Sovereign Network Homes (202311429)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202311429
Sovereign Network Homes
25 September 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 the resident’s:
- concerns about the fitting of his kitchen door;
- associated complaint.
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy, which the landlord has said began on 13 March 2006 (the landlord does not have a copy of the resident’s original tenancy agreement). The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and the landlord is a housing association.
- The resident told the Service that he is partially sighted and suffers with muscular degeneration, and mental health issues. The landlord said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Repairs and maintenance policy
- The landlord’s policy did not state specific timescales for non-emergency responsive repairs, but stated that it would always aim to provide residents with an appointment and complete the repair at the first visit.
- The policy defined ‘major works’ as larger jobs that were often identified from its responsive repairs activity. It cited examples such as boilers, windows, and other building components that had failed on a one-off basis. It stated that it would agree specific completion targets for major works, which it would communicate to residents.
Complaints policy
- The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that at stage 1 it would “aim to agree a solution” with the resident within 10 working days. It explained that a resident could only escalate their complaint to stage 2 after they had “received a stage 1 response”. It said that it would aim to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It stated that at either stage the landlord may need up to a further 10 days, but that it would let the resident know where this was necessary.
Scope of investigation
- The landlord installed and inspected the resident’s kitchen door in May 2022, and at the same time identified a range of other repairs in his property. The resident’s complaint to the landlord in July 2022 concerned the replacement of his kitchen door, and it was that complaint which the resident brought to the Service.
- The resident subsequently made a second complaint to the landlord in September 2022. The landlord’s records suggested that this complaint was partly about the other repairs it had identified in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of that complaint, and the resident has not referred it to the Service. As such, this investigation is focused on the resident’s kitchen door complaint made to the landlord in July 2022. Any reference to the resident’s other repairs, and his subsequent associated complaint, are for the purpose of context only.
Summary of events
- On 18 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that there were various issues with his new kitchen door, which its own repairs team had fitted that day. The resident asked the landlord to inspect it, but said that a new door would need to be provided and correctly fitted. The landlord’s record said that it booked to visit the resident the following day.
- On 26 May 2022 the landlord raised a quotation request for its contractor to replace the resident’s kitchen door, along with other works. On 6 June 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that he had not missed its contractor, who was scheduled to attend his property that afternoon.
- On 15 June 2022 the resident called the landlord’s maintenance manager (MM) to further discuss works identified at the MM’s visit to his property. On 21 June 2022 the resident chased the landlord about his kitchen door. The landlord spoke with its contractor, and told the resident that the contractor was looking into it and would call him.
- On 5 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had not heard from its contractor. The landlord chased the contractor, and asked that it contact the resident with a works start date.
- On 8 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had not heard anything about his works for over a month. The landlord asked its MM to chase the contractor and update the resident.
- On 11 July 2022 the resident made his complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s record stated that it had explained to the resident that it needed to give its contractor time, but that he had felt that it had had long enough. It said that the resident had stated that the uncertainty regarding when his kitchen door would be renewed was causing him anxiety and stress. The landlord’s resolution team passed the resident’s complaint to its MM.
- On 26 July 2022 the resident called the landlord to chase his complaint. He said that he had had no contact from the landlord or contractor. The landlord called the contractor and asked that it resend its quotation, this time specifically to its MM. The landlord called the resident back to advise him of this. Later the same day the landlord’s MM told its resolution team that he and its contractor had been in contact with the resident, including that day.
- On 1 August 2022 the landlord advised the resident that his kitchen door and other works would begin on 8 August 2022. On 18 August 2022 the resident’s new kitchen door was fitted (some of the resident’s other repairs needed to be completed prior to the door installation).
- On 19 August 2022 the landlord’s MM updated its resolution team. The MM said that the resident’s works would be completed that week, and that his complaint could be closed. Later the same day the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with his new kitchen door as it was not like for like, and that he had lost space due to the door stop. The landlord agreed that its MM would contact the resident when he was back in work the following week.
- On 23 and 25 August 2022, the landlord called the resident to arrange an inspection but recorded that it did not get an answer, and that there was no facility to leave a message.
- On 2 September 2022 the landlord’s resolution team told its MM and senior manager that the resident wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It stated that the resident had said that the landlord had inspected the kitchen door that its contractor had fitted. The landlord explained that the resident had said that the size of the door was not right, which it had agreed to look into, but that he had heard nothing since (the resident also expressed his dissatisfaction with other repairs in his property and the communal areas, which the landlord registered as a separate stage 1 complaint).
