Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202306025)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306025

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

12 December 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 handling of the resident’s concerns over the safety of a carbon monoxide alarm.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy began in April 2021. The resident lives alone. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The property has a gas combi boiler, which is located in the kitchen. The landlord had installed a hard-wired carbon monoxide detector in the same room, which was present at the start of the tenancy.
  3. On 13 January 2023, the resident was evacuated from his flat at night by the gas network emergency service. He was told that there were high carbon monoxide levels in the building. He has told this Service that this was frightening and negatively impacted his mental health. He has reported that he had to wait out on the street in the rain until the next morning, when he was told it was safe to return to the building.
  4. On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that he was concerned that his carbon monoxide alarm was not working as it did not go off on 13 January 2023, when he was told there was high carbon monoxide levels in the building. The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of this telephone conversation. The resident has told this Service that he was anxious about his safety and about what might have happened if the alarm was faulty, and the gas network emergency service hadn’t alerted him to the high carbon monoxide levels.
  5. On 17 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended and found no evidence of carbon monoxide. They also left 2 battery operated carbon monoxide alarms for the resident. On 18 January 2028, the contractor told the landlord that they were “advised on site” that the carbon monoxide in the building on 13 January 2023 was due to a cable burning underground.
  6. On 20 January 2023, the landlord’s gas inspector telephoned the resident to do a welfare check. There is no contemporaneous record of this telephone conversation. Later that day the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said:
    1. On 16 January 2023, he was told that the contractor would attend within 4 hours. They did not attend until 17 January 2023. He had to telephone more than once to chase this.
    2. The contractor who attended on 17 January 2023 told him that the carbon monoxide alarm was old and gave him 2 new ones. He considered that the contractor was rude and patronising. The conversation became heated, and the resident swore and asked them to leave.
    3. He also considered that the landlord’s gas inspector who telephoned him on 20 January 2023 was patronising and kept talking over him. The gas inspector had said “you people use the F word all the time,” which the resident felt was racist.
  7. In correspondence between the landlord and the contractor on 26 January 2023, the contractor advised that the job number the landlord said it had raised for the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm on 16 January 2023 was not passed to them. The first job for the resident’s flat they had a record of was raised on 17 January 2023.
  8. On 27 January 2023, the landlord’s gas inspector provided an account of their telephone call with the resident on 20 January 2023. This included the following:
    1. They had tried to explain to the resident how carbon monoxide is created. The resident disagreed. They had to talk over him “to make him see sense.”
    2. The resident said paramedics examined him on 13 January 2023 and said they were not concerned, but he still felt his life had been at risk.
    3. The resident said that the contractor who attended on 17 January 2023 was rude and disrespectful, so much so that he had sworn at them and asked them to leave. The resident also told the gas inspector that in his culture people are respectful of each other. The gas inspector asked the resident if he thought he was a good representative of his culture for “being rude to an engineer doing their job.”
  9. The landlord provided a response under stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 6 February 2023. There is some indication that this was not successfully emailed to the resident until 9 February 2023. The stage 1 response said:
    1. The carbon monoxide in the building on 13 January 2023 was due to a cable burning underground. The landlord had attempted to speak to the gas network emergency service and the fire brigade but had not received a reply. NHS paramedics did not report any concerns regarding the resident’s health.
    2. On 16 January 2023, the landlord’s call centre team raised the order incorrectly, meaning it was not transferred to the contractor. The landlord apologised for this error and acknowledged that this had caused distress to the resident. It had asked its call centre staff to make sure orders are raised correctly in future.
    3. The contractor attended on 17 January 2023, found no evidence of carbon monoxide, and found that the hard-wired carbon monoxide alarm was in full working order. The additional 2 battery powered carbon monoxide alarms were provided as a precaution. There was no evidence to suggest service failure by the contractor.
    4. Its gas inspector had telephoned the resident on 20 January 2023 to do a welfare check. It acknowledged that the conversation “was heated.”
