Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202331107)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202331107
Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)
25 October 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of a faulty boiler.
- Reports of damp and mould in her bedrooms.
- Request to renew her kitchen and bathroom because of problems with insects and mice.
- Request to be reimbursed for the cost of damaged belongings from a mice infestation.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the 2-bedroom property since 2006. She has a health condition which puts her at higher risk of lung infections. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities on its files.
- In August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about a number of repair issues, some of which she said were longstanding. This included that there was a damp and mould problem in both bedrooms for as long as she had lived there. She said that the landlord had not carried out proofing works for a mice infestation since 2021 but was unclear whether the problem was ongoing. Finally, she indicated that her kitchen and bathroom were well overdue for renewal and were causing an insect problem. The resident asked the landlord to appoint a surveyor to inspect the damage. She also asked to be rehoused to a property that was safe because the conditions she was living in were worsening a lung condition.
- The landlord initially dealt with the resident’s concerns as a service request and arranged inspections. Despite sending an email to its complaints team about her evolving concerns in early October 2023, the landlord responded informally. However, the complaints team generally acted as a point of contact between her and its repairs team/contractors.
- Through this Service, the resident complained again to the landlord in early February 2024. She was dissatisfied with its approach to the damp and mould investigations in October 2023. The resident was also unhappy with the landlord’s decisions not to bring forward the renewal of her kitchen and bathroom. She was also unhappy that proofing works that had previously been recommended were outstanding. The resident said the property was in a poor condition and had affected her health and damaged her belongings. She said she was seeking to be rehoused and to be compensated.
- Separately, the resident complained on 14 February 2024 about the landlord’s response to reports of problems with her heating/boiler. She said this led to an increase in her gas bills and her falling into debt. In the landlord’s stage 1 response from mid-March 2024, it said it did not accept failings in handling repairs to her boiler in April 2023. The landlord signposted the resident to its charitable fund for help with paying her energy bills.
- In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 28 February 2024, it said it needed a surveyor to inspect the damp to determine what repairs were needed. In the interim, it said it would apply mould treatments. The landlord advised that neither the kitchen nor bathroom were found to be in a state of disrepair. It had not then seen a reason to bring forward the dates for considering renewing them. There was no evidence of an active mice infestation, based on feedback from its contractors, or outstanding proofing works. The landlord advised that the resident could make a claim for her belongings and offered to provide details if needed. Finally, the landlord apologised that it had not dealt with the resident’s initial contact about the condition of her home as a formal complaint and offered £50 compensation.
- After a surveyor inspected the property in early March 2024, the resident cancelled an appointment to treat the mould. In her emails in April 2024, she said she was unhappy that the surveyor’s findings had not been shared. She also said the landlord would not likely address the root cause of the damp as this had been the case in the past. The resident also declined a further appointment from the pest control contractor and maintained that proofing works were outstanding. It was her belief that the landlord was not taking her medical conditions seriously. She asked the landlord to rehome her and suggested it serve an eviction order to her for not allowing it access to complete repairs.
- The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. In its stage 2 response of 11 April 2024, it said it was unable to revisit issues that happened more than 12 months ago. It apologised that it was unable to provide a copy of the most recent survey. This was because the surveyor had gone on leave before uploading their findings. It committed to sharing this when available. The landlord advised that it would consider if the resident should be temporarily rehoused during any required works. It also explained the importance of mould washes to minimise damage to the resident’s health. Finally, the landlord said its pest contractor had not seen any evidence of an active infestation or that proofing works were needed. It invited the resident to report if there was a recent problem.
- After the complaint process ended, the resident asked the landlord not to correspond with her because she wanted to await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. Through solicitors, the resident issued a pre action notice for a possible disrepair claim in June 2024. She subsequently withdrew the claim in August 2024.The resident has maintained her stance of not communicating with the landlord. As such it has not completed any remedial works.
- The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s approach to the repairs. She said she believed the relationship between her and the landlord had broken down. This is in part because she believes it has not taken her health conditions into consideration. The resident sought to be rehoused and to be compensated for damage to her belongings.
Jurisdiction
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of problems with her boiler has not completed the landlord’s 2-stage complaints process. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response in March 2024. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy with its response, or that she sought to escalate her complaint. It has also not completed the landlord’s 2-stage complaints process.
- In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that was referred via this Service. This is because the landlord needs to be given fair opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction before the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident advised that damp and mould had been a problem in the property since she began living there in 2006. The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, there are time limits on what the Ombudsman may investigate. This is usually6 months from the matters arising and/or the resident completing a landlord’s complaints process. This is because our decisions are based on evidence, and with the passage of time this may not be available, and the recollection of events may not be entirely reliable.
