Sovereign Network Homes (202323139)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323139

Sovereign Network Homes

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s doorframes, doors, and floorboards.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and Summary of Events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who are a housing association. She lives in a 3-bedroom property and her tenancy began in August 2016. She lives in the property with her child and partner and all 3 residents live with vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident had raised a previous complaint about the floorboards and doors in 2021. The landlord said in its 2021 stage 2 response that it would complete the necessary repairs. However, she told it that the repairs could not take place due to a deterioration in her child’s mental health. It closed the case in December 2021 and asked her to let it know when she would be able to provide access for the repairs.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2023. She said she had not heard from it, and asked what was happening with the repairs. She said a social work visited recently, and they had commented on the floorboards, encouraging her to follow up with her landlord. She highlighted the difficulties the floorboards caused her. She said other professionals had also commented on the impact the floorboards would have on her child due to their ’severe’ sensory needs. She said she was awaiting a report which she would send to it once received. She said both she and her partner had issues with their feet, so the floorboards were also impacting them.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 23 January 2023 that due to a deterioration in her child’s mental health the works had to been put on hold. The works needed to be completed now as the floorboards were very loose. Due to her child’s vulnerabilities, she said the works required planning and reasonable adjustments made. She said needed it done as soon as possible.
  5. On 2 February 2023, the resident told the landlord the following:
    1. She had contacted a member of its staff and received no response. The matter was becoming a safety issue, so she would be grateful if it could get it fixed urgently.
    2. She had spoken to its contractor on 1 February 2023. The job was only on hold, not cancelled. She said the floorboards and doors would not repair themselves.
    3. Her child had severe mental health conditions and receiving medical investigation for seizures. Their seizures were brought on by stress, anxiety, and any changes. It was imperative the works were planned carefully and correctly around her needs. As such reasonable adjustments would have to be made.
    4. Whenever she spoke to a member of its staff about these things, they told her to go through the contact centre. This led to her complaining but she still had not received a response.
  6. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that its jobs had target completion dates it needed to stick to. As such, it could not put jobs on hold.
  7. The landlord said on 22 November 2023, it could not locate a complaint relating to the floorboards, doors, and doorframes. The matter was to be logged as a new stage 1 complaint and it said:
    1. It had confirmed to the resident that it was happy to look at completing works to the floorboards. It was still awaiting an occupational therapist (OT) report. It needed the report to become aware of the recommendations required. It asked her to attach the report to her response so it could take the matter forward and include the outcome in its stage 1 response.
    2. It raised the job with its contractors in 2021 in relation to the doors and doorframes. It cancelled the appointment due to access requirements. Due to the timescale of when it last looked at them, it wanted to attend to reinspect. This was to ensure it raised the correct work and it would arrange this and provide an update internally after the visit.
    3. It aimed to provide a full response by 28 November 2023 but needed to see the OT report which it had requested in emails to the resident in March 2023. It provided her with a copy of its emails requesting the OT report and the latest inspection for the doors and door frames.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 November 2023. It found:
    1. It identified that it raised a job to attend and inspect the floorboards in August 2021. It instructed its contractors to attend and quote for the works. It made her aware of this in the closed stage 2 letter for the previous complaint.
    2. The resident had put in restrictions, and its contractors made it aware that they were not able to complete a full inspection of the floorboards. When they quoted for the work, the cost was too high for it to approve. It had recommended that she contact an OT and they could advise what works the property required. It asked her to forward the OT report for assessment and it would then see if this was a viable option. It was not liable for the floor coverings as she had mentioned that she had to replace the carpets due to the state of the floorboards.
    3. She needed to empty the rooms of their contents and floorcoverings. This was for the works recommended by the OT referral to be completed. She was also responsible for reinstating the room. If the OT report said it needed to support her with clearing and reinstating the rooms, this could be included in the report.
    4. In relation to the internal doors and door frames, the job was raised to its contractors. This was included in the stage 2 response to a previous complaint.
    5. At the time she advised that when she felt better, she would book an appointment for them to attend. The contractors reported that they had issues accessing the property. They advised when she contacted again, they would be happy to attend.