- During September 2022 the landlord’s resolution team and MM liaised about the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The MM confirmed that an inspection had been confirmed with the resident. On 3 October 2022 the MM further updated that it had not gotten access for the inspection, and a card had been left for the resident.
- On 19 October 2022 the landlord’s letter to the resident stated that he had not been in when it had attended his property on 30 September 2022. It said that it had left a card requesting his contact, but had not heard from him. It asked that the resident contact it to reschedule the visit within 7 days “otherwise we will close your complaint”. On 26 October 2022 the resident rebooked the inspection for 3 November 2022.
- On 8 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It referred to its inspection of the resident’s kitchen door on 3 November 2022, and to its unsuccessful attempt to call him to discuss his complaint the previous day. The key points were as follows:
- It stated that it had discussed the inspection findings, and viewed the photographs of the door (not seen by the Service). It confirmed that the door was, “correctly fitted, serviceable and within tolerance”, and as such there was no reason to replace it.
- It offered to reduce the door stops from 25mm to 12mm to maximise the opening space. It asked the resident to confirm if he wanted this done.
- It referred the resident to the Service if he remained dissatisfied.
- On 8 November 2022 the resident told the landlord how unhappy he was that it had closed his complaint without contacting him first, and without a resolution. The key points of the resident and landlord’s discussion were as follows:
- The resident reiterated that the door was not like for like. He stated that the landlord’s contractor had known that the door was the wrong size, but had gone ahead and fitted it anyway.
- The resident said that the door might meet the “landlord’s tolerance”, but that it did not meet his. He said that the door was not suitable for his disabilities, and that he kept walking into it. He said that the matter was greatly impacting his anxiety, and mental health.
- The landlord offered to send a carpenter to adjust the door, but recorded that the resident did not want this. It agreed that its senior manager who had issued its stage 2 response would call the resident.
- On 10 November 2022 the landlord’s senior manager wrote to the resident further to their discussion the previous day. It said that it had explained the reasons that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint, and the role and contact details of the Service.
Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process
- On 29 June 2023 the resident provided the Service with further details of his complaint as follows:
- He said that the original kitchen door fitted on 18 May 2022 had been too heavy for the door frame. He explained that the alterations made to the frame to accommodate this had left large gaps around the door, rendering it unsuitable for fire prevention. He said that the landlord had inspected and confirmed this, and agreed the door would have to be replaced.
- He stated that the replacement door that was fitted on 18 August 2022 was so much smaller that he could not walk through it without hitting his shoulders. He described the alterations that the contractor had made to the frame to be able to install the smaller door.
- He said that the reduced door space had caused him issues with regards to his impaired vision, and other vulnerabilities.
Assessment and findings
Kitchen door concerns
- The landlord handled some aspects of the resident’s kitchen door replacement in a timely manner. However, the overall process was protracted, and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had communicated its target completion date to the resident in line with its own policy. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately monitored the performance of its contractor, which contributed to the delays and communication issues.
- The impact of those issues on the resident was compounded by his mental health vulnerabilities, which the landlord has failed to evidence its consideration of. The resident’s concerns with the second kitchen door that was fitted in his property were with regards to his physical vulnerabilities. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff that the resident’s door was serviceable for general use. However, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it gave any consideration as to whether the door met the resident’s specific needs. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen door concerns.
- The resident had said that he had waited a considerable time for the landlord to replace his kitchen door, which it did on 18 May 2022. The matters prior to that date did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. As such, this assessment is of the events summarised above, which were from that date onwards.
- Nevertheless, the unsuitability of the door fitted in May 2022 and issues with the standards of workmanship, meant that a further door had to be ordered and installed. This would have been disruptive and inconvenient to the resident, and his frustration from the outset was understandable.
- The resident expressed his dissatisfaction to the landlord with his kitchen door the same day that it was fitted, on 18 May 2022. The landlord inspected the door the following day, and raised a quotation request for it to be replaced 5 working days later. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report was therefore reasonably timely.
- It was not clear from the landlord’s records what the precise purpose was of the contractor’s visit to the resident on 6 June 2022. Nevertheless, from the subsequent contact records it is reasonable to conclude that it included the measurement or survey of the resident’s kitchen door, which was again reasonably timely.
- The resident discussed the other repairs that had been identified in his property with the landlord 1 week later in mid-June 2022. He first chased the landlord for an update of his door a further week later and it was appropriate for the landlord to ask its contractor to contact him. However, the resident then found it necessary to chase the landlord again 2 weeks later, when he said that he had still not heard from the contractor.
