Sovereign Network Group (202323132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323132

Sovereign Network Group

16 October 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy, which began 18 July 2022. He lives in a 1-bedroomed flat with his wife. The landlord is a housing association. It had no vulnerabilities for the resident’s household recorded on its systems. He has said that his wife has vulnerabilities due to depression.
On 25 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He reported noise nuisance caused by children playing outside of his flat. He said this was disturbing his wife, who worked from home. He asked if it would put up a sign reminding people to respect their neighbour’s quiet enjoyment of their homes.
On the 18 November and 21 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. He reported that children had damaged a drain cover in the car park, at the block of flats he lived at.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023. He reported noise from a nearby sports centre, which was very loud at night. This was affecting his wife’s health, and he wanted to move out of his flat as a result.
The resident reported further noise nuisance to the landlord, from the sports centre on, 24 January, 2 February, 17 April and 2 May 2023. He asked the landlord to provide him with sound insulation and added window glazing to remedy the issue. It told him that it did not manage the sports centre, and he should contact the local authority’s environmental health department.
On 12 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. He reported noise nuisance from children playing and screaming outside of his flat. On 4 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about the noise he was experiencing. He said the issue was impacting on his wife’s health and causing him distress.
The resident made further reports of noise nuisance to the landlord on 7 July, 28 July, 3 August, 6 August and 11 August 2023. He sent it video recordings of the issue and said children had kicked his wife’s bike, pushed skateboards under people as they had walked past, damaged drain covers, and people were using car horns excessively. The landlord said it would send him diary sheets to complete so he could record the issues.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 August 2023. It said it could not hear noise in the recordings he had sent it. As children playing would not be a breach of tenancy there was no action it could take to resolve the issue. It recommended that he report the damage of the drain covers to the police. It also sent him diary sheets to fill out, so it could assess if it could take action about the noise nuisance he reported.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2023. He said it had not responded to his complaint about noise nuisance that he raised with it on 4 July 2023. He contacted it again on 27 September and 3 October 2023 for an update on his complaint. He said that it had still not responded to his complaint and his wife’s health problems were getting worse.
We contacted the landlord on 24 October 2023 on behalf of the resident. We told it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 14 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 7 December 2023. It said:
1. It had partly upheld his complaint about noise nuisance.
2. It had addressed the noise from the sports centre he had raised with it multiple times and he was aware it was there at the time he moved to the property.
3. It had not completed some tasks relating to his reports of noise nuisance.
4. It had not explained to him that the issues he had raised with it were not complaint issues, due to complaints being used to find service failures.
5. Prior to it not completing some tasks and not responding to his complaints, there was no service failure by it. It had told him that the main issues he had reported were about the sports centre, environmental health and his local authority. It had picked up any housing related issues he reported to it and responded to these as appropriately as possible.
6. It listed the dates he had reported noise nuisance to it, the actions it had taken and said it did not uphold his complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 February 2024. He reported noise nuisance from the flat below him, including drilling and banging. He said he had spoken to his neighbour about this who had become angry and aggressive towards him.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 28 February 2024. He said:
1. Its stage 1 response was filled with misunderstanding and unrelated information.
2. The noise from the sports centre was unbearable. This along with the repair works from the flat below him, had impacted on his wife’s ability to work from home due to her being exhausted from lack of sleep.
3. It had never sent anyone to his flat to investigate the noise nuisance.
4. He wanted it to move him to a different property as a remedy to the issue.
The resident made further reports of noise nuisance to the landlord on 5 March, 10 April and 7 May 2024. These reports were related to the DIY noise from the flat below him. On 14 May 2024 he sent a noise diary he had completed to the landlord.
The resident contacted a law clinic about the noise issues he had reported to the landlord and a rent increase letter that he had received from it. The law clinic sent the landlord a letter on 27 March 2024 and proposed it apply a rent reduction for him due to its failure to deal with his reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It partly upheld his complaint and said:
1. It did not always communicate its decisions with him, and it had not responded to some tasks within its expected timeframe.
2. It did not action his request for a sign outside his flat, on the basis it the noise was from children playing. However, it had not told him of this.
3. It did not tell him about its decision not to provide him with sound proofing or added glazing, as a remedy to the noise issue.
4. Its response to him about the noise from the sports centre had been consistent and correct throughout.
5. Although some of the disturbances to his household was due to DIY noise from the flat below, it was satisfied this was legitimate. It appreciated his frustrations, but it would not pursue this and was unable to share any further information, but it expected the noise to have reduced.
6. It had applied learning from his complaint. It had reminded its staff to respond to customer contact within its expected timeframes.
7. It offered him £75 compensation for its failure to respond to his complaint within its expected timeframe and £50 for its poor communication with him.