    6. An operative needed to attend again as the issue was reported in 2021. It was beneficial for them to inspect the doors and door frames again. It had been 2 years since they were last inspected.
    7. She advised that she had purchased the internal doors, and it had not asked her to do so.
    8. In her last email of 26 November 2023, she advised that the operative could attend to inspect the doors and door frames. She said this would need to be after 8pm during the week. It was happy to authorise overtime, but this would be between 4:30pm and 5:00pm. This was because the operative would attend after the working day.
    9. She had advised that she felt the issues raised were possibly posing a fire safety risk and that the fire brigade attended the property in September 2023. It asked her to provide the documentation supplied by the fire brigade outlining the possible risks. It had seen no recommendations or had any contact from the fire brigade about their visit to her in September 2023.
    10. However, it was more crucial that it attended to inspect the doors and door frames. For it or any contractor to attend, it would need to appropriately account for the time to complete a repair. It understood she was allowing it a 4 hour window in the afternoon due to her child’s disabilities.
    11. The next steps were for it to ensure it could visit and complete all necessary inspections to the door and door frames. Once it had the outcome of the OT referral for the floorboards and the inspection, it could then arrange the works to be completed. It would work with her to ensure it minimised the impact on her and her family. It however, needed to allow the correct amount of time, within a reasonable timescale, to complete the work.
    12. It was not upholding any aspect of her complaint.
  9. The resident responded on the same day disputing the landlord’s response. She disputed the response again on 30 November 2023. On 8 December 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 acknowledgement to her. It said the complaint was escalated on 4 December 2023, and it aimed to respond by 2 January 2024.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024. It said her complaint was upheld and apologised. In recognition of the delay and the impact the issue had caused her family, it offered her £2,450 in compensation. It explained its investigation had found:
    1. She contacted it numerous times to explain the impact on her family and it still had not completed the works.
    2. Following her report in January 2023 it asked its contractor to reattend in February 2023 to review the work required. Due to the cost, it needed 2 more quotes, and this was not done until January 2024. This caused unnecessary delays in progressing the work and it apologised.
    3. In August 2023 it received a report from the fire and rescue service which said only one internal door in her home closed. They advised her to stay put in the event of a fire and to help reduce the spread of a fire they recommended closing all internal doors at night. It did not act on their recommendation to carry out the door works as soon as possible, and it apologised. The report also identified the upstairs floorboards were broken and bowing with pipes running under them.
    4. Her child’s disabilities meant the works must be completed when they were not at home. She told it this would be two afternoons a week for a maximum of 4 hours. She said the works would need to be done over several weeks. She also told it this would also be subject to how her child was faring on the day. It offered to decant her, but she said her child could not stay away from home, so this was not an option.
    5. It said it understood the need to make reasonable adjustments to how the work was carried out to ensure her home was suitable for her family. With the ability to only work for short periods of time with potential for appointments being cancelled on the day, it was proving difficult. With the appointments, it was also necessary to move items of furniture, take up carpet, replace it, and move furniture back. This left less time to complete works to the floorboards and this was why a multiagency meeting was arranged.
    6. The meeting was booked for 25 March 2024 to discuss the work and find the best solution possible for her family. As it was aware of her child’s disabilities, it should have investigated what reasonable adjustments could be made sooner. It apologised it had taken a long time to do this and appreciated this had impacted her and her family.
    7. It said there was a lack of communication from it throughout the process where it should have kept her updated and let her know what its next steps would be. This had understandably added to her frustration and left her with uncertainty. It apologised it did not progress the work sooner and for the distress and impact its failings had caused her and her family.
    8. She provided an updated OT report, and it was working with her to try to find a home that was more suitable for her family’s needs.
    9. It apologised for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint and for not meeting the 20 working day service level agreement.
    10. It identified it had learned from her complaint and that it had fed back the need to review current processes around getting quotes from contractors to prevent delays. It also identified the need for vulnerability training for all staff and guidance on how to decide what reasonable adjustments it made. it was working with a training provider to take the issue forward.
