Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202330161)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330161

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

6 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2023 and reported that there were issues with damp and mould in her property. The landlord inspected and found there was mould present, the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not working, and there were gaps around one of the windows causing drafts. The landlord raised damp and mould inspection.
  3. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 24 May 2023. The inspection recommended replacing the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It identified that there was damage to the ceilings and walls due to a historic leak from the property above. It recommended ensuring the leak was resolved before making good and redecorating throughout the property, using an anti mould paint. It also recommended repairing the window that was allowing drafts in. The landlord replaced the bathroom extractor fan on 30 May 2023. It does not appear the other recommended repairs went ahead at that time.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023 and said the issue with damp and mould was still ongoing, and that some repairs were outstanding. She submitted a complaint on its website on 9 August 2023. The resident said it had not replaced the kitchen fan as it said it would, and she was unhappy with its handling of the damp and mould issue. She was concerned that mould had spread around the property at a “very fast speed.” It does not appear the landlord responded to the complaint at that time. The landlord attended to replace the kitchen extractor fan on 21 August 2023. It was unable to fit the new fan, as the previous fan did not have the appropriate ducting and the air was being extracted into the ceiling void above. It is unclear whether it followed up on the repair at this time.
  5. The resident made another complaint on the landlord’s website on 18 September 2023. She raised concerns about its handling of the repairs issues as well as the damp and mould.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2023. It gave a history of its repairs visits and found that there were delays in progressing with the repairs. It apologised that after the resident’s report of damp and mould in August 2023, that it did not do “a mould wash or further investigation”. It said it had raised a further repairs visit to complete decoration works, and a mould wash within 3 days. It apologised for “insufficient attempts” to progress and follow up on the repairs, and offered £552 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2023 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She contacted it again on 16 October 2023 and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its procedure. She said she was unhappy with its handling of the repairs, and had “no news” about the next steps. She said it had still not progressed with the extractor fan repair, or the making good decoration works.
  8. The landlord issued sent its stage 2 complaint response on 20 November 2023. It said had completed redecoration works on 13 November 2023. It said it was sorry to hear about the issues with the kitchen extractor fan, but was of the view it would “not have a major impact on the issues in the property”. It apologised for the further delay with progressing with the repairs in November 2023, and made an increased offer of £690 in compensation.

