Sovereign Network Group (202343694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343694

Sovereign Network Group

18 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Hot water outages.
2. Heating issues.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under a secured tenancy agreement, and they have done so since 2021. The property is a two-bedroom flat within a wider block. The landlord is a housing association.
A day after moving into the property the resident told the landlord they had no hot water. Evidence suggests the next occasion when the resident reported having no hot water was on 18 April 2023. The resident told the landlord they were only able to use hot water to bathe with if they used the boost function on the immersion heater. On 7 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that their radiators were outdated, and the hallway radiators did not work.
On 4 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said:
1. They were unhappy with how they had been treated, as they had reported issues in the property which the landlord had taken months to action.
2. As they did not have a functioning shower or a reliable hot water source they had to wash using a bucket.
3. They wanted the landlord to address the hot water issues and to install new radiators.
In its stage one response dated 25 November 2023 the landlord said:
1. The resident had complained because they wanted their property to be brought up to an acceptable standard.
2. Before the resident moved into the property it was inspected to see if any repairs were required. This would have included an inspection of the bathing facilities and radiators.
3. It had conducted some works to the radiators, but it said there was no evidence to suggest that the inspections conducted before the resident moved into the property were completed incorrectly.
4. It apologised if the resident felt they had been treated unfairly. It said it has a high volume of outstanding repairs which it is trying to bring down.
On 8 December 2023 the resident escalated their complaint for the following reasons:
1. They were unhappy with how long it had taken for the landlord to respond to their complaint.
2. They disagreed that the landlord had followed correct procedure as there had been several issues in the property.
3. They were dissatisfied that the landlord had not rectified the heating issues despite attending the property several times. The resident said the hot water issues were causing them distress and financial hardship.
In its stage two response dated 18 March 2024 the landlord said:
1. A contractor had tried to conduct an electrical inspection on 13 February 2024, but they were unable to access the property. The landlord said it had re-booked the inspection to occur on 8 April 2024.
2. It had replaced the hot water tank heating element, the water tank cylinder and the fuse board but this had not resolved the hot water issues.
3. An appointment was due to occur on 16 February 2024, but the contractors failed to attend the property.
4. It apologised for how long it had taken to resolve the hot water issues, and it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
5. It also apologised for the delays the resident had experienced at stage 2 of the complaints process.
6. It offered the resident £400 in compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. £40 for its poor communication.
  3. £10 for a missed appointment.
  4. £300 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Following the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the hot water issues were resolved on 9 April 2024.
On 4 September 2024 the resident told us that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses as they did not think the compensation offered was appropriate. Additionally, the resident was unhappy that the landlord had not replaced the broken radiator.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that they had been reporting issues with the hot water for several years prior to their formal complaint.
It has been noted for context that the resident first reported a loss of hot water in2021. There is then a gap in the evidence and we did not see any record of a further report until April 2023. The resident’s complaint was raised in September 2023. Taking into consideration the gap in reports and the period that the landlord’s own complaint replies looked at, our investigation looks at the landlord’s actions from April 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of hot water outages

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to respond to routine repairs within 38 days, and for emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours. The landlord considers hot water failures which occur from October to March to be emergency repairs. For hot water failures which occur outside of this period, the repair will be considered an emergency if there is no suitable alternative method for obtaining hot water.
The Housing Act 2004 incorporated the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) into law. The HHRS is a system for assessing housing conditions via a list of 29 matters and circumstances that could give rise to hazards. Included in the list of potential hazards is water for domestic purposes, this includes the quality and adequacy of the supply of water for purposes of cooking, washing and bathing.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in good repair and maintain the property’s heating and hot water systems.
On 18 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that they could only obtain hot water to bathe with if they used the boost function on their hot water system and this was impacting their household bills. As this report was not made during the winter months, and the resident had an alternative way of obtaining hot water, the landlord should have considered this to be a routine repair. In line with its policy the landlord should have actioned the repair within 38 days. However, the resident was offered an appointment 74 days later. This was unreasonable.
On 7 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord for the hot water issues to be fixed, they also raised the issue of their increased household bills. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to escalate the repair, as the issue had been outstanding for 3 months and it was having a financial impact on the resident. However, evidence shows the resident chased the landlord twice before it arranged for the heating element in the water tank to be replaced56 days later on 31 August 2023.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 September 2023 that the heating element repair had not been successful. The landlord attended the same day. The attending operative said the heating element had blown, so they disconnected the system to await a new heating element to be installed. The operative also raised internally that the water tank should be replaced due to a build-up of limescale. At this point the issues had been ongoing for 5 months. As such, the landlord should have prioritised the repair and actioned replacing the water tank when considering its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
On 4 September 2023 the resident filed their complaint. In the complaint the resident said they had to wash with a bucket due to the lack of hot water and because they did not have a shower. Upon learning this the landlord should have fully considered the resident’s circumstances, and it should have also considered its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation and escalated the matter appropriately. The landlord’s lack of prompt action suggests this did not occur.
The resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repair on 11 October 2023, and an appointment was booked for 17 November 2023. This was 78 days after the heating element failed. This was an inappropriate response time as this took place over the winter months, so the landlord should have considered it to be an emergency repair.
On 17 November 2023 an operative attended the property and determined a new water cylinder was required. The landlord raised a repair to replace the cylinder on 22 November 2023. The issue with the cylinder had already been discussed internally in September 2023, and the landlord’s lack of action in this regard prolonged the detriment and inconvenience the resident experienced.
On 4 January 2024 the resident chased the landlord about the repair. It was inappropriate that the resident had to proactively chase the landlord considering how long the issues had been ongoing for. On this occasion the landlord attended the property within 24 hours, which was in line with policy. The resident was advised to continue to use the immersion boost function, and an additional appointment was arranged for 25 January 2024. This appointment was marked as a no access appointment, but the resident disputes this and says they were at home.
The appointment was re-booked for 16 February 2024, but the landlord cancelled this due to other emergency works. The appointment was re-booked for 8 March 2024. This date was inappropriate when considering the hot water issues should have been treated as an emergency repair under the landlord’s repairs policy. On 8 March 2024 the landlord attended the property and reset the fuse board, but this repair was unsuccessful.
In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to conducting an electrical inspection on 8 April 2024. It also apologised for how long it had taken to address the issues successfully. It offered the resident £350 in compensation broken down as follows:
1. £40 for its poor communication.
2. £10 for a missed appointment.
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
The landlord did not make any financial offer, nor did it ask for any supporting information about the resident’s reported increased household bills from using the boost function. This was unreasonable as the landlord had advised the resident to use this function to obtain hot water while the repairs were outstanding.
When assessing the landlord’s actions throughout 2023 and 2024 the Ombudsman considers the landlord was slow to address the issues, and it did not act decisively to address the issue at hand. Considering the length of time the issues had been ongoing for the landlord should have considered the impact on the household, and its policies and prioritised this repair.
The issues with the hot water system were rectified on 9 April 2024. While this is positive, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions prolonged the issues, and the compensation offered by the landlord did not fully remedy the detriment the resident experienced.
If the landlord had not attempted to remedy the matter via the compensation offered at stage 2 the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration. As the landlord made an attempt to put matters right the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The resident did not have full use of their hot water systems for bathing for 358 days.
2. The landlord repeatedly failed to attend the property in line with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy.
3. The maintenance of hot water systems was the landlord’s responsibility, and it did not ensure that the system was repaired within a reasonable period.
4. The resident made a significant effort to chase the landlord for updates and for additional appointments.
Considering the finding of maladministration the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to meet with the resident and to assess the resident’s household bills for the period outlined in this report. It is then to make an appropriate offer of compensation. In addition to this, the landlord is to pay £600 in compensation, which is broken down as follows:
1. £100 for the distress experienced from the landlord’s poor communication.
2. £200 for the distress experienced from the landlord’s failure to handle the repairs in line with its repairs policy.
3. £300 for the distress experienced from the resident not having adequate bathing facilities for 358 days.

