From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sovereign Network Group (202324281)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324281

Sovereign Network Group

18 August 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 decision to send a legal letter to the resident.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a flat situated in a larger block. The landlord notes that the resident has several health conditions, including a tumour which impacts his adrenal gland. One of the symptoms of this is that the resident can be impacted by stress. The landlord notes that the resident suffers from anxiety.
  2. On 3 August 2022 the landlord fit a new fire door at the resident’s property. On 16 January 2023 the landlord attended to paint the fire door. The painting did not go ahead because the landlord was unable to gain access.
  3. On 11 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to ask for an update on the painting of the fire door. On 21 April 2023 the landlord’s solicitor sent a letter to the resident. They told the resident that:
    1. he was in breach of his tenancy because he did not allow access to the landlord to paint the fire door
    2. if the resident ‘continues to breach his tenancy’ by not allowing access at the next appointment, the landlord will:
      1. take legal action such as an injunction or possession proceedings
      2. recover the associated legal costs, likely to be in the region of £1,000
  4. The resident reported calling the landlord’s solicitors on several occasions after receiving the letter who told him to contact the landlord directly. The resident tried to contact the landlord on several occasions between 3 May 2023 and 9 June 2023, before he complained on an unknown date in June 2023. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had taken ‘excessive’ steps by sending a solicitor’s letter regarding the painting of the fire door.
  5. On 28 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that the works to paint the fire door were optional and that the legal letter sent to the resident had been unnecessary.
  6. On 25 July 2023 the resident called the landlord and requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The resident later told the landlord on an unknown date that he wanted £500 compensation for the impact caused by the landlord’s legal letter. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 28 July 2023.
  7. On 29 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It repeated its stage 1 position. It added that ‘as a result of our communication with you about the front door, this has caused upset’. It offered a £20 shopping voucher as compensation.
  8. On 25 September 2023 the resident approached this Service. He was unhappy with the £20 voucher offered by the landlord. The resident felt that this did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s decision to send a legal letter unnecessarily. On 30 January 2024 the resident told this Service that the letter had caused ‘general panic and high levels of anxiety’ over the ‘months’ it took the landlord to respond and acknowledge that no legal action would be taken.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to send a legal letter to the resident

  1. The landlord’s ‘no access procedure’ sets out the steps it should take when it cannot gain access to complete works at a property. The evidence shows that the landlord took some of these steps, such as communicating with the resident to rearrange the repair following its attempt to access the property on 16 January 2023. The landlord promised to arrange to paint the fire door in a letter to the resident on 1 February 2023; however, it did not follow up on this until the resident called the landlord for an update on 11 April 2023. This was a failure to follow its policy.
  2. There is evidence in the call logs that there was some disagreement over how the work would be handled. The landlord intended to send 2 operatives to complete the work, but the resident felt anxious and preferred that only 1 operative attend. The landlord felt that operatives should not attend the property alone due to previous interactions with the resident, which are outside of the scope of this investigation. The landlord was within its rights to apply this condition. However, the landlord’s procedure outlines 21 steps, actions, or checks that should have taken place to try and get access to the property to complete the work. This included a review of the case, which could have prevented this failing from happening. If it felt the work was not essential and could not be completed due to the resident’s position on the number of operatives, it may have been appropriate to record the job as ‘no access, job complete’. It is not evident it considered this option, however.
  3. It is unclear why the landlord instead sent the resident a legal letter on 21 April 2023. There is no reference in the landlord’s no access procedure to making a referral to its legal representatives to warn the resident of potential legal action. It is unclear what process the landlord followed in issuing the letter. It appears that the landlord may have mistaken the job to paint the fire door as being essential works that it had to complete to comply with its legal fire safety obligations. However, it later confirmed that the works were ‘optional’, meaning that a threat of legal action would not have been appropriate in the case of that job. It concluded that the letter was therefore unnecessary. Sending the legal letter to the resident was, therefore, disproportionate.
  4. The resident told this Service that he ‘was shaking’ when he first received the letter due to fear of action being taken against his tenancy. The wording of the letter was heavy handed, as were the threats of further action contained within it. The evidence shows that the landlord had listed the resident’s vulnerabilities, noting his anxiety and other health conditions which made him additionally prone to stress. It noted the need to communicate sensitively with the resident. The landlord did not appear to consider this in its communication with the resident, which was a failing.
  5. This failing was exacerbated because the evidence shows that the resident made several attempts to contact the landlord to discuss the letter, such as on 3 May 2023, when he first asked the landlord to call him back. He called again on 19 May 2023 to say that he wanted the door painting and to complain about a lack of communication. The resident left several missed calls and ‘7 messages over a 2-week period’. The landlord did not return his call until 26 June 2023 when it said would ‘look into’ the letter it had sent. There is no evidence that the landlord confirmed to the resident that no legal action would be taken until the stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It took the landlord 56 days to reassure the resident that no action would be taken, which was a failing. The resident told this Service that the lack of communication during this period caused significant distress.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or the impact its failings had on the resident. Given the known vulnerabilities that it was aware of, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
  7. The impact the letter had on the resident was clearly significant. The resident told us that this impact was increased because of his vulnerabilities, which the landlord had been aware of. The evidence shows the resident went to excessive time and trouble to try and rearrange the appointment to avoid legal action being taken. The landlord’s lack of effective contact to reassure the resident caused significant distress over a 2-month period. There was a service failure in the landlord’s decision to send a legal letter to the resident after he did not provide access to the landlord to paint a fire door
  8. The landlord did not adequately consider the impact on the resident in its complaint responses. In its stage 2 complaint response it remarked that it was unsure why the resident remained unhappy after it had confirmed the letter had been unnecessary in its stage 1 complaint response. However, the landlord’s Complaints and Compensation policies state that it should apologise when things go wrong. There was no evidence that the landlord had apologised at stage 1, as would have been appropriate.
  9. The landlord also did not fully consider the impact its failing had on the resident. The £20 offered was not reflective of the resident’s distress and inconvenience, or his time and trouble attempting to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there has been a failing that adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not proportionate, compensation of at least £100 should be considered. In view of the disproportionate impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident, alongside its delayed communication, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident.
  10. There is also no evidence that the landlord sought to identify what went wrong when it sent the legal letter to the resident and no evidence that it attempted to learn from outcomes. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of why the resident was sent a legal letter. It should clearly set out what process should have been followed, consider why the resident was sent the letter, and why the resident’s vulnerabilities were not considered when the letter was sent.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code defines a complaint as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. The Code states that landlords should respond to a complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint, said by the landlord to be in June 2023, was not provided to this Service. This did not have an impact on this investigation. However, the evidence shows an earlier complaint was made by the resident over the phone on 19 May 2023which should have been logged at the time. Effectively identifying and logging this complaint would have resulted in the resident’s concerns being responded to sooner, mitigating some of the adverse effect he experienced.
  3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there has been a failing that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right over a short duration, compensation of at least £50 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation to the resident for its failing in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s decision to send a legal letter to the resident after he did not provide access to the landlord to paint a fire door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the resident £200 compensation, made up of:
    1. £150 for the impact of its decision to send a legal letter to the resident and subsequent failings. The £20 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
    2. £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this report. The review must consider as a minimum:
    1. What process should have been followed after the resident’s no access appointment and why it was not followed appropriately.
    2. Why the resident was sent a legal letter.
    3. Why the resident’s vulnerabilities were not considered before the letter was sent.
    4. What steps it has taken, or will take, to ensure that similar failings do not happen again in the future.