Sovereign Network Homes (202315751)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315751

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

28 February 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks in the property.
2. Damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
3. Damage to flooring during remedial works.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1st floor flat within a block. The tenancy began on 17 February 2014. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident has been assisted by her partner in the pursual of her complaint, for the purposes of this report both are referred to as “the resident”.
On or around 17 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak in the bedroom from the ceiling. The landlord categorised the report as an emergency and attended to inspect, it noted the ceiling was damp and that the leak could be from the upstairs flat.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 April 2023 to report that several plumbing contractors had now attended and had been unable to trace the source of the leak and stop it. The resident reported that mould was growing and there was damage to her personal property. The landlord continued to attend on at least 3 occasions but were unable to identify the cause of the leak or access the upstairs flat. The landlord noted that a pipe in the resident’s wall was damp and the insulation in the walls and ceiling was wet.
The resident complained on 5 May 2023. She stated that the leak had not been resolved, and she was sleeping in a damp bedroom. The resident noted she had purchased a dehumidifier and that the walls in the bedroom and hallway were damaged by the leak.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in locating the source of the leak and noted that there had been difficulty locating the source of the leak because it had not been granted access to the flat above. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation and said it would assess whether further compensation was due once the leak was resolved. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 30 May 2023 because the leak was ongoing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 July 2023. It apologised for the time the resident had spent chasing the repair. It provided a further compensation offer of £640, which was inclusive of £150 for the resident’s dehumidifier if she could provide a receipt.
The resident confirmed that the leak had been stopped on 14 July 2023. She asked the landlord to confirm when it would complete the repair works for the damage caused to the bedroom and hallway by the leak and the subsequent damp and mould. Repair works to the bedroom were completed between 11 and 14 September 2023.
The landlord attended on or around 7 May 2024 to strip the wallpaper from the hallway so it could be redecorated. The resident raised a further complaint that the wallpaper stripper had leaked and caused damage to the flooring. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 May 2024, it noted that its contractor had denied causing the damage and states the flooring was damaged prior to the wallpaper stripper leaking.
It is unclear when or why the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. The stage 2 response was provided on 26 June 2024. The landlord reiterated that it did not accept responsibility for the damage to the flooring. It advised the resident that she could make an insurance claim and provided details of its insurer.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 June 2024. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her report of a leak and the subsequent mould, and the landlord’s failure to accept responsibility for the damage to the flooring. The resident noted on 24 February 2025 that she was still experiencing damp in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reports that she has had ongoing issues with damp in the property since 2017 and that she has complained to the landlord about this on several occasions. Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service may not look at complaints that were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
Any previous complaints made by the resident fall outside of this Service’s jurisdiction because they were not raised with us within a reasonable time frame.
This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from the April 2023 leak and up to the landlord final stage 2 response, as this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make it safe. Routine repairs will initially be attended within 2 weeks and the repair completed within 1 calendar month. Complex repairs that require surveys or further investigation will be completed within 90 days.
When the resident first reported a leak in the property, the landlord attended on the same day and marked the repair as emergency on its repair logs. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. The landlord was unable to identify the source of the leak and needed to reattend after the initial appointment.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset, and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
The landlord needed to attend on at least 10 occasions before the leak was stopped because it could not identify the source of the leak. Where several visits are required, this Service would expect to see evidence of the landlord’s investigation to find the source in order to establish that it was taking the appropriate steps and acting reasonably. The landlord’s repair logs suggest that while it was attending, it did not take proactive steps to identify the source. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to live with the leak for longer than necessary.
It took the landlord 3 months to stop the leak. There was some delay caused by access issues to the property above. In these instances, this Service would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated and take steps to assure the resident it was taking the matter seriously. That it did not, was a failure. The resident was distressed by the length of time the leak was ongoing and did not know what the landlord was planning to do to repair it.
The landlord attempted to access the upstairs neighbour’s property on multiple occasions between April 2023 and June 2023 by ringing the bell or knocking. However, it did not appear to make any effort to contact the neighbour by telephone or written correspondence. The upstairs property also belongs to the landlord. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances, particularly as it had failed to make contact on multiple occasions by knocking on the door. It was not until it accessed the above property that the landlord learned that the leak was coming from higher up in the building.
The resident needed to chase the landlord for updates and on occasions needed to pass messages on from contractors to the landlord. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident. When the landlord did respond, it did not offer assurances of when the work would be complete in order to manage the resident’s expectations. The resident was evidentially distressed by the condition of her property and noted she was sleeping in the bedroom with the leak.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak was inappropriate because:
1. it took too long to identify the source of the leak
2. it did not take appropriate steps to access the upstairs property
3. it did not keep the resident up to date
4. the resident was inconvenienced and distressed by living with a leak for longer than necessary
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that it had not fixed the leak within its own policy time frames and recognised that it had caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £640 compensation for the delays and distress caused. This sum included £150 reimbursement for the resident’s dehumidifier pending the resident providing a receipt. The landlord provided a detailed breakdown of its offer which was appropriate.
This Service considers this compensation officer to be a reasonable redress to the failures identified. The offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £640 for its handling of the resident’s report of a leak is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will investigate and diagnose the cause of the damp and mould, and deliver effective remedial solutions. It will provide progress updates to the resident. Where remedial works and mould wash treatments have been undertaken, the resident is responsible for the redecoration. It does not provide time frames in which it will complete remedial works.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage.
When the resident reported that mould was growing in the property as a result of the leak, the landlord attended within 6 working days to inspect and arrange for a mould wash to take place. This was appropriate. The landlord completed remedial works in the bedroom on 11 September 2023 which was a reasonable time frame.
The landlord did not act quickly enough to remedy mould in other areas of the property. The landlord’s repair logs stated it needed to mould wash the hallway in October 2023. The landlord did this in May 2024, which was 7 months later. This was inappropriate, because there is no evidence that the delay was reasonable or unavoidable, or that the delay was communicated to the resident.
There was also a delay from December 2023 to May 2024 for the landlord to strip the wallpaper in the hallway. This was not a reasonable time frame and meant the resident was living with damp and mould for longer than was reasonable.
The landlord did not provide the resident with updates on when it would complete the remedial works. The resident needed to chase the landlord for updates on when it planned to complete the work which caused inconvenience. The resident was evidently distressed by the condition of her property.
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that it had not responded quickly enough and that the resident had spent a lot of time chasing updates. It acknowledged that the delay in completing the repairs had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Across its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord offered a total of £419 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. It provided a breakdown of how it came to this figure which was appropriate.
This Service considers this compensation officer to be a reasonable redress to the failure identified. The offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £419 for its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould, and the associated repairs, is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.
The resident notes that she has recently reported further damp within the property. The landlord has inspected and identified the reported damp. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write to the resident to confirm what works it intends to complete to rectify the damp and when this work will be completed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to flooring during remedial works

