Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202327775)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327775

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

30 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the external lighting on the estate.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease for a flat, which is within a block of flats. The landlord is a housing association. It owns and manages the estate where the resident lives.
  2. On 6 January 2023 the resident told the landlord the external lighting on the estate was not working, including the streetlights, bollards and wall lights.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 27 August 2023. She said the external lighting had not been working since she reported it in January 2023. She raised concerns that the estate was not safe after dark.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. In its stage 2 complaint dated 26 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to investigate and resolve the external lighting due to a miscommunication with its repairs team and contractors. It said it would let the resident know when its contractor could complete the repairs. It apologised and offered the resident £205 for the time and trouble caused due to the delay in resolving the external lighting.
  5. On 2 February 2024 the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £475 due to further delays in the repairs to the external lighting being carried out and for its poor record keeping.
  6. The landlord restored the external lighting on the estate on 16 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the external lighting on the estate.

  1. On 6 January 2023, the resident told the landlord the external lights on the estate were not working. The landlord completed the repairs and restored all the external lighting on the estate on 16 February 2024, 13 months later. This was an unreasonable delay which left the resident feeling unsafe for a significant period.
  2. The landlord’s estate inspection policy stated it was committed to maintaining its estates and communal areas to a good standard to ensure residents feel safe. The policy states it carries out 6 monthly inspections, and any lightening issues should be reported to the cleaning and grounds maintenance contractor. No evidence was provided to show that an inspection of the external lighting had taken place between January 2023 and March 2024, or that any issues with the external lighting was highlighted. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to be pro-active in its estate management and relying on its residents to report issues.
  3. There was evidence of poor communication with the resident throughout the complaint. When she initially reported the issue, the landlord responded on 16 January 2023 and said it would book an appointment as soon as possible. It failed to provide a timescale of when it expected the repairs to be completed. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which resulted in her chasing a response on 22 January 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on a weekend and said it was unable to get an update from its contractor and told her to raise the issue again the following Monday. This was not customer focused. The landlord failed to show any learning, because in its stage 2 complaint response it said its contractors would complete the repairs but again failed to provide a timescale.
  4. The landlord’s poor record keeping was a significant contribution to the delays in the repairs to the external lighting. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. In January 2023 and August 2023 the landlord failed to accurately record the issues the resident had reported, despite her sending in photographs. This resulted in the landlord and its contractor checking the internal communal lighting in January and September 2023. The landlord did not ask its contractor to investigate the external lighting until 11 September 2023, 8 months after the resident’s initial reports. This was a significant failing.
  5. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on its contractors when it confirmed it had restored the external lighting on 21 September 2023. However, when the resident told the landlord that the lights had not been fixed, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to investigate why this was. The landlord contacted its contractor on 23 January 2024 to investigate why it had not completed the repairs. This was 4 months after it instructed the contractor to investigate the external lighting. It is noted this was after the resident asked to escalate her complaint to the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO). The contractor told the landlord due to issues with its computer systems it had visited the wrong estate. Although this was outside the landlord’s control, the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the contractor to ensure the repairs it had promised in its stage 2 response were carried out within a reasonable time. The landlord failed to take a pro-active approach to the repairs, which contributed to the delays in the repair being carried out.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 26 October 2023, it offered the resident £205 compensation for the time and trouble caused due to the delay in the external lighting being repaired. This was broken down as £5 per week for 41 weeks. The landlord’s compensation policy shows this is the highest amount it will offer for time and trouble. The landlord issued a stage 2 follow-up letter on 2 February 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £475. This was broken down as 55 weeks of £5 per week for time and trouble, and £200 for its poor record keeping. While the level of compensation is at a level the Ombudsman would suggest, its a concern this was offered after the resident bought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  7. In summary there was a significant delay in the landlord investigating and completing the repairs to the external lighting. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping, and the landlord failed to be proactive in investigating the issues it was having with its contractor. The Ombudsman feels the £475 compensation offered to the resident reflects the distress, time and trouble caused by the delays in the repairs and is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. However, as the landlord did not use its complaints process to offer this redress and the lengthy period since the final complaint response was issued, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the external lighting on the estate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. On 27 August 2023 the resident asked to make a complaint to the landlord. The landlord responded to the issues raised within a reasonable time. However, due to its poor record keeping it said it would not accept a complaint as it had not been made aware of the issues with the external lighting. The landlord accepted the complaint on 7 September 2023, which was outside its target timescale of 5 working days. Although it was only a short delay, it caused the resident frustration as she felt her complaint was not being taken seriously by the landlord.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2023, which was within its target response time of 10 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint before issuing its response. Its response showed it did not fully understand the residents complaint, and therefore failed to identify and resolve the complaint issue. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 28 September 2023, which was within its 5 working day timescale. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 October 2023, which was within its 20 working day timescale. The landlord showed learning as its stage 2 response was detailed and addressed all the resident’s complaint issues.
  5. On 2 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 follow up response to the resident. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code states that landlord’s should not have more than 2 stages to its complaints procedure. Although this can delay a resident from being able to bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation, the resident had been in contact with the Ombudsman since October 2022 so no detriment was caused to the resident.
  6. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaints 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. In this case there was a short delay in the landlord accepting the complaint, it failed to effectively communicate with the resident at stage 1 and therefore did not resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. In its stage 2 response the landlord showed learning and that it wanted to put things right. However, it failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response or its stage 2 up response.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the external lighting on the estate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her associated complaint. This is in addition to the £475 compensation awarded to the resident in the landlord’s stage 2 follow up response.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm how it is going to monitor any issues with the external lighting on the estate, and ensure any future repairs are resolved within a reasonable timescale.