    11. It highlighted that it needed to be quicker looking into reasonable adjustments and arranging multiagency meetings if needed. It had fed back internally that its communication with residents had to improve.
    12. It provided a breakdown of its compensation payment as:
      1. £1,000 for its delays in progressing the work, and the impact on the resident and her family.
      2. £1,000 for failing to act upon known disabilities and identify reasonable adjustments sooner.
      3. £300 for its poor communication.
      4. £150 for its delay in responding at stage 2.
  11. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 20 March 2024 and 7 May 2024 and asked for her complaint to be investigated.

Post complaint.

  1. The landlord arranged for visits to the resident’s property between April 2024 and July 2024. A member of its staff and a surveyor were due to attend. However, the resident raised concerns as she had complained about the member of staff. She also said that she had previously advised that multiple people could not visit her property due to her child’s vulnerabilities. Another attempt has been agreed for a visit to take place in September 2024.
  2. The resident raised another complaint in May 2024 about several issues including the landlord’s communication. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in July 2024. The resident also made a subject access request to the landlord which it responded to in July/August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident explained that she raised the concerns about the doorframes, doors, and floorboards in 2021. She also raised a complaint in 2021 about the matter. Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As such the Ombudsman will not consider the concerns raised in the resident’s 2021 complaint but will focus on the issues raised from January 2023 onwards within this investigation.
  2. The resident has raised further complaints about a completion date for the works. This is in relation to works related to the windows and works to a wet room. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. There is no evidence those complaints had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will not consider those complaints as part of this investigation.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s doorframes, doors, and floorboards.

  1. The resident reported the issues with the property in 2021. The landlord dealt with her concerns as a formal complaint. It also agreed to complete the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s records demonstrate that the resident contacted it in November 2021 and asked to cancel the repair. The landlord asked the resident according to its notes, if she wanted the works cancelled or rescheduled. She confirmed that they should cancel them according to the records. The resident disputes this, stating that she asked to have the works put on hold, not cancelled. She explained she told it in December 2021 that a deterioration in her child’s mental health meant she could not let the works go ahead.
  2. What is not disputed is that the resident told the landlord the works could not go ahead at that time. There is no evidence of her contacting it to arrange the works until January 2023. The landlord acted reasonably, as its actions demonstrate that it was accommodating of the resident’s needs at the time. However, the landlord should have been proactive in enquiring around the works. It should have revisited the issue with the resident as this would have allowed it to identify whether they posed any health and safety risks earlier. The failure to do so was unreasonable and contributed to the delays in its handling of the repairs.
  3. Following the resident’s contact in January 2023, the Ombudsman understands that dealing with the repairs was challenging for the resident. It was difficult for her as her family had to live with the issues. She also had to take the time to seek updates from the landlord. She had to try to accommodate the repairs around her child’s vulnerabilities. This meant she was unable to provide definite dates and times it could attend to complete the repairs. She also understandably could not provide timeframes for works that aligned with what the landlord required. Due to the household’s needs, the landlord needed to explore alternative approaches for the repairs that fell outside of its normal process. The requirement to complete the works in timeframes which were not proportionate to the amount of work required provided challenges and the Ombudsman acknowledges this.
  4. It is understood the repairs could have taken longer than the usual timescales for such works. This was due to the household’s circumstances and the nature of the intrusive repairs required. There were, however, still shortcomings with the landlord’s handling of the repairs which it has acknowledged in its stage 2 response. It identified that there were issues with its communication such as lack of timely responses to the resident’s emails. It also recognised that there were delays in its handling of the repairs, and a failure to act promptly. For example, with the fire brigade’s recommendations and appropriately consider the vulnerabilities within the family. It also identified that it needed to act quicker in arranging multiagency meetings, and a number of other failings. It identified the cause of its failings, and the actions it was taking to address them. It explained it had fed back from the complaint about its timeliness in getting quotes from contractors. This contributed to the delays faced by the resident. It also identified training needs for its staff around providing reasonable adjustment which the Ombudsman finds appropriate. As the landlord has appropriately accepted its failings in the handling of the repairs due to delays, the Ombudsman does not need to determine whether that was the case. Instead, it will determine if the landlord has done enough to put things right.
