey was required before any repairs could take place. On 29 November 2022 the resident then reported to the landlord that the mould had regrown.
The resident complained to the landlord, on 22 January 2023, about its lack of urgency in dealing with the situation. He stated the problem had continued since September 2017 and the landlord had failed to find a permanent solution. The resident reported that he was concerned about the impact living in such conditions might be having on his children’s health.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that an ongoing leak was causing damage, not just in the bedroom, but also in the bathroom and storage cupboard. It had appointed a contractor to repair the roof; remove and replace the loft insulation and damaged ceilings; and to then decorate on completion of those works. However, an appointment for 18 April 2023 was not kept and the resident requested his complaint be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s procedure. He referred to the landlord’s lack of urgency and its poor communication and management of the works in support of this request.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response dated 16 May 2023, in which it acknowledged that there had been poor communication regarding the 18 April 2023 appointment and offered compensation of £100. It otherwise concluded that it had shown urgency in the scheduling of the repair works and that it was working to improve its responses to residents to achieve their expectations.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. In his view the landlord had failed to address the long term nature of the recurring problem; it had failed to show any concern for the health of his family; it had failed to recognise the impact upon him of the distress and inconvenience it was causing; it had failed to make any recompense in respect of damaged furniture/belongings; and the level of compensation offered was inadequate. However, of significant importance was that the resident had no confidence that the repairs made would provide a permanent solution to the problem.
By way of remedy the resident wants to the landlord to permanently repair the roof and for an increased compensation award to be made.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The roof of the property is part of its structure, and the tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to keep that structure in repair. Indeed, it is noted that both resident and landlord agree that the water coming into the resident’s property is originating from the roof and that this is a matter for the landlord to resolve.
This Service cannot offer an expert opinion on the cause of the leak or even if any prior leaks were caused by the same fault or different ones. Further, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine how the issue can be resolved or what repairs are required. Instead, it is for this Service to assess how the landlord approached the problem and whether its response was reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
According to the landlord’s records, this leak was the sixth roof leak reported to it and affecting this flat in just over a 10-year period. Previous reports/repairs had taken place in September 2012, December 2013, July 2014, September 2017, and October 2019. Damp and mould originating from the loft space had also been reported in December 2016. These incidents are now historic. It becomes increasingly difficult for an independent body such as the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of actions taken so long ago, although they do provide context to the current situation. Therefore, whilst reference is made to these events, the focus of this investigation is on the landlord’s handling of the leak reported in September 2022 and which triggered the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.

The landlord has a Repairs and Maintenance Policy which sets out its approach to this issue. That policy differentiates between emergency and routine repairs. For emergencies, the landlord commits to an attendance in 24 hours. For routine matters it offers to provide “the first available appointment we have”, whilst aiming to prioritise repairs which might affect the health and safety of residents. The policy notes that not all repairs can be completed on the first attendance and sometimes a team member with a specific skill set may be required. If this is the case, the landlord will consider making a temporary repair in the meantime.
The policy defines an emergency repair as including flooding/water leaks but only for “severe flooding… or a major roof leak if this is causing internal damage.”
As set out above, this leak was reported on 6 September 2022 and internal damage was starting to manifest itself. The repair might reasonably have been categorised as urgent. With the onset of autumn, followed by winter, this situation was only likely to get worse if left unattended. However, no repair was carried out to the roof until 28 October 2022, some 7 ½ weeks later. This would have been a delayed response even if the landlord were able to establish that the leak did not satisfy the emergency definition and was, in fact, routine. The scheduling of this initial repair was unreasonable given the conditions the resident and his family were living in. The landlord might reasonably have recognised that a bedroom which was damp from a leak represented a potential health hazard for the occupants of that property.
It is noted that no follow up appointment was made by the landlord to assess the internal damage following that initial repair. It was left to the resident to call when damp and mould developed further (2 November 2022). As set out above, the resident took it upon himself to inspect the loft and discovered missing insulation and saturated material – which he also reported.
The landlord attended to treat the mould on 11 November 2022 which was in 7 working days and was more reasonable. However, it did not then schedule the asbestos test – which was identified at that appointment as needed before repairs could be carried out – until 11 February 2023, some 3 months later. The resident’s report of mould regrowth on 29 November 2022 met with no response in the meantime. This represented another unreasonable delay in scheduling ongoing works at the property.
It was only after the resident complained on 22 January 2023 that the landlord arranged to attend the property to inspect it and determine what was now needed to repair the damage. It then obtained a quotation from its contractor and on 22 March 2023 it was agreed the latter would attend on 18 April 2023 to start all of the necessary works. However, when that day arrived, nobody came to the property.
The contractor stated the resident was told the bedroom would need to be cleared of furniture, including the children’s bunk beds, or the work could not be done. The resident had expressed reluctance at taking this action and the room was not clear. The landlord’s records show that the contractor emailed it on 22 March 2023 stating that it needed to explain this to the resident. The contractor confirmed it proposed to reallocate its operatives to other jobs if the landlord was unable to confirm by 6 April 2023 that the room would be clear on the 18th. On 6 April 2023 the contractor chased this up having had no response. The landlord did not reply and did not contact the resident who was left unaware that the appointment was not therefore going ahead.