The landlord’s handling of heating issues

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to respond to routine repairs within 38 days, and for emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours. The landlord considers heating failures which occur from October to March to be emergency repairs.
On 7 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that their hallway radiator was not working and that an electrician who had attended the property said the radiators were outdated.
The resident raised this issue again in their complaint dated 4 September 2023. In their complaint the resident asked the landlord to replace all the radiators in the property.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not commit to or comment on inspecting the radiators, or to conduct any associated repairs. This was unreasonable considering the content of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to summarise what works it conducted around the reported heating issues. The landlord said it conducted a heating inspection on 1 September 2023, but the works it identified were missed off its internal scheduling system.
The resident has said the landlord has not conducted any works to the radiators. The resident said that after their complaint was progressed to an investigation at the Housing Ombudsman, the landlord notified them it had arranged for works to be conducted to the radiators on 23 September 2025.
It is positive that the landlord is taking steps to address the heating issues. However, it should have done this at a much earlier stage considering the planned appointment is due to occur 810 days after the resident reported heating issues, and 555 days after its internal complaints procedure concluded.
Considering the amount of time that has passed since the resident’s initial reports, and the landlord’s lack of action, the Ombudsman considers maladministration has occurred.
As such the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to conduct an inspection of the heating system, and to complete the necessary repairs identified. The landlord is also ordered to pay £600 in compensation. This is to address the detriment the resident experienced from the landlord’s lack of appropriate and timely action to address the heating issues.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
When assessing the landlord’s complaints handling there were delays at each stage of the process, in summary the delays were:
1. It took the landlord 38 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s policy says this should take 5 working days.
2. The landlord provided its stage one response 23 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord’s policy says this should take 10 working days.
3. It took the landlord 7 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s policy says this should take 5 working days.
4. The landlord provided its stage one response 63 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord’s policy says this should take 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing the resident with a stage 2 response, and it offered the resident £50 in compensation. It did not acknowledge the other delays outlined.
As well as there being issues with the time it took the landlord to produce its complaint responses, we also have concerns about the content of its complaint responses. In its stage one response the landlord made no reference to the resident’s concerns about the hot water systems, and it did not outline what steps it would take to put matters right. However, the landlord did address steps it would take in its stage 2 response.
In its stage 2 the landlord made no reference to the resident’s concerns about heating issues. This was unreasonable and it affected the landlord’s ability to rectify the complained of issues and meet the resident’s needs. It was also poor customer service.
The Ombudsman considers the £50 compensation offered in relation to its complaint handling did not fully address all the complaint handling issues highlighted. As such the Ombudsman considers maladministration occurred. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is broken down as follows:
1. £50 for each occasion where the landlord did not provide responses in line with its complaints policy.
2. £50 for its failure to address the hot water issues in its stage one response.
3. £50 for its failure to address the heating issues in its stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the hot water issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the heating issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,500 to the resident. The £400 previously offered can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the hot water issues.
2. £600 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the heating issues.
3. £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s complaints handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to conduct an inspection to the heating systems within the property. Following this it is to conduct any necessary maintenance/repairs to ensure the property has a fully operational heating system.
Within 6 weeks of the determination the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with details of repairs appointments it has arranged for the heating system.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the determination date.