  5. Despite the landlord identifying that there were issues with its communication and approach to the repairs, the issues persisted. The resident had asked the landlord to provide a temporary move for her parents in February 2024 into a holiday property close to her home to allow an additional stop whilst out of the house for her child. This was to allow for additional time to complete the repairs during the 3 to 4 hours, 2 days a week timeslots she was able to allow. As she had not received a response, this led to her raising another complaint.
  6. When a resident suggests possible adjustments to accommodate vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to assess the request to determine whether or not the proposal would be a reasonable adjustment it could put into place. When it has completed that assessment, it should let the resident know the outcome. In this case, the landlord considered the request, and concluded it was not a reasonable adjustment because of the costs involved. However, it did not tell the resident, despite her requesting updates between February and July 2024. She only learned the outcome of the assessment in July/August 2024 after making a subject access request. This represents a delay of 5 to 6 months without clear communication, and this was unreasonable. This caused the resident frustration and inconvenience, and contributed to her belief that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  7. The fire brigade told the landlord in August 2023 about their health and safety concerns around the doors in the property. As the doors did not shut, they posed a fire risk to the family especially due to their disabilities and their suggestion that they stay put in the event of a fire. The resident also provided the landlord with an OT assessment in February 2024 which identified suitability issues with the property for her child. The resident explained to the landlord and Ombudsman that she paid privately for this report. However, it is unclear why she did so. The assessment also raised concerns with the doors and the flooring. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted in a timely manner on the findings of the report. This was inappropriate considering the health and safety risks identified and these were again mentioned following the fire brigade’s further report in July 2024.The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord tried to inspect the property and had difficulties in doing so.
  8. The resident had identified that the doors did not close following works the landlord had previously completed in 2021. She therefore bought new doors, with the intention of having them installed. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of the resident’s plan prior to the purchase. It said in its stage 1 response it had not asked her to purchase the doors. Its response was unclear as it does not clearly explain its position in relation to the purchase. It failed to explain its position around reimbursement for this, or that it had investigated whether her actions were in line with any of its policies and procedures. She had told the landlord she would speak with the Ombudsman about “out of pocket” compensation.
  9. The resident also raised the issue again in an email on 30 November 2023, following the stage 1 response. She said she purchased the doors as it continued to “ignore” her, and her child’s father was going to help with installing them. She said she felt its response to the situation was “appalling”. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response and has provided no evidence that it ever provided a response to this concern. It missed an opportunity in both its stage 1 and 2 responses to set out its position on any reimbursements or how it would deal with the issue. This demonstrates further concerns with its communication and shows that it did not investigate her complaint fully.
  10. The landlord organised a multiagency meeting on 25 March 2024 to identify an approach to the repairs. However, the landlord failed to inform the resident about the outcome of the meeting. She told the Ombudsman on 29 August 2024, that she was made aware of the outcome by her social worker and had to request details of the meeting through her subject access request. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s communication with the resident. It should have ensured that the resident was appropriately updated and taken a customer focused approach. The failure to do so shows that it failed to learn from the complaint and take appropriate action to improve its communication with the resident.
  11. The matter remains ongoing, and this represents a delay of 20 months between January 2023 and July 2024. Both parties advised the Ombudsman that appointments were arranged which did not go ahead due to cancellations. The Ombudsman understands that the limited timeframes provided challenges in the landlord arranging the repairs. It has evidenced it considered several methods to complete the works. It suggested a decant which was declined due to her child’s vulnerabilities. It considered completing the works during the times provided to it, and also potentially whilst the resident’s child was in the property. The resident however suggested that completing the works whilst they were home was a concern due to her child’s vulnerabilities. The landlord also discussed taking legal action to allow it to complete the works.
  12. However, it failed to demonstrate that it considered any temporary measures it could put in place to address the health and safety concerns. This was unreasonable and could have been done before it carried out the substantive permanent works that were required.
