Housing Ombudsman accuses social landlord of severe maladministration in property condition cases

The Housing Ombudsman has made four findings of severe maladministration for Sovereign Housing Association, with delays and inaction leading to two households suffering with pest infestations or damp and mould.

The complaint handling during both cases was also poor, impacting the residents further, the Ombudsman said.

In Case A (202120922) the landlord delayed in resolving damp and mould in the Swindon resident’s property for more than two years, resulting in him losing the use of his only bedroom and causing significant distress and inconvenience.

The resident also revealed concern about the impact on his health, with the initial reporting of the issue coming after a lung infection the doctor said could have been caused by the mould spores.

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration in this case for both the landlord’s response to the damp and mould, but also for the complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint responses were "overdue, ill-informed, unremorseful, and addressed only one of the two issues raised by the resident".

The landlord also failed to adhere to the two-stage complaints process set out in its policy, extending the period for which the resident had to live with the damp and mould issues, and did not offer any compensation despite specifically saying it would do so.

The Ombudsman ordered the chief executive apologise in writing and make arrangements for the landlord to carry out some of the repair works which were still outstanding. The landlord was also ordered to pay nearly £4,000 in compensation.

In its learning from this case, Sovereign replied to the Ombudsman saying it has reviewed its approach to vulnerable customers and will ensure there is now increased oversight of these cases, there are named staff members on hand to help and that new processes have been introduced to prioritise repairs involving vulnerable residents.

In Case B (201715175) the Ombudsman found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation for a Shropshire resident.

This was due to a repeated failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the reports and take appropriate remedial action to prevent further infestation.

Mirroring Case A, the Ombudsman also found severe maladministration for Sovereign’s complaint handling, after it failed to conduct any meaningful investigation or decision making activity or issue any response to the resident.

The landlord had been aware of the pest infestation for some time but did not carry out repairs quickly enough to prevent the resident from further distress and inconvenience.

Once it was established that more works needed to be done to stop entry in the roof, the works were not carried out satisfactorily, with one contractor falling through the ceiling. A year later, the resident was still chasing the landlord for these repairs to take place properly, the Ombudsman said.

When the landlord did carry out another inspection, it found no signs of infestation but some of the rodent access point blocking had been dislodged. On the back of this, the landlord’s pest controller recommended it carry out monthly inspections. However, the landlord referred to “washing their hands” of the matter as it did not think there was anything it could do to prevent further infestations.

Six years after originally reporting the issue, and four years after the first recorded inspection, the resident complained the rats had returned and that there were structural issues outstanding. The works were only completed a year after this.

Among the issues was that it could be considered the landlord did not believe the problem was present to the extent explained by the resident, the Ombusdman said. For example, the landlord occasionally attributed the noise to wind.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to complete the actions recommend by the pest controller, keeping the resident updated on progress, and pay £2,800 in compensation to the resident,

In its learning from this case, the landlord said it has reviewed its processes around complaints and has taken forward recommendations made around pest control and the landlord’s role in tackling this issue.

Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said that in both cases, service requests from residents were either dismissed, deflected or delayed, and there was some evidence of poor attitudes towards residents. He labelled this as “unfair and unreasonable”.

The Ombudsman said: “Whether unapologetic complaint responses or using language such as ‘washing their hands’ about an issue, landlords should be approaching complaints and resident concerns in a more empathetic way.

“These cases underline the need for timely intervention by landlords to remedy the issues that residents are facing.”

Blakeway also highlighted the importance of good complaint handling, with both cases showcasing missed opportunities where the landlord could have put something right sooner or help rebuild the relationship with the resident.

Sovereign apologised in its response, acknowledging, in Case A, the delayed repair of the resident’s leaky roof and mishandling of his complaint. The landlord admitted that it did not sufficiently consider or act on the fact that its customer was vulnerable.

Sovereign listed several improvements it has made in response, including:

• In complex or high-risk cases, vulnerable customers will have a named case owner so that customers know who to contact.
• Having increased oversight and scrutiny of high-risk and/or complex cases.
• Having introduced new processes to prioritise complex repairs in a way that takes a vulnerable customer’s needs into account.
• Having added vulnerability flags to tradespeople’s handheld devices so that approaches are tailored to individual customers (e.g. for hard-of-hearing customers reminding workers to wait longer after knocking at a customer’s door.)

“This issue has been taken very seriously at Sovereign at board level, throughout the senior leadership and our customer-facing teams. We will continue to work to address the issues raised by this case and to work with the Ombudsman to ensure we always empathise with our customers and address their complaints as quickly as we can,” the housing association said.

In response to Case B, Sovereign again apologised that it did not deal with complaints from the customer regarding remedial works at their home to deal with a rat infestation. Earlier this year, Sovereign’s chief executive wrote to the customer to apologise. 

“In light of this case we have reviewed our policies and procedures around complaints. We are now working to ensure that we improve the quality and consistency of our interactions with customers when they make a complaint. Specifically, we want to ensure that responses to complaints address all of the issues raised by a customer and do not only respond to part of a complaint; we recognise this can be very frustrating to a customer.”

Harry Rodd