    5. It accepted that the resident had been frustrated and inconvenienced. It informed the resident of its expectations regarding communication towards staff and contractors in future.
  10. On 6 March 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In an email sent on his behalf by an NHS care navigator, he said:
    1. His carbon monoxide alarm did not go off on 13 January 2023, despite his neighbour’s alarm going off. This caused him to feel distrust and anxiety. He was told by the gas network emergency service that his alarm should have gone off.
    2. He was displaced throughout the night on 13 January 2023 and the landlord did not offer alternative accommodation.
    3. On 16 January 2023, he was told he would have to wait 4 hours for the contractor to attend. He had to chase the landlord twice before the contractor attended on 17 January 2023.
    4. The contractor told him that the carbon monoxide alarm in the kitchen was faulty. This caused him distress and anxiety, negatively impacted his mental health, and he had not been able to eat and sleep properly.
    5. The carbon monoxide alarm had not been fixed. Throughout his tenancy, the landlord had never checked the carbon monoxide alarm or demonstrated that it worked.
    6. The landlord had not taken into consideration the impact on him of what happened.
    7. He did not feel safe living in the property and wanted to move. He also wanted the landlord to pay him compensation.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 May 2023 said:
    1. The carbon monoxide alarm did not go off because the increased levels of carbon monoxide being emitted did not reach the resident’s property.
    2. The fire brigade had carried out swift checks and confirmed homes were safe to return to. The resident had decided to stay overnight in a hotel without consulting the landlord. Therefore, it was unable to reimburse him.
    3. The resident had been checked by a paramedic and no health issues or concerns were raised.
    4. Its contractor checked the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm and confirmed that this was working. The additional alarm was provided as a precaution. No increased carbon monoxide levels were detected in the resident’s property.
    5. A fire risk assessment was completed on 19 October 2023. Smoke detection should be tested annually as part of gas safe inspections, and every 5 years as part of electrical testing.
    6. Residents are encouraged to test carbon monoxide alarms themselves. The landlord apologised that the resident had not been shown how to do this. It offered the resident a visit to demonstrate this.
    7. It no longer carried out management transfers between properties and advised the resident to contact the local authority to discuss his options for moving.
  12. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. On 18 May 2023, he asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In his correspondence with the landlord, the resident has stated that throughout his tenancy (which began in April 2021), the landlord never checked the carbon monoxide alarm or demonstrated that it worked. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances, including whether the matters should have been escalated to us at an earlier stage. This is to ensure that events can be clearly recalled, and that evidence will still be available to support the investigation. In this case, the determination will only consider matters raised in the 6 months prior to the formal complaint being raised, not all the way back to the start of the tenancy. Reference to earlier events is made in this report to provide context only. This is in line with paragraph 1.8 of Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time.

Carbon monoxide detector

  1. Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 require landlords to ensure a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers). Landlords must check each alarm is in proper working order on the day the tenancy begins. Landlords have to ensure smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are repaired or replaced once they are found to be faulty. Landlords are responsible for the maintenance and repair of hard-wired carbon monoxide alarms under s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The government’s ‘Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022: guidance for landlords and tenants’, says “testing of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms does not require specialist skills or knowledge and should be straightforward for tenants to do.” However, “landlords should consider providing residents with a demonstration and/or instructions to support resident understanding of how, and how often, to test their smoke alarms and make sure they are in working order.”
  3. The landlord did not have any policies or procedures covering its responsibilities in relation to carbon monoxide alarms at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, it has informed this Service that its gas safety policy is being updated to include carbon monoxide activities and this will be available in 2025.
  4. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, the information that was received did not include significant items, such as:
    1. Contemporaneous records of its telephone conversations with the resident on 16, 17, and 20 January 2023.
    2. Contemporaneous records of its contact (including attempted contact) with the gas network emergency service and fire brigade regarding the incident on 13 January 2023.
  5. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, the Ombudsman may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, the landlord’s record keeping was poor.