The resident told this Service that his wife had to move to a friend’s property due to the noise issue, which had got worse. Her doctor had prescribed her medication for depression and anxiety. He also said he was unhappy that the landlord had:
1. Only responded to him due to this Service’s involvement.
2. Not responded separately to his complaint about the noise from the flat below him.
3. Not sent him a copy of his tenancy agreement which he had requested.
4. Not had a response to the rent reduction letter sent by the law clinic.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that he would like the landlord to offer him alternative accommodation as a resolution to his complaint. The Ombudsman cannot order a landlord to rehouse a resident, as we are unable to assess the habitability of a property. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its allocation policy which decides the priority of applicants on its waiting list. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
The resident has said how the situation has impacted on his household’s health. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident’s household.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It is important for it to investigate and understand the root cause of any reported ASB and how each incident impacts both physically and emotionally on the complainant(s) and the surrounding neighbourhood.
2. There are some things it will not investigate as ASB, such as children playing and noise nuisance. However, it will endeavour to provide the customer with advice on how they might resolve the issue or address issues through its neighbourhood or tenancy management policies.
3. Its customers have a part to play in resolving anti-social behaviour. It will ask them to be tolerant of others as well as accepting differences in lifestyle and take part in mediation or other solutions focused activities.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about noise from the sports centre promptly. On 16 January 2023 he told it he wanted to move because of the issue. It sent him an email on 18 January 2023, advising of his housing options. However, it would have been reasonable at this point to have explained to him if it considered the issue to be ASB and what it could and could not do. It did not do this, which was a missed opportunity to manage his expectations. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord told the resident on 2 February and 5 May 2023 that the sports centre was on private land. As a result, it had no authority to intervene or police the noise issue he had reported. It recommended that he contact the local authority’s environmental health team for further guidance and help. This was reasonable, as environmental health was best placed to investigate the noise issue and consider if it was a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The advice it gave him shows it wanted to support him to resolve the issue.
The resident asked the landlord to provide him with added glazing and sound insulation, as a remedy for the noise from the sports centre. The landlord’s complaint response said that it refused this request on 17 April 2023. This was reasonable as social landlords have limited resources which they need to use for the benefit of all their residents. While the evidence shows he confirmed it refused this request, we have not seen any evidence of when or how it told him of its decision. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered early intervention approaches outlined in its ASB policy, after the resident reported children had damaged a drain cover and were causing noise nuisance. The landlord’s records show the resident chased it for an update on the damage to the drain and sent it photos. However, there is no record that it followed its ASB policy to investigate the cause of the damage. It would have been reasonable for it to have discussed this further with him or spoken with other residents to get further evidence. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it told him it did not consider noise from children playing to be ASB, under its ASB policy. It would have been reasonable for it to have clarified this, so it could have managed his expectations at an early stage. The absence of evidence that it acted on either matter were failures by the landlord to follow its ASB policy.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it acted after the resident reported children had kicked his wife’s bicycle and were pushing skateboards into people. This indicates the issue was more than children playing, and it should have taken steps to investigate this under its ASB policy. The resident said he tried to resolve the situation himself by speaking to the children’s parents. However, there is no record that the landlord acted to investigate this and understand the root cause of his reported ASB. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and was a failure by it to follow the obligations of its ASB policy.
The landlord told the resident that it would not class children playing as a breach of tenancy. However, its records show that it sent him noise diaries to complete. It is unclear why it did this, as there is no record that it had opened an ASB case and had previously told him it could not stop children playing. This is likely to have raised the resident’s expectations that it would be able to resolve the issue.
The evidence shows that the resident was becoming increasingly distressed because of the reported noise nuisance. He was also concerned about the impact it had on his wife’s health and employment. However, there is no record that the landlord took steps to address these concerns. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered what support it could offer him. Its failure to do so is likely to have impacted on the landlord and tenant relationship.
The resident sought advice from a law clinic about the noise issue, and another matter that was not considered as part of this investigation. This indicates he was becoming frustrated at the landlord’s response to the noise issue. The law clinic requested the landlord reduced his rent due to the noise nuisance. However, there is no record that the landlord responded to this request. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so and told him that its rent increase was allowed under the terms of his tenancy. The absence of evidence from the landlord that it responded to the resident on this matter, supports his concerns about its poor communications with him and is likely to have caused him distress.