- Prior to the resident reporting a problem in mid-2023, the repair log shows that a damp and mould inspection was carried out in 2015. They also show a history of a mice problem occurring in 2014 and 2021. The resident complained about the 2021 infestation and received a stage 1 response in early 2022, but said she did not want to escalate to stage 2. There is no evidence in the available records that the landlord was made aware of an ongoing problem with damp and mould, or that further reports were made between 2015 and 2023. Nor is there evidence of a continuous mice problem. Because of that, this investigation centres on the landlord’s actions from 2023, when the resident reported the issues that gave rise to her complaint.
- In her complaint the resident said that the conditions, which she described as poor, had caused her to be unwell. We acknowledge that this must have been distressing for her. It is however outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on her health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Rather, consideration is given in this investigation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings identified on the part of the landlord.
- The main outcome the resident said she was seeking from an investigation by the Ombudsman was to be rehoused. The remedies that we make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been in, so far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. Our remedies include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. While the list is not exhaustive, ordering a landlord to rehouse a resident is not within the Ombudsman’s powers to achieve.
Reports of damp and mould
- Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the resident’s property. It is also a condition of the tenancy that the resident allows the landlord and its contractor to complete repairs.
- In December 2022 the landlord implemented a ‘Damp, mould, and condensation policy’ (damp policy) and procedure. This was in response to the Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight report on ‘Damp and mould’ which recommended landlords create a bespoke policy to address such problems. The damp policy set out the landlord’s commitment to investigating the causes, undertaking effective repairs, and keeping residents informed. According to the damp procedure, when a tenant made a report, it would carry out an initial inspection. The findings of this would then be considered by a damp specialist team to decide the next steps. Depending on the nature and scale of the problem, the damp procedure could involve a further, more in-depth inspection.
- A resident could expect to be advised what the next steps were after an inspection within 2 weeks. The damp policy said that the landlord would meet its usual standards and timescales set out in the repairs policy. This gave a 28-day timeframe for routine works and 90-days for more complex issues requiring surveys and multiple visits.
- After the resident complained about a damp and mould problem in both bedrooms in early August 2023, the available records show the landlord attempted to inspect the property within 2 weeks. This was though cancelled because the resident was unavailable, as was a subsequent rescheduled appointment. The initial inspection took place on 31 October 2023, almost 3 months after the resident’s report of the damp and mould problem. Based on the evidence that is available, that there was a delay in the landlord carrying out its initial inspection was largely beyond its control.
- The inspection report recorded that damp and mould was present in the bedrooms, bathroom, and kitchen. It indicated a possible external cause of the damp in the bedrooms, and an internal one from the bathroom and kitchen from faulty/missing extractor fans.
- In the stage 1 response from February 2024, the landlord said the inspection results were reviewed by the damp team in early November 2023. It said this identified a need for repairs to the extractor fans and application of mould washes, but the works were not raised at the time. The available records support that there was a delay in raising the works. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, they appear to have been raised in late November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident within the 2 weeks in line with its damp procedure. This was a failing.
- Where the landlord identifies failings, its complaints policy stated it should consider taking action to put matters right. This is in line with the approach set out in the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on remedies’ and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Appropriate remedies can include apologising, providing explanations, taking a specific action (such as a repair), and paying compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy also allows for redress for delayed complaints to a maximum of £50. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failure to update the resident in the stage 1 response. That it did not was a missed opportunity. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that apologies were given at the time, outside of the formal complaints process, and an attempt to schedule the works was made. The landlord did then make reasonable attempts to remedy its failings.
- As advised in the stage 1 response, the landlord contacted the resident to book appointments for the repairs on 1 December 2023 and she declined them. The complaints team, with whom the resident was largely communicating about the issues with her home, explained that a further inspection would be undertaken at the same time as the repairs. However, the resident said in her communications that she was not prepared to allow the landlord access to repair or inspect again. The resident’s frustration is understandable, given the initial delay in updating her. However, the landlord was correctly following its procedure in carrying outa further, in-depth inspection.
- It was clear that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from at least August 2023. At the time, the landlord’s policy said it would look to deal with complaints about repairs as a service request. It was not unreasonable for the resident’s concerns to be dealt with as a request for repairs. It was also 8 years since the last recorded damp and mould inspection. Even so, the landlord should have explained this to the resident and we have seen no evidence that it did. This was a failing to manage her expectations.
