Sovereign Network Homes (202418022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418022

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

9 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated repairs.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2012. The property is a 5th floor flat, with a flat roof covered with shingle and solar panels. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has 2 sons, one of her sons is a young adult and her youngest was 3 years old when the issues started.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household. However, the resident reported to it that her youngest son had asthma, and she was concerned about the impact of the situation on his health. She also shared that the property condition had affected hers and her husband’s health and isolated them from friends and family.
In November 2023 the resident reported water ingress into her living room and her kitchen. She described water getting into the electrics and her kitchen ceiling “bowing”. On 3 November 2023 the landlord attended and made the electrics safe. On 14 November 2023 it installed a drip tray and made the ceiling safe with wooden support.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord completed an external survey of the building and carried out some remedial repairs to the roof including installing lead flashing to prevent water ingress. Its surveyor also recommended removing the solar panels on the flat roof to allow for a thorough inspection.
Between November 2023 and March 2024, the landlord made approximately 8 attempts to inspect the drains and pipes for blockage. While it inspected the ground level drains, it said that it had difficulties accessing the roof to inspect the remaining drains. It explained this was because of an issue with the keys to the roof door. It completed its inspection of the remaining drains and pipes on 10 May 2024, and found no evidence that they were the cause of the leaks. It recommended a throughout inspection of the roof.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2024. Her complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the leaks into her lounge and kitchen. She said that the leaks also caused mould to develop, and she was concerned about the impact on her youngest son’s health. She was worried the roof could collapse at any time.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 25 March 2024, and said:
1. The resident reported water ingress into the corner of her lounge on 2 November 2023. It said that it asked its contractor to complete the repairs within 42 days.
2. The following day, the resident’s neighbour reported a leak from above and it raised an emergency repair to make safe the water ingress from the roof and install a drip tray. It acknowledged that it did not complete the repair because it needed a roofing team to attend.
3. On 6 November 2023 it inspected the issue and thought there might be a blockage in the soil pipe, which caused the water to back up and overspill when it rained. Two days later, it asked its contractor to check the pipe and carry out a CCTV survey if it could not clear the blockage. It acknowledged that it could not find evidence its contractor had done this.
4. Following further reports from the resident on 13 November 2023, that the leak was on going, it raised an emergency repair. It recognised that there was a considerable delay in its contractor attending. It explained that its contractor found water ingress through the ceiling but could not access the roof to inspect further. It agreed to return once it had access to the roof.
5. On 14 November 2023 the resident reported that it had not resolved the problem, and water was still coming through the ceiling. It raised an emergency repair with its contractor, who installed a drip tray in the kitchen to divert the water flow.
6. Its contractor attended on 22 November 2023, but rescheduled the appointment for 29 November 2023, because it could not access the roof. However, it could not inspect the problem on that date neither as it still did not have access to the roof. It explained that while it had provided keys for accessing the roof, its contractor had not been able to open the door and closed the repair without reporting the defecting lock. On 11 December 2023 it reraised the job to inspect the problem.
7. On 28 December 2023 the resident reported that the ceiling in her kitchen was bowing because of the leak. Its contractor attended as an emergency repair and made the ceiling safe by propping it with 2 pieces of wood. The following day, the resident reported that this was inadequate, and it agreed to return within 4 hours. However, when it returned its contractor considered the ceiling was safe and asked for the roofing team to attend and repair the roof.
8. On 24 January 2024 its contractor returned and although it could not access the roof, it closed the repair as completed. The resident made contact and said the trip tray was not holding the water and it agreed to return within 4 hours. While it attended this emergency repair, it could not see that its contractor had adjusted the drip tray.
9. On 26 February 2024 the resident reported the issue was on going. Its contractor attended on 28 February 2024 but found that the key to the roof door did not work.
10. On 7 March 2024 it requested a lock change for the roof door, which it completed the following day. However, when it attended on 13 March 2024, it found the lock was still defective and it could not access the roof. It returned on the same day and changed the lock.
11. Once it changed the lock to the roof door, it did not arrange for the drainage team to attend and rectify the blockage causing the leak. It said that its contractor would return on 10 April 2024, to complete the repairs.
12. The time taken to conduct repairs fell below its timescales. It said the delays in carrying out the repairs were due to its poor communication and planning and apologised.
13. The resident could make a claim with her content insurance for her damaged belongings or could contact its insurer if she did not have her own insurance.
14. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offer to pay £571 to reflect the impact of its failings on her.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 April 2024. She said that although the landlord has made several attempts, it had failed to resolve the problems. She described leaks from 2 areas on her kitchen ceiling, damp and water stains on the walls and ceilings. She said that her kitchen light and extractor fan were not working because of water ingress. She also shared again her concerns about the impact on the family’s health, especially her 4 year old son who had asthma.
In April 2024 the landlord said it would apply mould wash to the areas affected by mould. In May 2024 it acknowledged it had not completed the repair as agreed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 30 May 2024 and said:
1. Although it made a repair appointment for 10 April 2024, it could not see it had confirmed it with the resident. It said that its contractor recorded the appointment as “no access”. It also found evidence that its contractor had not collected the keys, and the appointment did not go ahead.