- When the landlord again asked for the resident to be contacted, it would have been appropriate for it to also ask the contractor to report back once it had done so. This would have demonstrated the landlord’s proactive management of its contractor, and allowed it to intervene as necessary. Instead the landlord again left it to the contractor to contact the resident without any further monitoring. When, after 3 more days, the resident still had not heard from the contractor he chased the landlord again, and made his complaint a further 3 days later.
- It is reasonable to conclude that it would have been evident during the resident’s frequent chasing that the matter was adding to his anxiety, and indeed he said as much when he made his complaint on 11 July 2022. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities has been further assessed below, but would have compounded his frustration and distress.
- The resident further chased the landlord 15 days later, when he said that he had still not heard from either the landlord or its contractor. The landlord’s internal emails from the same day stated that this was not the case, and that contact had been made with the resident. However, the landlord did not provide the Service with any evidence that supported this, nor of any actual contact made with the resident during that period. The landlord’s internal emails from that day also expressed doubt with its contractor’s claim that it had previously provided its quotation for the resident’s door, and stated its instruction that it should be resent.
- The following week the landlord booked the resident’s works in with him, which were due to begin on 8 August 2022. The works included the resident’s door renewal on 18 August 2022, which was 3 months to the day since his previous unsuccessful door renewal. The landlord’s policy did not state specific timescales for works of this nature. However, it did state that it would agree and communicate a target completion date to the resident, which it has failed to evidence that it did. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it handled the resident’s works in line with its own policy.
- It is unclear whether the door had to be specifically manufactured for the resident’s kitchen, which would have added to the overall installation timeframe. However, given the resident’s experiences to date, chasing for updates, and the subsequent sizing issues he raised about the door, it was understandable that the overall process would have felt protracted and frustrating to him. It is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s lack of proactive management of its contractor, as evidenced by the contact issues and quotation uncertainties, would have contributed to this protracted timeframe.
- As he had in May 2022, the resident again raised his kitchen door concerns with the landlord on the day of its installation. The landlord made appropriate efforts to follow this up with the resident and, while this was initially unsuccessful, it did act in a reasonably timely manner. It took a further 11 weeks for an inspection of the resident’s new door to be completed on 3 November 2022. However, this delay was not solely attributable to the landlord.
- The landlord did not provide any record of what was considered or discussed at its inspection of the resident’s door. As such, it is unclear whether the resident raised the impact that he subsequently said that the reduced door space had with regard to his physical vulnerabilities. The landlord did make an unsuccessful attempt to call the resident 4 days later, prior to issuing him its stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2022.
- The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord’s stage 2 response to rely on the qualified opinion of its staff with regards to the serviceability of the door. The landlord did also demonstrate a somewhat resolution focused approach with its offer to slightly widen the resident’s door space.
- However, the resident also called the landlord on 8 November 2022, and prior to him having seen its stage 2 response (the resident does not use email). As he had done at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident highlighted the impact that the matter was continuing to have on his mental health. He further described the impact that the reduced door space had with regards to his impaired sight and other physical vulnerabilities.
- The landlord called the resident the following day, and followed this up in writing the day after. The landlord’s records associated with this contact made no reference at all to the resident’s vulnerabilities, nor to the points that he had made about how they were impacted. As such, the landlord has failed in all regards to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was the case with its service delivery, in terms of the impact that its contact failings had with regards to the resident’s mental health issues. It was also the case with its consideration, or lack thereof, of the suitability of his door with regard to his physical vulnerabilities.
- It is of further concern that when the landlord provided its information to the Service, it advised that it had no record of the resident having any vulnerabilities. This was despite the landlord simultaneously providing the Service clear evidence of the resident telling it how his vulnerabilities were being impacted by the matters considered. The Ombudsman has made an order to this regard.
- As above, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the view of its qualified staff, who assessed the resident’s kitchen door as serviceable for general use. The resident’s dissatisfaction with his door also in part concerned the fact that it was not a ‘like for like’ replacement of his previous door. While the resident’s concern was understandable, the landlord’s policy did not compel it to provide like for like replacements, and this would not in and of itself be a reason to replace an otherwise serviceable door.
- However, also as above, it is unreasonable that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it gave any consideration as to whether the door was suitable for the resident’s specific needs. It is acknowledged that the landlord may not have the necessary expertise within its own staff to make such an assessment. Nonetheless, in that instance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider involving an occupational therapist (OT), or, at the very least, advising the resident how he could refer himself to an OT.