There is no record that the landlord told the resident how it might address the noise issue through its neighbourhood or tenancy management policy, in line with its ASB policy. The landlord’s evidence does not show it took proactive steps to resolve the noise issue caused by children playing. There is no record that it visited the resident’s property to assess the situation, which would have been reasonable to have done so. Its communication with him was poor and he had to chase it for answers. Its response to the noise nuisance from children playing that he reported was inconsistent and confusing. It advised him it could not act, yet it provided him with diary sheets to complete.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 February 2024 to report noise nuisance from repair work at the flat below his. It is unclear from the evidence if it was the landlord completing repair work, or his neighbour doing DIY. The landlord’s records show on 10 April 2024 it gave him diary sheets to record the issues over a 2-week period. He returned the diary sheets to it on 14 May 2024. Although its stage 2 response said it was satisfied the noise was legitimate, it did not provide him with further details and there is no record that it acted upon receiving the diary sheets from him. This is likely to have caused him distress and confusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged its poor communication with the resident. It explained how it had learned from his complaint and offered him £50 compensation. Although there is no evidence that shows there was any imminent threat to the resident, the compensation it offered does not reflect the detriment to him and is not proportionate to the failings we have found in this investigation.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with our remedies guidance the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says:
1. It will make a distinction between a resident contacting it to make it aware of something, asking for something to be done, and logging a complaint. Unless a customer asks it to, it will not register a service request as a complaint in the first instance. If the customer is unhappy with how it dealt with the matter, it will log this as a complaint.
2. When it will not consider or escalate a complaint, it will inform customers of their right to take their complaint to the Ombudsman.
3. Will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says:
1. Where landlords cannot meet the timeframe for sending complaint responses, it should provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
2. Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023 to ask it to raise a complaint about the noise nuisance he had reported. He chased it for answers about his complaint on 28 July 2023. Its evidence shows it could not find a record of his complaint and so it logged the complaint again. However, on 2 August 2023 its records show it was not considering his complaint as the issue would “sit with housing” and not complaints. However, there is no record that it told the resident of this. He was clear that he wanted it to raise a complaint, which it should have considered under the terms of its complaints policy. This was a record keeping and a complaint handling failure by the landlord, which caused the resident inconvenience as he had to chase it for answers.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 September 2023 about his complaint. He said it had told him on 2 August 2023 that it was looking into this. This indicates that it had not told him about its view that it was a housing issue and not a complaint. He chased it for answers about the status of his complaint on 27 September and 3 October 2023. The landlord’s evidence shows it referred his complaint requests to housing, yet there is no record that it responded to him or informed him of the right to take his complaint to this Service. This indicates there was a lack of ownership by it, which is likely to have caused the resident distress and frustration and was a complaint handling failure.
The resident’s frustration with the landlord’s failure to respond to his complaint resulted in him contacting this Service on 24 October 2023. We contacted it with a deadline to respond to him by 14 November 2023. However, it did not send its stage 1 response until 7 December 2023. Although it told him the delay was due to an increased workload, it would have been reasonable for it to have made him aware of this at an early stage. This was a failure by the landlord to follow the Code and a complaint handling failure.
The landlord took 112 working days to respond to the resident after he asked it to raise a complaint on 4 July 2023. This was unreasonable and a complaint handling failure as it was 102 working days outside its published timeframe to respond. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and supports his view that it only responded to him after our involvement.
The quality of the landlord’s stage 1 response was poor. It listed dates he had reported the noise issues to it but did not tell him what it could do to resolve the issue or clearly explain its failures, such as what tasks it had not completed. It said it had partly upheld and not upheld his complaint, which is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 February 2024, to raise a further complaint about it not providing him with his tenancy agreement. As it had already sent him its stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for it to have logged this as a new complaint. This was a failure by it to follow the Code.
Having not told the resident it was logging a new complaint about his tenancy agreement, it is reasonable to conclude he expected its stage 2 response to consider this. However, it did not do so. This was a complaint handling failure and is likely to have caused the resident further confusion.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response 57 working days after he asked it to escalate his complaint. This was 37 working days over its published timeframe. In total it took 169 working days for the resident’s complaint to complete the landlord’s complaint process. This is a concern which delayed him accessing this service.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had visited the resident about the noise from the sports centre and contacted his local councillor afterwards to see if he could provide him with support to resolve the issue. This was positive. However, there is no record in the landlord’s evidence of this, which is a concern and a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its complaint handling delay, which was reasonable. It offered him £75 compensation for this. It was positive that the landlord applied learning from the resident’s complaint and took steps to ensure it responded to customers within expected timeframes. Although the compensation it offered him went some way to addressing its failures, we do not consider it was proportionate due to the additional failures we have found.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay £425 compensation directly to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £200 for the failures identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. £125 it offered the resident in its stage 2 response.
3. Contact the resident to discuss the ASB issues within his block of flats, that he has reported, to include:
  1. Agreeing a time specific action plan on how it intends to investigate his concerns and clarifying with him what it considers to be ASB, considering the failures identified in our investigation.
  2. Explaining what actions, it can take in its management of his concerns, in line with its ASB, neighbourhood and tenancy management policies, along with any limitations it may face.
  3. Providing the resident and this service with written confirmation of the outcome of this discussion.
4. Record the resident’s wife’s vulnerabilities on its systems if it has not already done so. Consider these vulnerabilities and if it needs to make any reasonable adjustments in the services it provides them. Provide him and this Service with written confirmation if any are needed and what they are.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure its complaints policy is followed.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices, focussing on the failures identified by this investigation.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his housing options.