- In October 2023 the landlord updated its complaints policy to align with the Code. This required that any expression of dissatisfaction be dealt with as a formal complaint. However, there were missed opportunities for the landlord to escalate the complaint through its processes in response to the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction. Had the landlord done as it should have, it would have been required to provide a stage 1 response by mid-December 2023. It was appropriate then for the landlord to acknowledge a failing, apologise and offer the resident compensation. The amount awarded of £50 was reflective of the almost 2-month delay in providing a formal response. Given that the landlord was acting reasonably in keeping the resident informed, we consider this to have been a proportionate offer in the circumstances.
- The more in-depth damp inspection took place on 13 March 2024, the results of which were not available when the stage 2 was issued a month later. The landlord then failed to meet its 2-week service standard for a second time. It was also not in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendation in the Spotlight report on ‘Complaints about repairs’, published in March 2019, to “keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.”
- While the landlord’s record keeping failure meant it was unable to tell the resident what actions it intended to take to address the damp problem, its responses made it clear that it was prepared to find a solution. The landlord also said it would consider if she should be temporarily rehoused while it undertook the repairs. Additionally, it said it would share its findings with the resident when available and encouraged her to allow it to complete mould washes.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould recognised that diagnosing the cause may take multiple visits. It recommended that in such cases landlords consider taking action to improve the conditions for residents. This included considering carrying out mould washes or temporarily rehousing a resident, particularly where they are vulnerable. The landlord also implemented a toolkit in January 2024 for identifying and recording vulnerable resident’s “specific” problem.
- The evidence shows the landlord offered multiple times to treat the mould and explained the importance of this in the context of the risk to the resident’s health. It is also apparent that the landlord gave some consideration to this when inspecting the problem. Both reports included standard questions about household vulnerabilities and whether they meant the resident(s) should be temporarily rehoused. The landlord’s reports recognised the resident had a chronic health condition but neither recommended she be rehoused.
- It is clear the landlord gave some consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities, as recommended in the spotlight on damp and mould. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not do enough to demonstrate that it has done so thoroughly. There was no reference to her specific health condition in either report. Nor did the landlord seek to obtain further information, despite her making repeated reference to her vulnerabilities, particularly her lung condition. It therefore has failed to follow its processes.
- Following the end complaint, the resident asked the landlord not to correspond with her directly and to contact her solicitors only. It is not clear then if the resident has received a copy of the landlord’s damp findings and proposals. This includes some external works to improve the drainage around the property. From the evidence that is available, it is not clear that the landlord has considered ways of progressing the repairs beyond seeking the resident’s agreement. The Ombudsman is not critical, given that the resident has at times indicated she was awaiting the outcome of this investigation. However, a recommendation is though made for the landlord to give consideration to different ways to complete the repairs, should the resident not allow access. This includes consulting with its legal team if the resident declines works or further inspections. This is because the landlord has a duty to ensure that the property is in a good state of repair and free from hazards.
- The sensitivities of this case are not lost, given the resident’s decision not to engage further with the landlord. The Ombudsman is broadly satisfied that the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, it is apparent that the landlord could reasonably have done more to update the resident after inspections at the property had been carried out. It has also not met its obligations to record the resident’s vulnerabilities. While it is beyond the expertise of this Service to say if this failure has led to the landlord making a wrong decision, it is likely to have contributed to the resident’s view that her concerns about her health have been dismissed. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders it to take actions to put right the impact of these on the resident, in line with this Service’s ‘Guidance on remedies’.
Request to renew her kitchen and bathroom
- The resident said she was unhappy that her kitchen and bathroom were not due to be renewed along with others on her estate. She said both renewals were “long outstanding” because they were in place from when she moved into the property 18 years prior.
- As referenced earlier, the tenancy agreement says the landlord should keep the resident’s property in good repair. This includes any fittings and fixtures supplied by it. The Government’s Decent Homes Standard assumes that the components of a kitchen usually require replacing after 30 years and a bathroom every 40 years. The guidance recommends a landlord takes the condition of the components into consideration when deciding whether it needs renewing. Generally, social landlord’s renew kitchens and bathrooms under a programme of works, which are planned and budgeted for in advance.
- In the landlord’s initial response, it explained its approach to deciding when to replace a kitchen or bathroom was based on “need” and age. It advised that a surveyor had inspected the rooms and had found them to be in a usable condition. No data confirming the age of or expected lifespan of the components of the kitchen and bathroom were made available to this Service. However, the landlord’s approach to deciding when to replace installations is in line with government guidance. The records also support that the landlord carried out a condition survey in October 2023. There was no indication from this that the kitchen and bathroom were beyond repair. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable in view of the fact recent inspections had not found the kitchen and bathroom to be in poor condition.