  6. Although there are no contemporaneous records of the landlord’s telephone conversations with the resident on 16 and 17 and January 2023, it is not disputed that the resident telephoned the landlord on 16 January 2023 and that he expressed concerns that his carbon monoxide alarm was not working. The landlord told the resident that it would attend within 4 hours, as required by its repairs policy timescale for emergency repairs. Whilst it is appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that raised the order incorrectly, it did not attend within its policy timescale. The resident had to wait longer than advised for the contractor to attend and had to telephone the landlord to chase this. The landlord’s error caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, who was concerned about his safety.
  7. The engineer’s report for the visit to the resident’s property on 17 January2023 stated that 2 new battery powered carbon monoxide alarms were installed, and a room sweep was carried out for carbon monoxide. Testing for carbon monoxide and providing new battery powered alarms were reasonable steps.
  8. The resident has reported that the engineer told him that the hard wired carbon monoxide alarm was old and faulty, and this caused him concern. However, the engineer’s 18 January 2023 to the landlord gave different advice. The email said that the existing carbon monoxide alarm was working, and the new alarms were provided as a precaution. While the landlord fulfilled its responsibility to maintain and repair the hard-wired carbon monoxide alarm, no evidence has been seen of appropriate communication around this to the resident. There is no evidence prior to the stage 1 response, dated 6 February 2023, that it clearly communicated to the resident that no carbon monoxide was detected and the existing carbon monoxide alarm was working. As a result, the resident experienced distress and anxiety.
  9. It was appropriate that the stage 1 response, dated 6 February 2023 took responsibility for the error made raising the order on 16 January 2023, acknowledged that this had caused distress to the resident, and apologised for this. The response also appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns and stated that no evidence of carbon monoxide was found on 17 January 2023, the hard-wired carbon monoxide alarm was in full working order, and the additional 2 battery powered alarms were provided as a precaution.
  10. It is not in dispute that the conversation between the resident and the engineer on 17 January 2023 became heated. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the engineer as part of the complaint investigation to request a more detailed account of the conversation that took place, in order to investigate the resident’s complaint that they had been rude and patronising. No evidence has been seen that it did so, and this was unreasonable.
  11. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged a welfare check telephone call to the resident on 20 January 2023. Whilst there are no contemporaneous records, it is not in dispute that the telephone conversation between the resident and the landlord’s gas inspector also became heated. Each party gave a different account of the conversation after the event. However, the gas inspector does not dispute that he entered into a discussion with the resident about whether he was a good representative of his culture for “being rude to an engineer doing their job.” This was inappropriate.
  12. The stage 1 response acknowledged that the conversation with its gas inspector on 20 January 2023 became heated and asked that the resident moderate his language towards staff and contractors in future. There was no indication that it had asked the same of the staff member and contractor that the resident had interacted with. The landlord did not give any reason for preferring the version of events given by its gas inspector to that given by the resident. There is no evidence seen that it listened to a recording of the telephone call, for example. It also failed to acknowledge that the comments the gas inspector admitted to making were inappropriate. This was unreasonable and showed that the landlord did not approach the complaint impartially and with an open mind.
  13. In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 17 May 2023, it apologised that the resident had not been shown how to test his carbon monoxide alarm and offered the resident a visit to demonstrate this. This was appropriate; however, the landlord missed an opportunity to make clear the extent of its obligations in relation to the carbon monoxide alarm, namely that whilst it was responsible for providing a carbon monoxide alarm, testing at the start of the tenancy, and for repair and maintenance of the hard wired alarm, it was not responsible for regular testing, and this was the resident’s responsibility.