2. Its contractor rebooked the appointment for the 2 May 2024. It said it cancelled the visit because it could not locate the keys to access the roof.
3. On 10 May 2024 its contractor inspected the problem but could not see evidence of water ingress from the drains or the pipes. It recommended inspecting the roof for damage. It requested for its roof contractor to inspect the roof and asked its contractor to return and inspect the ground level drains first.
4. It apologised that repairs to the kitchen and damp were still outstanding. It also said that it could not carry out further repairs to the electrics until it had resolved the leaks in the kitchen and damp in the property.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its compensation offer to £985, which was equivalent to:
  1. £460 for the distress caused to the resident.
  2. £230 for the delays.
  3. £115 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  4. £180 for the missed appointments.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

Between July 2024 and January 2025, the landlord completed more inspections and carried out remedial repairs to the roof, which it believed would prevent further water ingress. The roof surveyor reiterated its earlier recommendations of removing the shingle and solar panels to thoroughly inspect the roof. During that period, it also applied mould wash to the areas affected by mould.
In April 2025 the resident informed this service that the landlord had not repaired the leak and there is still an outstanding mould issue. She requested the landlord carry out the necessary repairs and sought further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We understand the resident reported the leaks damaged her belongings. While we sympathise with the resident, we are unable to determine if a landlord is liable for damage to personal possessions as only an insurer or a court can determine such claims.
We recognise that the leak and the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. She expressed concerns about the potential impact on her family’s health, especially her young son. While we acknowledge her concerns, unlike a court we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The resident has informed this service that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. However, it is not within our jurisdiction to determine whether a landlord should rehouse a resident. While we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering her concerns, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

The landlord’s handling of leaks and associated repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will ensure that all residents live in a safe and secure environment. It describes that it will consider a repair is an emergency if there is a risk to someone’s health or safety. It will attend to such repairs within 4 hours and make safe. It will inspect routine repairs within 14 days and complete the repairs within a month. It elaborates that some repairs are complex and will take longer to complete such as roof repairs and major problems with water supply and drainage. In such cases, it will provide the resident with an estimated completion date and aim to complete the repairs within 90 days.
Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with the residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
The resident reported leaks in her kitchen and lounge in November 2023. On 3 November 2023 she said water was entering the sockets and switches. The landlord attended on the same day and made safe. Three days later, it inspected the roof and concluded that the most probable cause for the leak was a blocked soil pipe. The evidence shows that it promptly raised a job to inspect the pipes and drains for blockage. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord, it showed that it acted promptly on the resident’s reports and took actions to find the root cause of the leak. Its actions were in keeping with its repairs policy.
On 14 November 2023 the resident said that her kitchen ceiling was bowing. The landlord assessed this as an emergency repair and promptly installed a water drip tray to redirect the water. It also made the ceiling safe by installing a wooden support. On 28 December 2023 and 29 December 2023, the resident raised concerns that the wooden support the landlord installed was inadequate in making the kitchen ceiling safe. It promptly inspected the ceiling and concluded it was safe. Those actions by the landlord were in keeping with its repairs policy and were reasonable. It promptly acted on the resident’s reports in making the area safe and containing the leak.
We understand that it can be difficult to trace a leak and it can take several attempts to find the root cause of the problem before resolving the matter. We recognise the landlord acted on the resident’s reports and made several attempts to resolve the matter. It raised repairs, carried out surveys and remedial repairs. However, from its own admission during the complaint process, the landlord did not resolve or address the issue in keeping with its published timeframe.
While we recognise the landlord contracts out some of its repairs service, the obligation to repair stays with it and not the contractors. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it has adequate oversight of its outsourced services, co-ordinate the repairs and communicate effectively with its appointed contractors and the residents.
The evidence shows that on 8 November 2023, it raised a repair with its contractor to check the drains and pipes for blockage because it thought this might be the cause of the water ingress. However, while the contractor attended the property 8 times, it could not access the roof to carry out the repairs. After each visit, it reported to the landlord that it did not have the keys for the roof door. Despite several attempts, it took approximately 4 months for the landlord to provide the contractor with access to the roof. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repairs policy to complete routine repairs within a month.
We understand that in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint it explained that once the contractor had changed the roof door lock to access the roof, it had not returned to inspect the drains and the pipes. However, the landlord should have had oversight of the repair and ensure the contractor promptly returned to check the drains and pipes for blockage. Its lack of oversight caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the repair. Its failings also further delayed the investigation into the leak, which was unreasonable.
We recognise that in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It recognised that because of poor planning it had not completed the repairs in keeping with its repairs policy. It also acknowledged it had failed to provide the resident with regular updates, which resulted in her chasing the repairs. It reassured the resident of its commitment to resolve the matter and said that it would attend on 10 April 2024 and inspect the drains and pipes for blockage. While this was reasonable from the landlord, a key aspect of complaint resolution is for landlords to keep the promises they make during the complaint process.
