We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sovereign Network Group (202335064)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335064

Sovereign Network Group

30 July 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 handling of replacement kitchen flooring.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom mid terrace house. She lives with her husband and 3 children. The resident took over the tenancy on 13 November 2023 under a deed of assignment.
  2. The resident reported a hole in her kitchen vinyl flooring on 22 November 2023. The landlord advised her the same day an operative would attend on 27 November 2023 which it did. The landlord noted the flooring could not be repaired and would need replaced.
  3. The resident chased the repair and made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 December 2023 that she had to chase twice to have her flooring replaced. She highlighted that her child had the condition pica and would pick and eat the flooring. She was unhappy at the response and her husband had to be signed off work to increase the care for their child whilst waiting for the repair.
  4. The resident chased the repair and a reply from the complaints department before the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 February 2024. It apologised for its delay in raising her complaint. It explained there had been internal miscommunication resulting in the delay of the repair. It assured her that the child’s condition was highlighted to the repairs team and that it had now added a vulnerability flag on its systems. It offered £20 compensation for the delay and inconvenience. It advised it had taken learning to improve customer service and communication.
  5. The resident asked us for assistance and added a further issue related to her fence. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint which it did on 8 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the following day.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. It acknowledged the further delays and that it had completed the works on 30 January 2024. It offered total compensation of £170 comprising £100 for delays in completing the work and inconvenience caused and £50 for its lack of communication with the resident in addition to the £20 compensation offered at stage 1.
  7. The landlord made another offer of compensation on 4 November 2024 to a total of £550 comprising £300 in recognition of the delays and the impact related to the resident’s concerns regarding her son’s condition and £250 for failing to keep the resident updated during the investigation and complaint process. It advised it had improved its complaint handling and provided staff training on vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s escalation she complained about an issue with her boundary fence. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had not previously received a service request about the fence and it had attempted to contact her for further details. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the issue as a service request if it had not received any previous reports. As the issue has not exhausted the landlord’s process, we will not look at it as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of replacement kitchen flooring