  13. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £2,300 in an effort to put things right. Whilst this was an appropriate approach, the matter remained outstanding 4 months after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. There were also further ongoing issues with its communication with the resident. Whilst the Ombudsman understands the challenges faced by the landlord around the repairs, it failed to demonstrate that it considered any temporary measures to address the health and safety concerns. It has not demonstrated robust action to ensure timely completion of repairs. This is particularly in addressing the fire safety and other health and safety concerns. It also did not explain its position on the resident’s purchase of the doors. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation for the ongoing distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff or those acting on its behalf which affects an individual resident. The policy also states it operates a 2 stage process. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. In February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she felt the repairs had become a health and safety issue. She said she had asked for works to be put on hold not cancelled, and that reasonable adjustments needed to be made. She had gone through the contact centre to complaint but had not had a response. This lack of response led to her complaint. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident and advised it could not keep jobs on hold. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord, which it did not recognise, and it should have treated this as a formal complaint. This was unreasonable, not in keeping with its policy, and impacted the delays in her receiving a resolution to her complaint. It also added to her frustration and distress.
  3. The resident also identified in emails with the landlord that she had raised a complaint about the issue. She said she raised a complaint on 18 March 2023 about “work in general and reasonable adjustment” which remained unanswered. On 21 April 2023 she said, “a complaint had been made again and nothing had been done.” She advised on 9 August 2023 that she raised her complaint in January 2023 but heard nothing back. Following each email in which she said she had raised a complaint, the landlord failed to identify she had raised a complaint, and this was unreasonable. It was not until the Ombudsman’s involvement in November 2023 that the landlord logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and provided its complaint response. This delay of 9 months was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy. This contributed to the delays in the resident receiving a resolution to her complaint. It added to her frustration and belief that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously. This led to the resident taking the time to request updates on the complaint outcome. It also failed to address the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The resident disputed the complaint response on 28 November 2023. This was another expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord has not demonstrated whether it considered if this was an attempt to escalate the complaint. She contacted it again on 30 November 2023. The landlord however did not confirm it had escalated the complaint until 8 December 2023. It said it had escalated the complaint on 4 December 2023. It is unclear if this was due to further communication by the resident. There is however no evidence that the delay caused the resident significant detriment.
  5. The landlord explained to the Ombudsman on 2 February 2024 that it was not able to provide its response yet following a chaser from the Service. It said it had apologised to the resident for the delay and asked for an extension until 5 February 2024. The response was due by 28 December 2023 and remained outstanding until 12 March 2024. This represents a delay of over 2 months, and this was unreasonable. This contributed to the resident’s belief that it was not taking the matter seriously, and her loss of confidence in the landlord.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction and act on them in a timely manner. This led to delays in its response. The resident had to request updates at both stages as it was also delayed in the provision of its stage 2 response. Its actions were not in keeping with its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response. It offered the resident £150 in compensation to put things right. Whilst this goes a way in identifying and trying to rectify its failings, it does not go far enough. This is because it has not addressed the failings around its stage 1 complaint response and its actions were not in keeping with its policy. Based on this the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration. The Ombudsman has ordered for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the door frame, doors, and floorboards.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology about the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £3300 broken down as:
      1. £2450 offered in its complaint response if this remains outstanding.
      2. £600 for the ongoing inconvenience, distress, and frustration caused by its poor handling of repairs.
      3. £250 for its complaint handling failings.
    3. Meet with the resident to identify dates and times which may be feasible for any inspections and the works to be completed. Within the same timeframe it must then provide the resident with mutually convenient times in which it can attend to complete the works and assess whether the property remains fit for the family’s needs. It must provide both the resident and Ombudsman with a copy of its findings and options it considers feasible to rectify the situation.
    4. Explain its position in relation to reimbursement for any items/works which the resident has paid for around the floorboards and doors. If the landlord determines it is not required to reimburse the resident, it must explain its reasoning in writing to her. The landlord must also provide the Ombudsman with copies of any decisions/explanations.
    5. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.