- The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to assess whether the resident’s kitchen door, either in its current state or with the widening modification that it proposed, is suitable for the resident’s specific needs. The order considers that the landlord may need the support of an OT to make this assessment, and that it may have limited influence over the timescales and availability of an OT.
Complaint handling
- While the landlord communicated with the resident after he had made his complaint, it has failed to evidence that it ever issued him a stage 1 response. The landlord did issue the resident a stage 2 response, however it took over 2 months to do so. While this delay was not solely attributable to the landlord, its policy stated that it would let residents know when it was unable to meet its own timescales. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it did this at either stage of its process. As such, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy, or with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- As above, the landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during its handling of his kitchen door replacement. The resident’s complaint provided the landlord with a further opportunity to recognise and address this, which it failed to take. A further finding of maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint has therefore been made.
- The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2022, and chased for an update of it 11 working days later. The landlord’s policy stated that it would issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days, but would notify the resident in instances where it needed a further 10 days. The landlord has failed to evidence that it advised the resident that his stage 1 response would be delayed, nor indeed that it ever provided him with one. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was therefore unreasonable, and would have compounded the anxiety and distress that he was already experiencing.
- The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 2 September 2022. The resident reported a number of other repairs issues at the same time, which had not previously been raised at stage 1. The landlord evidenced its internal discussions that led to its decision to separately handle those additional issues as a new stage 1 complaint, rather than combine them with his existing stage 2 complaint. This would have given the resident the opportunity to again escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response to those additional matters, and its decision was therefore reasonable.
- As part of the landlord’s stage 2 investigation, it arranged to inspect the resident’s door on 30 September 2022 (this was also intended to be used to inspect matters related to the resident’s separate stage 1 complaint). This was 20 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint to stage 2, although it is acknowledged that this may have been due to the resident’s availability.
- Nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to confirm why it was extending the timeframe stated in its policy to issue its stage 2 response. This would have provided the resident assurance that his complaint was still in hand, and that the landlord was taking its seriously. The landlord’s failure to do this also meant that it again failed to act in line with its own policy.
- The landlord attended the inspection on 30 September 2022, but the resident was not at home. The landlord made appropriate efforts to rearrange the inspection, and wrote to the resident on 19 October 2022 when this proved unsuccessful.
- It is acknowledged that the inspection was necessary for the landlord to be able to meaningfully progress the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, it was inappropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that if he failed to contact it, it would simply “close your complaint”. The landlord did not specify which of the resident’s 2 complaints this statement applied to. In either instance, and in line with the Code, the landlord would still be expected to issue the resident its complaint responses, which it was not clear that it intended to do.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response 5 days after its inspection had taken place. As above, its response took a somewhat resolution focused approach by offering to slightly widen the resident’s door space. However, the landlord made no reference at all to the delays and communication issues that the resident had experienced. The landlord’s failure to address those elements of the resident’s complaint was worsened by the fact that there is no evidence that it ever issued the resident a stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaint handling was therefore unreasonable, and the Ombudsman has made a compensation order in line with our Remedies Guidance.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fitting of his kitchen door.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
Reasons
- The resident had already suffered disruption and distress with the substandard installation of his original kitchen door. During the subsequent 3 months that it took to replace it, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident informed, monitored the performance of its contractor, or communicated its target completion date to the resident in line with its own policy.
- The resident’s frustration and anxiety during this period was compounded by his mental health issues, which the landlord has failed to evidence its recording or consideration of.
- It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff that the resident’s door was serviceable for general use. However, it failed to demonstrate that it gave any consideration as to whether the door was suitable for the resident’s specific physical vulnerabilities, which it again failed to record.
- The landlord failed to evidence that it issued the resident a stage 1 complaint response. The delay in issuing the resident its stage 2 response was not solely attributable to the landlord, but it failed to act in line with its policy with regards to letting the resident know it would be unable to meet its own timescales.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident was somewhat resolution focused, but failed to address the anxiety and distress that he had experienced as a result of its contractor’s communication failings.
Orders
- The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
- Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
- Pays the resident £250 compensation, made up of:
- £150 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about his kitchen door;
- £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
- Writes to the resident to arrange an inspection of his kitchen door to assess its suitability for his specific needs, with the support of an OT if required.
- It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be paid directly to the resident, and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
- The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
- The Ombudsman further orders that within 6 weeks the landlord:
- Reviews its staff training needs with regard to the recording and consideration of resident vulnerabilities, and writes to the Service with its findings.
- The landlord should evidence compliance with this order to the Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report.