Events after the complaints procedure

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2023 and said she was unhappy with the works it completed, and that the contractors had not treated the mould when redecorating. She also explained that the kitchen extractor fan was not replaced. The landlord responded and said it had re raised the repairs and would revisit its offer of compensation when the works were completed. The resident contacted this Service on 28 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the repairs issues, including damp and mould, were not resolved and she was concerned about the impact of damp and mould on the health of her and her household members.
  2. The landlord attended to inspect the kitchen fan issue on 30 November 2023. The notes from the visit stated it recommended installing a cooker hood, as the ventilation in the existing space was into the “space above the ceiling”. The landlord attended to complete decorating works on 6 December 2023. The notes reflect the resident refused the works as the landlord was unwilling to replaster the walls and only proposed to make good by filling them.
  3. The resident raised made a further complaint on 1 February 2024 and said the issues from her previous complaint were outstanding. The landlord sent a complaint response on 25 March 2024 and said it had incorrectly put on its system that the replastering the resident has asked for was her responsibility. It said it later accepted responsibility for replastering. It apologised that the resident had to chase works throughout February 2024, and the works did not progress. It said it had completed all works by 11 March 2024. It offered a further £474 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  4. The landlord attended to complete the repair to the window on 27 March 2024. The landlord completed replastering works and decoration works in October 2024. The landlord told this Service, in December 2024, that it had not yet installed the replacement extractor fan.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for routine repairs it aims to attend within 2 weeks of the resident reporting the issue. For complex repairs, which require it to carry out surveys, the policy states that it aims to complete the repairs within 90 days.
  4. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will diagnose the cause of damp and mould to deliver effective remedial solutions. The policy states that it will keep in regular communication with the resident to provide updates “from beginning to end”.
  5. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  6. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in November 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. Considering the landlord issued a further complaint response, and the ongoing issues in the property, for fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
  8. The resident put the landlord on notice about the damp and mould in March 2023. The landlord inspected promptly, and concluded a more detailed damp and mould inspection was needed. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. That it sought to complete a more in depth inspection is evidence it followed its damp and mould policy, and sought to adhere to the approach recommended by our spotlight report on damp and mould, which is available on our website. The spotlight report states that landlord should conduct appropriate investigation to identify “root causes” of damp and mould. Its actions were in line with this recommended approach.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete its damp and mould inspection for 2 months after it raised it. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. It is noted that the survey took place within the 90 day timeframe set out in its policy. However, the delay caused an inconvenience to the resident as the landlord did not raise the recommended repairs within a reasonable timeframe, which led to the repairs going beyond its policy timeframe. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in her property. The delay in completing the inspection increased the distress she experienced.
  10. The landlord’s damp and mould inspection, of May 2023, recommended various repairs. Other than replacing the bathroom fan, there is no evidence to indicate it sought to progress with the other repairs, including checking the property above for leaks, at that time. This was a further failing in its handling of the issue which further inconvenienced the resident. We do however welcome the fact the bathroom fan was replaced shortly after its damp and mould inspection.
  11. According to the records provided, the landlord did not attempt to replace the fan in the kitchen for 5 months after it had identified it needing replacing. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. This caused the resident a further inconvenience, as it did not attend to the repair within a reasonable timeframe. It is noted that the repair was more complex than it initially thought, which created a further delay. This was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control.
  12. The resident experienced a further inconvenience, in August 2023, when she had to chase the landlord to progress with the repairs. That the landlord was not proactive in progressing with the various repairs was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord accepted that it did not progress with the issue in August 2023, which was a further failing that increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  13. That landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was detailed and transparent about its handling of most of the repairs. This was appropriate and showed learning. However its comment asking the resident to provide details of the properties above, so it could investigate possible leaks, was inappropriate. This unreasonably put the onus on the resident to provide information the landlord could reasonably be expected to gather itself. The complaint response was also silent on the kitchen fan issue, which was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by this as she was left not knowing the latest position in the repair.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of November 2023, lacked detail about the outstanding issues. It was also dismissive of the resident’s concern about the lack of extractor fan in her kitchen. In her complaint the resident had raised a concern that she was cooking on the balcony due to a concern about the increased condensation. While it was noted the landlord was entitled to set out its position that it was of the view the resident did not need to do so, its tone was inappropriate and dismissive. It also failed to give any meaningful assessment of its handling of the repair up to that point, or apologise that it had yet to complete the repair. It is however noted that it did offer a general apology for its handling of the repairs, and we welcome the fact that it made an increased offer of compensation for its handling of repairs.
  15. The landlord attended to the kitchen extractor fan repair again in November 2023. It is concerning that the notes show it made the same findings, as its visit in August 2023. This was that there was not the appropriate ducting for adequate ventilation. This supports the conclusion that the landlord did not have the appropriate oversight of the repair, and in the intervening 3 months had not sought to find an appropriate solution to the issue. The resident was evidently distressed at the fact, she was of the view, that she had to cook outside. While we do not seek to make a determination on whether this was necessary, the landlord’s failure to progress with the repair at that time increased the distress the resident experienced.
  16. The landlord sought to progress with the redecoration works, and mould treatment, in December 2023. This was an unreasonable delay, and well outside of the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that the resident refused the repairs, as she wanted the landlord to replaster. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord was entitled to progress with the repair as it deemed appropriate. Therefore, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay caused at that stage. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord set out its position to the resident after she refused the repair. Nor did it explain why it was of the position, at that time, that it did not need to replaster. The was a failing in its communication about the issue, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
  17. The evidence shows the landlord progressed with the outstanding repairs in March 2024. This was a year after the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould, and 9 months after its own damp and mould inspection. This was an unreasonable delay that increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. It is noted that the delay in progressing with the decoration works was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, after it accepted that it would replaster the property, in January 2024, there were further delays in progressing with the repairs.
  18. The comments about the window repairs, in the landlord’s complaint response of March 2024 was inappropriate. The records provided to not show any evidence that the landlord had progressed with the window repair, until its repairs visit of March 2024. While we welcome the fact that it raised an urgent repair, in March 2024, it is concerning that it had been on notice for a year before taking appropriate action.
  19. It is concerning that the landlord, as recently as December 2024, had not yet replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen. This is a further failing in its handling of the matter that increased the detriment the resident experienced.
  20. We welcome the fact the landlord revisited its compensation offer made at stage 2, and made an increased offer in recognition of the further delays. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord sought to put things right. The landlord offered a total of £1,026 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. Our remedies guidance states that an offer of compensation over £1,000 is appropriate when the landlord has “repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”.
  21. The compensation offer was appropriate for its handling of the repairs that it had completed. However, it did not complete the plastering and redecoration works until October 2024, a delay of a further 7 months. Also, the window repair was outstanding at the time, and it has not yet replaced the extractor fan. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and deemed an order for a further £300 in compensation is appropriate to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first made a complaint on 9 August 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by this, and experienced further time and trouble of needing to make a complaint again, in September 2023.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 39 working days after the resident first complained. This was an unreasonable delay that caused the resident an inconvenience. That the landlord did not apologise for the delay, or the difficulty the resident experienced in progressing the complaint, was inappropriate and a failing in its complaint handling. Its response lacked learning and it missed an opportunity to built trust with the resident.
  4. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that stage was unreasonable, and a further failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that a landlord must progress a complaint to stage 2 “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to progress the complaint within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 36 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response. Again, the landlord offered no assessment of its own complaint handling or an acknowledgement of the delays the resident experienced. This lacked learning and transparency.
  6. Considering the above failings we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that orders between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident and it has made no attempt to put things right. Considering this we have determined an order for £125 in compensation is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £1,451 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £1,026 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,326 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
      2. £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident to outline the latest position on the extractor fan replacement. It must set out when it plans to complete the repair.