The landlord has acknowledged, in its stage 2 response, that this represented a failing in the service it offered to the resident. It was important that it recognised that fact. The work was rescheduled to commence on 2 May 2023 and that further delay might have been avoided had the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the situation.
In total it took the landlord approximately 8 months from the initial report to deal with the leak and the repairs/maintenance that flowed from it, as set out above. This represented maladministration on the landlord’s part. All the while, the resident and his family were living with the consequences. Whilst the landlord agreed its communications could have been better, it did not acknowledge these delays in its complaint responses. It might reasonably have done so. The landlord failed to react to the urgency of the situation or recognise the potential health implications for the resident and particularly his children. It was aware that it was their bedroom that was affected the most.
The Ombudsman’s ‘One year on follow up’ on the spotlight report on damp and mould of February 2023 made 26 recommendations against which landlords should be self-assessing their own approach to damp and mould. We identified 10 key factors that will have an impact on how successful any action plan is in practice. A vital one for this landlord to consider is that it should take responsibility by taking occupancy factors into consideration, which in this case is that the presence of mould in a bedroom with children was unacceptable.
Further, the landlord failed to consider ‘the bigger picture’. The issue of roof leaks was a recurring one and the resident pointed this out in his report on 6 September 2022. As set out above, the landlord’s operative pointed out to it the poor condition of the roof on 28 October 2022 following the repair. The landlord’s records show that that opinion was referred to an appropriate member of staff with the observation that no further works had been scheduled and the job was marked as “complete” and questioning whether this needed to be followed up. It is reasonable to conclude no action was taken to do so because the resident has reported to this Service that in November 2023 the cycle of leak, water ingress, and damage started again. This was only a matter of months after the last set of works were completed. The landlord’s failure to consider the context of the September 2022 report represents further maladministration on its part.
The landlord’s offer of compensation of £100 was unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. This Service’s Remedies Guidance states that for instances of maladministration where the resident has been put to significant distress and inconvenience an award of between £600 – £1000 is appropriate. An order has been made below for compensation of £750.
Further, an order will be made below for the landlord to now consider the long-term maintenance of the roof to this building. The landlord should obtain an inspection report to detail what options are open to it. The landlord might reasonably be expected to consider the cost of continuing repairs against any remedial scheme. The landlord needs to consider how it can create a longer-term solution for the resident and his family.
The resident also referred to damaged items and belongings. At no point did the landlord refer the resident to its insurers or raise the possibility of a claim being made. Whilst its Repairs and Maintenance Policy states it “strongly advises” residents to arrange contents insurance, that policy does confirm that it insures the structures of its properties. The resident might reasonably have had this pointed out to him. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide contact details to the resident for its insurers so that he can consider whether he wishes to make any claim.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy sets out its approach to handling complaints and it operates a 2-stage approach. The first stage is for it to try to agree a solution with the resident which it commits to providing in 10 working days of the complaint being made. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome they can ask for a review – representing stage 2 of the process. The landlord aims to conclude this within 20 working days of escalation. At both stages the landlord states it may ask for more time depending upon how complicated the complaint is.
In this case, however, the landlord’s Stage 1 response was 30 working days late (that is 6 weeks). When the resident sought to escalate the complaint the stage 2 response was given within the timeframe envisaged by the policy. The initial delay was, however, inappropriate.
Further, the landlord’s complaint responses did not entirely respond to the points the resident was making. He referred to the ongoing nature of the leaks which he expressed as having continued for a number of years. The landlord did not address this point in its responses at all. It might reasonably have been expected to do so. This was another missed opportunity for it to look at ‘the bigger picture’ in this case.
Finally, in its stage 2 response, the landlord considered the escalation points raised by the resident rigidly and in isolation. It failed to consider the context in which they were made. It did not address the resident’s points about the difficulties residents faced in their communications with it. Rather it responded in general terms about a transition taking place. This represented an additional missed opportunity to consider valuable feedback from one of its customers.
The landlord’s complaint responses were inadequate as well as delayed. This represents a failing in the service it offered the resident. It is also contrary to the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code. He was left unclear as to the landlord’s position – both by the delays and with responses that failed to reflect an understanding of the points being raised. The resident was put to time and trouble in pursuing the matter. A further order for compensation of £100 has been made below to recognise the impact of this on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £850 made up of:
1. £750 for its maladministration.
2. £100 for its complaint handling.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord to:
1. Consider how the long-term maintenance of the roof to this building is to be secured, to include it obtaining an inspection report to detail what options are open to it.
2. Take into account the cost of continuing repairs (both internal and external) against any remedial scheme.
3. Investigate how it can create a longer-term solution for the resident and communicate its findings to him.
4. Provide the resident with contact details for its insurers in case the resident wishes to make a claim for damaged belongings/furniture.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the order above within 6 weeks of receiving this determination.