Sovereign Network Homes (202306022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306022

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

8 May 2025

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. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. Concerns about the landlord’s staff member’s conduct and communication from the landlord’s call centre.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
On 2 March 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property and completed an inspection of her bathroom. The contractor identified the tiles were moving and broken due to part of the ply or the joists being damaged, and they recommended the tiles to be removed in order for a decision to be made on the subflooring.

On 15 May 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident it would complete the following works to the bathroom:
1. Strip the bathroom.
2. Remove the flooring, skirting boards, and bath panel, isolating the toilet and sink.
3. Lay new floor tiles, reinstall the bath panel and paint the bathroom.
On 17 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and explained it would be restricting its contact with her due to previously receiving a significant amount of contact from her.
On 20 June 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed it would also replace the toilet and confirmed an appointment had been booked for 3 July 2023 and 4 July 2023.
On 19 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and submitted her complaint to it. She explained she was unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to book in the works for her bathroom, and she stated the works to paint the bathroom were still outstanding. The resident also stated that the landlord’s staff member would not return her calls or respond to her queries about the bathroom repairs. In addition, she stated when she would call the contact centre, they told her only the specific staff member could help. The resident also explained she was unhappy that she received an email from the landlord restricting her contact. She also explained there were multiple appointments where no work was completed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2023. It acknowledged there was a delay in it completing the works to the resident’s bathroom. The landlord stated it had completed all the works to the bathroom. However, it explained it was aware the resident had raised an issue with the decorating works and asked the resident to provide a photograph of the work or, alternatively, it could visit to inspect the issue. The landlord explained there were occasions it could have managed its communication better. However, it agreed with the email it sent to the resident restricting its contact with her due to the level of contact she made with its customer contact centre. In addition, the landlord also explained it had listened to some of the telephone calls between the resident and the customer contact centre and believed they tried to assist the resident as best as possible when they were provided with the necessary information. The landlord apologised for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused and offered the resident £800 compensation, which included £720 for the bathroom repairs and lack of communication from its staff member and £80 for complaint handling.
On 30 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. She stated the contractor had not painted the bathroom as agreed, and she was unhappy that the landlord asked her to provide photographs to prove this. The resident also explained that she did not like the choice of tiles the contractor used and suggested to the landlord’s staff member she would pay for her own tiles to use, but they said this was not possible.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 October 2023. It explained it had previously requested photographs from the resident of her bathroom so it could investigate the issue which she raised about the bathroom ceiling not being painted. However, it confirmed it was yet to receive any photographs from her. The landlord stated in relation to the floor tiles, the contractor had already placed the order based on the choice the resident had provided, and it had already incurred costs, and had to proceed with installing these. It apologised for any communication issues the resident felt had occurred and stated as per its stage 1 complaint response, it had spoken to its staff member, and they acknowledged that better ownership should have been taken to manage communications with the resident more frequently.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the bathroom ceiling to be painted and to receive compensation for her loss of earnings for the repair appointments.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the resident’s bathroom

The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it is responsible for repairing all leaks, and it is responsible for replacing and keeping in working order, toilets, bath sinks, water pipes and waste pipes. The repair policy also states that the landlord is responsible for internal walls and ceilings but not painting or decorating them. Painting and decorating internal walls and ceilings are the tenant’s responsibility.
In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to an emergency repair within 4 hours, and for a routine repair it will aim to attend within 2 weeks of the initial report and aim to complete the repair within 1 month.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 2 March 2023 to carry out an inspection of her bathroom following a leak. The contractor identified the tiles were moving and broken due to part of the ply or the joists being damaged, and they recommended the tiles be removed in order for a decision to be made on the subflooring. A follow-up inspection was required to identify the required works. However, there was a delay in the landlord completing the follow-up inspection and updating the resident about the required works. The delay by the landlord was unreasonable.
Due to the bathroom repairs remaining outstanding, the resident contacted the landlord’s customer call centre on several occasions to get an update on the bathroom works. The Ombudsman recognises it may have been frustrating for the resident that the bathroom works had not been booked in. The landlord eventually emailed the resident on 15 May 2023 to update her on the works it would carry out to her bathroom, which included removing and reinstalling the bath panel and skirting boards, laying new floor tiles, and painting the bathroom. It also confirmed that the works would take place between 16 May 2023 and 18 May 2023. The landlord took the appropriate steps by updating the resident about the planned works to the bathroom. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the resident with details about the bathroom works sooner than it did.
The landlord’s contractor carried out some of the works during May 2023. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2023, explaining that the contractor had not turned up to complete the remaining works. She also emailed the next day, asking for an update on when the remaining bathroom works would be completed. The Ombudsman recognises the missed appointment by the landlord’s contractor and the works remaining outstanding were unreasonable and would have inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately by emailing the resident on 24 May 2023 with an update about the remaining works. It explained that the contractor still needed to complete floorboard and wall repairs, renew the skirting boards, replace the bath panels and redecoration works. It also confirmed that its plumber had recommended the resident’s toilet to be replaced. The landlord also confirmed an appointment had been booked for 2 June 2023 for the works to be completed.
Shortly after, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that the toilet was leaking. She also stated that the contractor did not attend her property on 2 June 2023 as agreed. The delay in the landlord completing the works to the bathroom was unreasonable, and it failed to complete the works by the date it previously agreed to.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in July 2023 and installed the new toilet and carried out the remaining works to the bathroom. The landlord confirmed that the last of the bathroom works were completed on 21 July 2023. However, the resident raised as part of her complaint to the landlord that the painting of the bathroom was still outstanding.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident should send photographs of the bathroom so it could look into the issue she raised about the bathroom painting remaining outstanding. It also offered to attend the resident’s property to inspect the bathroom. However, the landlord stated the resident did not send it any photographs. Also, we are aware that the resident was not comfortable taking further time off work to attend appointments as she raised to the landlord, taking time off had already previously impacted her job. Therefore, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord attempted to resolve the issue with the painting which was part of the scheduled works. However, it is recommended that the landlord carry out the painting work to the bathroom ceiling if the resident would still like this completed. If possible, the landlord should offer the resident a weekend or evening appointment. However, we accept that it may not be possible for the landlord to offer a weekend or evening appointment due to its contactors’ availability.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there were delays in completing the bathroom repairs. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident £720 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. The compensation amount offered was sufficient to recognise the delay.
The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, which is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, there was no permanent impact as the repairs to the bathroom were eventually completed, although there was distress and inconvenience for the resident before the repairs were completed.
The resident has stated she was seeking compensation for loss of earnings. However, the Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse the resident for missed appointments. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires her to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay the resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, the Ombudsman has considered the time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repairs are missed, and whether the landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the bathroom repair delays. In addition, the compensation offer of £720 proportionately reflects the impact of the delay and inconvenience on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Concerns about a landlord’s staff member’s conduct and communication from the landlord’s call centre