In this case, the landlord had said it would inspect the drains and pipes on 10 April 2024. However, it acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had failed to book the agreed repair appointment with the resident, and she was not home that day. It also explained that on 10 April 2024 and 2 May 2024, its contractor was unable to go ahead with the repairs because it could not find the keys to the roof door. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It should have learned from its earlier mistakes and adequately planned for the repairs by ensuring the keys to access the roof were available to its contractor.
Additionally, the inspection to the drains and pipes took place on 10 May 2024, which was 46 days after it informed the resident it would return to do this, and 6 months after it first raised the repair. Those were unreasonable timeframes to inspect the drains and pipes for blockage. Its failings to co-ordinate and plan for the repairs caused significant delays in resolving the problem and eliminating the drains as the root cause of the leaks. As a result, the resident experienced significant distress because the leak remained unresolved, and she had a drip tray in her kitchen since November 2023.
We understand that following its inspection of the drains, the contractor informed the landlord that it could find no evidence of water ingress from the drains or the pipes. However, it also said that water ingress could be from the drainage that runs onto the flat roof, and it would need to remove the shingle on the roof to inspect the roof itself. We recognise that the landlord said in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint that in May 2024, it asked its roofing contractor to inspect the roof.
However, the evidence shows that the roofing contractor had inspected the roof on 16 November 2023 and carried out some repairs to prevent water ingress. It also recommended to remove the shingle and solar panels on the roof to carry out a thorough inspection and prevent further internal damage. The landlord did not show that it acted on its contractor’s recommendations. While we cannot determine the roof was the source of the leak, the landlord should have considered the recommendations of its expert. It should have also explained its reasons for not following up on them. This was unreasonable and may have been a missed opportunity to resolve the issue sooner.
Furthermore, on 8 March 2024, the resident reported mould in her property, which she said was because of the ongoing leak. Six weeks later, the landlord offered a mould wash to the resident. It did not explain the delays for making this offer. In May 2024, the resident chased the repair, it recognised that its contractor had failed to carry out the mould wash as agreed. It explained that although it was waiting for an asbestos report, this should not have prevented completing the mould wash. It applied the mould wash approximately 4 months after it knew about the problem. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to respond to such issues with a sense of urgency.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould says that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of residents. Since March 2024, the resident had repeated her concerns about the impact of the situation and damp and mould on her son’s health, who is a young child with asthma. However, we saw no evidence the landlord considered this or assessed the risks. It did not show it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her son’s health in relation to the situation and the damp and mould problem which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord did not appropriately record the household vulnerabilities. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management says that recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service to residents. Landlords must keep this information up to date, accessible, share it and use it appropriately. The landlord did not do this, which was unreasonable and contributed to its failings in identifying the potential risks presented to the household.
In April 2025 the resident informed us that the issues are unresolved. She said that the leaks are ongoing, and the drip tray is still in place. We understand that between June 2024 and January 2025, the landlord carried out more inspections and remedial repairs. In January 2025 the landlord informed us that it was waiting for the solar panels to be removed before inspecting the roof.
We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the leaks and damp and mould beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However as mentioned above, the resident said that the landlord had not resolved the leaks. Therefore, we are making an order for the landlord to inspect the roof, share the outcome of its inspection, and carry out any required remedial repairs.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks and associated repairs. We recognised that the landlord carried out inspections and remedial works. However, it did not show it considered the household vulnerabilities or assessed the risks. There were delays in doing some of the repairs such as the mould and inspecting the drains. Additionally, it did not keep oversight of the repairs and adequately co-ordinate them. It also did not provide regular updates to the resident or showed it had considered the recommendations from its roofing expert in November 2023.
We understand that during the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It also offered to pay £985 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her and her family. While it was right for the landlord to offer compensation to her, its offer does not reflect the added failings found in this report. For example, it did not reflect the accumulative impact of its failings, its lack of urgency in applying a mould wash and not explaining its position in relation to its roof contractor’s recommendations in November 2023. It also did not reflect its failings in assessing the risks to the family and considering the household’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £350 and this is equivalent to (this is in addition to the offer made by the landlord in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint):
1. £200 to reflect the accumulative impact of its failings on the resident, the delays in completing the mould wash and not making its position clear in relation to its roof contractor’s recommendations.
2. £50 to reflect its failings to adequately record the household vulnerabilities.
3. £100 for not assessing the potential risks to the household health.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings found in this report.
2. To pay £1335 in compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to:
  1. £985 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, if not already paid.
  2. £350 compensation to reflect the impact of the other failings found in this report.
3. To assess the risks from the leaks and damp and mould to the family and consider whether it is safe for the family to live at the property until it resolves the issues. Its risk assessment is to include the measures it will take to mitigate the risks to the family (if any), this might include moving the family to alternative accommodation. The landlord is to share the risk assessment and actions to mitigate the risks with the resident and this service.
4. Confirm to this service and the resident:
  1. When the solar panels will be removed, as it did not provide a timescale to this service in January 2025, when it said that it waited for their removal before inspecting the roof.
  2. When it will inspect the roof.
  3. That following its inspection of the roof, it will share the outcome of the survey and the schedule of work for any remedial works it found (if any) with the resident. Its schedule of work will include the expected completion date for the required repairs.