  14. While the stage 2 response attempted to provide reassurance in relation to the resident’s stated fears and concerns, no evidence has been seen to support that the landlord’s statements that on 13 January 2023:
    1. The “levels omitted did not reach your property.”
    2. The fire brigade carried out swift checks and declared that homes were safe to return to.
  15. The landlord misunderstood the resident’s point regarding being displaced throughout the night on 13 January 2023. It stated that, without consulting it, he decided to stay in a hotel, and it could not reimburse him for this. However, there is no evidence that the resident told the landlord he had stayed in an hotel. This misunderstanding eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  16. In response to the resident’s request to move, the stage 1 response said that the landlord no longer did management transfers. This was not correct. Although the landlord’s allocations policy stated that from April 2022 it no longer operated a ‘transfer list,’ it still carried out management transfers. It may have been that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, but if so, the landlord failed to make this clear.
  17. Although the landlord was not obliged to carry out a management transfer, its advice to the resident on this point was somewhat unclear. It stated (presumably due to a typographical error), “in respect of moving home, we no longer manager transfers between properties this changed some time ago and is not managed by your local authority, so if this is still an avenue you would like to pursue you will need to contact them directly to discuss.” This must have been confusing for the resident. It would have been best practice for the landlord to provide clear advice on this point.
  18. Considering the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s concerns over the safety of the carbon monoxide alarm overall, it was appropriate that it arranged for carbon monoxide testing, provided new carbon monoxide alarms, offered advice regarding testing these, and arranged a welfare check telephone call. However, multiple failings have been identified, including:
    1. Poor record keeping.
    2. Error raising the order on 16 January 2023, meaning it was not transferred to the contractor. This led to a delay in the contractor attending.
    3. Poor communication:
      1. Did not make clear early enough that no carbon monoxide had been detected and the hard wired carbon monoxide alarm was working.
      2. Did not make clear the extent of its obligations in relation to the carbon monoxide alarm.
    4. Inappropriate language used by gas inspector on 20 January 2023.
    5. Did not respond impartially to resident’s complaints about the conduct of the engineer and gas inspector.
    6. Unclear and confusing response to resident’s request to move.
  19. Cumulatively, the failings identified above constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result the resident experienced distress and inconvenience. The landlord is ordered to apologise, pay £200 compensation, and undertake a review of learning from the case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints and service recovery policy current at the time of the resident’s complaint said that it would acknowledge and log all complaints and stage 2 escalations as soon as possible, and in any event, within 5 working days of the complaint/request being received. It aimed to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, and all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of a request for escalation being acknowledged. If it was unable to meet the target timescales it would contact the resident and explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date. It would keep residents informed throughout the complaint process until the complaint was fully resolved. This was broadly in line with the Code current at the time.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 20 January 2023. While it is apparent that the landlord started investigating the complaint, no evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing, setting out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes sought. This was not in line with its policy.
  3. The stage 1 response was dated 6 February 2023. This was 11 working days after the resident’s complaint was received. However, the landlord’s records show that the stage 1 response was emailed to the resident on 9 February 2023, 14 working days after the complaint was received. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this by email dated 17 April 2023, 29 working days later. This was very late in relation to the landlord’s policy target of 5 working days. The acknowledgement email stated that the resident would receive a decision by 17 May 2023.
  5. The stage 2 response was dated 17 May 2023. While this was the date the landlord had said it would respond by, it was almost 2 and a half months after the landlord requested escalation to stage 2. The landlord failed to provide a reason for this delay, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response made the point that the resident had chosen to stay in a hotel on 13 January 2023 without consulting them, even though the fire brigade said the property was safe to return to. This reads as though the landlord sought to blame the resident, rather than showing empathy, which was unhelpful. The landlord did not apologise for the resident’s inconvenience and distress or show learning from the complaint.
  7. Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint overall, the following failings have been identified:
    1. The complaint was not acknowledged at stage 1.
    2. The stage 1 and 2 responses were late.
    3. Seeking to blame the resident rather than showing empathy.
    4. The landlord did not apologise or show learning at stage 2.

Cumulatively the failures identified above constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. The landlord is ordered to apologise, complete complaint handling training, and pay compensation of £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of, and response to, the resident’s concerns over the safety of a carbon monoxide alarm.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £350, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress, arising from its handling of his concerns regarding the carbon monoxide alarm.
      2. £150 for the poor complaint handling.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).