The landlord’s employee code of conduct policy states that the landlord’s staff members must fulfil their duties and obligations responsibly, always acting in good faith and in the best interest of the landlord, its residents and other service users.
The resident raised as part of her complaint to the landlord that she was unhappy with one of its staff member’s behaviour, including their lack of communication and them incorrectly stating that her housing repair was a legal issue. In addition, the resident stated she was unhappy that she received an email explaining that the landlord had restricted her contact with her. The resident also stated she was unhappy that its staff member told her she could not purchase her own floor tiles to be installed in the bathroom. She also explained she was unhappy with the communication provided by the landlord’s call centre.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It acknowledged that there could have been better communication from its staff member, particularly prior to May 2023 about the status of the works and the landlord discussed this error with its staff member. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication from its staff member, which was an appropriate step.
In May 2023, the landlord’s staff member incorrectly informed a staff member at the call centre that the resident’s complaint was going through a legal disrepair claim, so they could not take the resident’s call. The Ombudsman recognises it may have been distressing for the resident receiving this information. However, shortly after, the landlord’s staff member apologised for the error. It was reasonable for the landlord’s staff member to apologise for the error they had made, and this was proportionate redress as the error was corrected shortly after it happened.
The landlord also explained in its stage 1 complaint response that its staff member emailed the resident explaining they were restricting their contact with the resident due to the considerable amount of contact it was receiving. From the information the landlord provided, we are aware that the resident called the call centre over 50 times about the bathroom repairs. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to limit its contact, and it confirmed it would still be available to provide repair updates once a week.
The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord’s staff member told her she could not purchase her own floor tiles to be installed in the bathroom. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that its staff member told the resident it was not possible to purchase her own tiles for the bathroom because the contractor had already ordered the tiles and paid for them. As the landlord’s contractor had already ordered the tiles prior to the resident’s request, it was reasonable for the landlord’s staff member to state that it was not possible for her to purchase her own bathroom floor tiles.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that there was an occasion when the resident contacted the landlord’s call centre, and the call disconnected, but she did not receive a call back. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and explained as its call centre receives inbound calls, its call centre staff received another call immediately after the call was disconnected. It also apologised if the resident was not reminded of the complaints process when she called. The landlord confirmed it had discussed this issue with the contact centre managers. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the inconvenience caused and raising the issue with the contact centre manager to prevent similar issues in the future.
The landlord also explained it had listened to some calls between the resident and its call centre to review the level of service it provided. It explained from the calls listened to, its call centre staff members tried to assist the resident as best as possible and contacted the staff member overseeing her repairs when required. The landlord took appropriate steps by listening to some calls to identify if there were any failings in the service and communication provided by its call centre.
It is evident that the communication from landlord’s staff member could have been better. However, the landlord apologised for the communication errors and took the necessary steps to prevent a similar incident happening in the future. In addition, the landlord also offered the resident £720 compensation in its stage 1 response, which was to recognise the bathroom repair delays and communication issues from its staff member. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to acknowledge the failure in its service, and the compensation amount offered, and apology is in line with the remedies guidance referenced above. It proportionately reflects the impact on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for its handling of concerns about a landlord’s staff member’s conduct and communication from the landlord’s call centre.

The associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code.
On 19 July 2023, the resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 August 2023. The response was on time and compliant with the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.

On 30 August 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a small delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was provided on 5 October 2023. The response was approximately 6 working days late. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she was slightly delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there were delays with its complaint handling and offered the resident £80 compensation for its complaint handling error. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s concerns about:
1. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. Concerns about a landlord’s staff member’s conduct and communication from the landlord’s call centre.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £800 compensation offered during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
It is recommended that the landlord carry out the painting work to the resident’s bathroom ceiling if the resident would still like this completed. If possible, the landlord should offer the resident a weekend or evening appointment.