  1. The landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s report of a hole in her kitchen floor covering, appropriately communicated an appointment date and attended on 27 November 2023. This was within 5 days of her report on 22 November 2023. The landlord noted the kitchen floor covering was no longer in use to be able to repair and would require to be replaced. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the residents who picked the preferred floor covering.
  2. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response (27 February 2024) that there had been a miscommunication which resulted in the delay to the repair, which is confirmed in notes within the landlord’s file. Although it was appropriate to acknowledge this there were further missed opportunities for the landlord to act when the resident chased the repair on 4,15 and 28 December 2023 and highlighted the urgency of the situation regarding her son’s vulnerability. Although the landlord replied within 2 days to each email it did not progress the repair which was not an appropriate, customer-orientated response.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states it will prioritise appointments by recognising the health and safety of residents. It also states it will bring repair appointments forward in very exceptional circumstances. “This could be when something has caused the original repair reported to deteriorate further and is having an impact on the resident’s health and/or safety.” The policy clearly protects vulnerable residents.
  4. However in this case we have not seen any evidence of internal decision making regarding the vulnerability of its resident or of a risk assessment having taken place. This was inappropriate as the landlord could not correctly and in line with its policy prioritise the repair. Although it did advise it had relayed her son’s condition to the contractor, it did not fully acknowledge how this was affecting the resident. Additionally, we have not seen evidence of this in the file which was not appropriate.
  5. The flooring repair was completed on 30 January 2023, and 69 calendar days after it was reported on 22 November 2023. This was 21 days over its own repair policy of 38 days. Although we appreciate this was over the festive period, it would have been appropriate to have treated the repair more urgently. It also failed to reasonably monitor the progress of the works and the prompt assignment of the job causing further delays.
  6. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged failures, apologised for its delay, and offered a total of £170 compensation. It advised it had taken learning by reviewing its follow-on works procedure and that it would take steps to improve communication with its residents. Although these are all positive steps it failed to fully acknowledge the vulnerability of the child within its complaint responses. This was unreasonable and not a customer-orientated response which added undue stress on the resident.
  7. In the resident’s initial complaint she advised her husband had to be signed off work to help care for the child and was losing wages. While the complaint process will normally not include compensation for loss of wages, there was no acknowledgment of this reported inconvenience within any of the landlord’s complaint responses (including post complaint offer). As such it was unclear of whether the landlord considered this in as part of its compensation decision making.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not offered compensation for loss of wages after she had provided it with evidence (the date is not clear). Although the landlord’s compensation policy states it will not provide compensation for loss of earnings it would have been reasonable for it to have fully acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the resident having to take additional time off work due to its repairs failures.
  9. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 November 2024 and offered to increase its compensation. It apologised if she was made to feel like her sons health concerns were not taken seriously and offered her £300 compensation to acknowledge this. It also offered £250 for failing to keep the resident updated during the investigation and for its complaint handling (this will be further considered in the complaint handling section). However, the landlord was not clear of whether this reviewed compensation was in addition to what it had offered during its internal complaint’s process. This is inappropriate as landlords should clearly explain the level of compensation and any break down.
  10. Additionally, this compensation was provided 7 months following the end of the landlord’s process and after the involvement of this Service. It was appropriate that the landlord in the review letter demonstrated learning and advised her it had delivered vulnerability training to its staff to make sure the same situation would not happen again. However, there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to make a reasonable attempt to put thing right and in a timely manner as part of its complaints process.
  11.  We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of replacement kitchen flooring and order the landlord to pay a total compensation of £550 for the inconvenience and delays. In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. However, in these circumstances we have considered the inconvenience caused to the resident and her vulnerable household and the compensation order we have made takes into account this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure in its complaints policy, which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. The landlord will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It will agree any extension to these timescales with the resident.
  2. In its handling of the stage 1 complaint, the landlord failed to comply with its own procedure, as it did not provide an acknowledgement to the resident within 5 working days of her complaint of 15 December 2023. This prompted her to chase a response on 28 December 2023 which caused further frustration and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord’s file shows internal communication on 7 February 2024 that it had spoken with the resident of which we have seen no evidence of. It noted internally there was a 4-week backlog of complaints. The Code states it is important that complaints are seen as a core service and must be resourced to handle complaints effectively. It is clear from the note the landlord was not adhering to the Code which had a negative impact on the resident’s complaint and wider on other complaints.
  4. The resident had to contact the Service on 16 February 2024 due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling. However the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 February 2024 prior to our intervention. This was 50 working days after her complaint submission and was a failing with regard to complaint handling at this stage. This was a delay of 30 working days above what is allowed under the landlord’s policy and the Schemes (including a 10-day extension).
  5. Although the landlord provided an apology for its complaint handling in its stage 1 response, it did not give reasons for the lack of a timely complaint acknowledgement or the considerable delay in responding to the complaint. This was inappropriate and the landlord as such failed to fully acknowledge the impact, take learning or put things right.
  6. The resident contacted the Service on 25 March 2024 to advise she had not received her stage 2 response. She said the landlord had told her by phone it could not escalate until it had heard back from us. Although we do not dispute the resident’s statement, we have seen no evidence of this in its file. The Service did however write to the landlord on 8 April 2024 chasing a stage 2 response by 7 May 2024.
  7. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint after our contact on 9 April 2024. It provided stage 2 on 17 April 2024, prior to our deadline. However, as we have not seen evidence of the phone call the resident referred to, we are unable to assess whether this was in line with its policy. In its responses it did not adequately acknowledge the complaint handling failings identified in this report or demonstrate how it had learnt from the outcomes of the complaint. It did not, therefore, use the complaints process to fully investigate and resolve issues at the earliest opportunity.
  8. The landlord has since written to the resident on 4 November 2024 and acknowledged its poor communication during the investigation and the complaint handling. It offered £250 compensation and an apology. While it was appropriate to offer compensation for its failure, the level of the compensation was higher than what we would order for the failures identified in this report. It was also offered 7 months following its final response.
  9.  The landlord advised in its review that it made improvements to its complaint handling by changing its model to give ownership of complaints to a dedicated centralised team, increased staffing and appointed a head of complaints to drive improvement. We have also issued a wider order in relation to its complaint handling in a previous investigation under case reference 202200596 determined on 28 November 2023 and complied with on 19 February 2024.
  10. A wider order enables us to require landlords to go beyond the scope of individual complaints and seek to address wider issues. It is clear the landlord’s further compensation offer was made in relation to the landlord reviewing its policies, complaint’s handling and the intervention of the Service. There was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have put things right within its complaint handling process and although we appreciate the improvements the landlord has made, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of a repair to the resident’s kitchen flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation (minus any sum paid towards the complaint prior to this investigation) comprising:
    1. £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its repairs failures. This includes the sums offered during the landlord’s complaints process and its further review. The landlord may subtract any amount if previously paid.
    2. £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. This includes the sum offered prior to this investigation.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above order.