The resident asserts that when the landlord attended to strip the wallpaper in the hallway, the wallpaper stripper malfunctioned and leaked on the flooring causing damage. The resident reported the damage the day it was discovered and provided photos. The landlord logged the resident’s report of damage as a complaint.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord raised the resident’s concerns with its contractors and interviewed them to assert what happened.
The landlord noted it discussed the matter with the contractor who reported that while the wallpaper stripper did leak, the flooring was already damaged prior to this. The landlord has evidenced that it investigated the matter and it outlined its position to the resident clearly. It also advised the resident she could make an insurance claim if she wished to do so. This was an appropriate response and in line with standard industry practise.
While this Service acknowledges the resident’s position, there is no available evidence to ascertain that the landlord’s contractor caused the damage. The landlord investigated the matter and provided its position to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the flooring during the remedial works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of receipt. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
The resident first complained on 5 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. On 22 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it needed further time to respond to the complaint and provided a revised deadline of 24 May 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023, which was within the revised deadline. This is a time frame of 12 working days. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 May 2023 and the landlord responded on 5 July 2023. This is a period of 26 working days which was inappropriate because it did not meet the time frames for stage 2 response in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not let the resident know it needed more time or when she could expect a response, which was inappropriate.
On 9 November 2023, the resident noted they were unhappy with the landlord’s offer to strip the wallpaper on only one wall in the hallway because it would mean the decoration did not match the rest of the room. The landlord told the resident that it would treat this as a further complaint. There is no evidence provided to suggest the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident. This was inappropriate and a failure by the landlord. The landlord did however offer to remove the wallpaper on all walls in the hallway which was what the resident was seeking to resolve the matter.
The resident made a further complaint on 7 May 2024. The landlord responded on 21 May 2024, which was 10 working day later. This was appropriate because it met the landlord’s policy time frames.
The resident’s complaint escalation has not been provided to this Service. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 June 2024. Due to the lack of evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord’s response was provided on time and therefore appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that £100 compensation is reasonable to redress the failures identified. This is in line with the remedies guidance available on our website.
We encourage landlords to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not always in line with that
recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider
the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £100 to acknowledge and redress the complaint handling failures identified and provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should pay the resident its previous compensation offers if it has not already done so. The previous offers are broken down as:
1. £640 for its handling of the resident’s report of a leak
2. £419 for its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould, and the associated repairs
The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position on any repairs required following the recent damp inspection. The landlord should set out time scales of when any repairs will be completed.