- Prior to the stage 1 response, the resident was contacted by the landlord’s bathroom contractor in late January 2024 about it carrying out a survey. The landlord did not, according to the available evidence, put her on notice of this and this led her to question the reason for the survey. It explained that her bathroom was now in scope to be considered for renewal. It said the survey was different to the previous condition survey and was to agree the design of the bathroom. However, the resident did not accept the landlord’s explanation as she questioned the motive behind its change in position.
- In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained that the resident’s bathroom was in scope for renewal under the 2024-2029 improvement programme. It said this did not mean its decision not to bring forward the renewal was incorrect. While the resident’s view is understandable, the landlord’s response was reasonable and consistent with how improvement programmes are decided. However, the landlord clearly could have done better to communicate with the resident before arranging with its bathroom contractor to contact her directly.
- It was apparent from the resident’s complaints that she believed that the condition of her kitchen and bathroom was causing problems with insects and mice. Specifically, she said there were holes in the kitchen units through which mice could enter. The resident also indicated that the units in both rooms had deteriorated to such an extent that silverfish and woodlice were present.
- Pest control was the responsibility of the tenant, according to the landlord’s repairs policy. This included both mice and insects. The only exception to this was where the problem was found to be “caused by a design fault with the property”.
- The landlord advised in the stage 1 response that “minor/cosmetic repairs” were identified in the bathroom. Based on the available evidence, this appears to have been the need to renew a faulty extractor fan. Although not specifically referenced in the landlord’s response, the surveyor also raised a repair for the kitchen fan to be renewed. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the kitchen and bathroom for possible repairs, and the Service is satisfied that, in doing so, it met its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
- As well as the condition survey, the landlord instructed its pest contractor to inspect the property and this took place on 5 December 2023. In the landlord’s initial response, it said it had covered the cost of this attendance as a gesture of goodwill. The pest control operative reported there was evidence of rodent droppings and woodlice. However, they reported there was no need for proofing works.
- It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord met its obligations under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy by inspecting the property for works that may be causing the pest problem. Based on the available evidence, there is no indication of defects that were causing the problems the resident was reporting.
Damage to belongings
- As referred to above, residents are responsible for dealing with any pest problems under the landlord’s policy, unless it was found to be caused by a problem with the structure of the building. Claims for damaged belongings would be, according to the landlord’s compensation policy, directed to its liability insurer. In such cases, the policy stated that the resident should be asked to provide evidence which would be sent to its insurance company.
- In August 2023 the resident said she had thrown away furniture, including beds, because they were damaged by mice. The available evidence show that the landlord sought clarity the day after her report. The resident advised the damage was caused by a previous infestation.
- The landlord advised in its initial response that residents would usually be expected to claim on their contents insurance. It also said that it was possible to claim through its public liability insurer. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she wanted to submit a claim and asked for photographs of any damaged items to help consider it further. Its response was in line with the approach set out in the compensation policy for claims for damaged belongings.
- There is no record of the resident providing photographs or asking for further details about how to make a claim. In the circumstances, the landlord acted appropriately in giving the resident information about making a claim. The Ombudsman therefore makes a determination of no maladministration in respect of this complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler is outside of jurisdiction.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her bedrooms.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents:
- Request to renew her kitchen and bathroom because of problems with insects and mice.
- Request to be reimbursed for the cost of damage to her belongings from a mice infestation.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with the following orders:
- Write to apologise for the failings in communication about the findings from the damp inspections.
- Pay the resident compensation of £300 for the distress caused by it not taking her specific vulnerabilities into consideration.
- Follow its toolkit in obtaining further information from the resident about her specific health conditions and, in light of this, reviewing its position on whether the resident should be temporarily rehomed.
- Share the in-depth damp report with the resident and confirm what repairs it proposes to undertake.
Recommendation
- The landlord should consider consulting with its legal team about possible enforcement action should the resident continue not to allow access to the property. Legal action should always be a last resort. However, in the circumstances, it may be appropriate in this case to ensure the resident’s health and the property do not deteriorate. The landlord is also encouraged to consider carrying out any necessary repairs that do not require access to the resident’s property.
- The landlord should reoffer the £50 compensation it awarded for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint as this appropriately recognised the impact of its service failure.