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 (202415159)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415159

Sovereign Network Group

14 April 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a new build flat. She has been the leaseholder since 18 February 2021. She is the first inhabitant of the flat since it was built.
  2. On 6 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She advised a fire assessor had come out and there were safety concerns regarding all the flat doors in the building. She advised that no flat entrances had smoke seals. She noted other properties did not have a drop-down smoke seal when the lock was activated. The resident raised concerns about how the doors met the relevant inspections before properties were handed over to the residents.
  3. In internal emails dated 18 November 2022 the landlord agreed that the issues with the doors were latent defects. On 6 January 2023, the landlord raised an internal enquiry as to how it could raise a claim with the National House Building Council (NHBC). On 25 January 2023, in internal emails, the landlord stated it was going to raise this with the developers of the flats, as per advice from NHBC.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 7 August 2023. It advised that it had attended the site on 7 July 2023. It confirmed that all hinges had been replaced. It advised new intumescent smoke seals had been installed. It said that the compliance team advised that the developer had used the Certifire route to provide the door sets. It said it had tried to contact the developer but had not yet had a response.
  5. On 20 September 2023, the resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2. On 27 September 2023 the resident provided further information. She advised that in July 2023 all doors were found to be non-compliant. She also noted that she had been charged for some safety lighting repairs but these were also non-compliant.
  6. The landlord responded on 12 April 2024. It advised that the landlord had been unable to get certificates for the communal door sets and it said that the flat doors had been upgraded with the incorrect furniture. It stated that the landlord would remove expanding pink foam, which the resident had raised as a fire concern. It also advised that it should not have charged the resident £161 for installing new emergency lighting as the resident was only responsible for maintenance charges. It said it would investigate whether this it needed to refund this.
  7. An internal email from the landlord dated 17 February 2025 stated that all doors are now compliant. The resident has advised that the landlord has done works to the doors but not replaced them and remains concerns that the doors are non-compliant.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. When the resident raised the complaint she has done so noting that this impacts all resident in the block. The resident is not, in any formal capacity recognised by the Ombudsman, acting as a representative for any other party. For clarity we do not consider this a group complaint. This investigation will focus on the individual concerns and communication raised by the resident to the landlord. However, when reviewing the findings of the investigation, the landlord may wish to consider the impact the matter may have on other residents in the same block.
  2. The property is a new build property. Defects which are identified as latent defects can raised with the developer or can be addressed through an NHBC claim. The landlord may also consider repairing latent defects itself. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess which route the landlord should take in addressing latent defects. We are also not able to assess any actions taken by a developer or the NHBC as they are not members of the Scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.

  1. When the resident raised concerns that an inspection had found the flat doors to be non-compliant with fire regulations, the landlord should have investigated this. It should have confirmed to the resident if there were any compliance concerns and what action the landlord would take. An internal email dated 8 November 2022 stated that none of the doors needed replacing and only needed repairing. We have not seen evidence that the landlord advised the resident of this, or that it raised any repairs works.
  2. On 18 November 2022, the landlord agreed that following an inspection of the flat doors, it would consider the issues to be a latent defect. As noted in the scoping paragraph a landlord can address a latent defect through the developers or by raising an NHBC claim. It can also consider whether it is appropriate to repair the doors themselves. We have seen evidence that the landlord considered engaging with the developers and raising an NHBC claim. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider this. There is a lack of clarity in the landlord’s records as to whether the landlord opened an NHBC claim. The resident’s most recent update suggests that the landlord eventually opted to carry out the repairs itself. It would be helpful for the landlord to provide clarity to the residents, if there is an open NHBC claim relating to the fire doors and whether this will result in further works.
  3. In the email dated 6 January 2023 the landlord stated that the fire risk assessment for the property contradicted the fire door inspection findings. The fire risk assessment found all flat doors to be compliant, whereas the fire door assessment found all flat doors to be non-compliant. The Ombudsman considers that if a fire risk assessment and fire door inspection is contradictory that this should raise a concern for the landlord. It should have considered whether further assessments were necessary. We have not seen that the landlord did this.
  4. On 24 January 2023 internal emails suggested that the issue with the doors were that hinges needed adjusting and doors needed easing to get the correct door margins. This was following an inspection completed in April 2022. The landlord asked internally why the information had not come back sooner. It is positive that the landlord recognised a delay in internal communications and attempted to establish what the cause of this delay was. However, there are no further communications regarding this matter until 27 June 2023 when the landlord requested the inspection spreadsheet and relevant photos. Although the landlord had recognised a failing in delayed internal communications, it has not demonstrated that it acted to improve this. 
  5. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was still trying to contact the developer. We recognise that if a developer does not respond to the landlord, this can create delays in providing a full response to the resident. However, we would expect to see communication from the landlord as evidence it was attempting to obtain a response. Where necessary, we would also expect to see a landlord escalate when the developer did not respond. The landlord has not provided evidence to support that it did this.
  6. The stage 1 response suggested that the landlord had completed remedial works to the doors. This had been confirmed in an inspection completed on 7 July 2023, by the author of the complaint response, who was also a project manager. It did not specify if there were any outstanding compliance issues with the fire doors, or whether further repairs were needed.
  7. On 11 September 2023, the resident received a further letter from the landlord. It advised the inspection on 7 July 2023, had raised concerns that the doors might not meet building regulations. It said that the doors were manufactured correctly but that it was waiting on the installation certificates. It also advised that the communal doors did not have the right compliance labels. It advised that it was following this up with the developer and head of quality management. It is positive that the landlord identified a concern, communicated this to the resident, and confirmed its next actions. However, the resident received two letters a month apart, regarding the same inspection, but identifying different findings.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised it had to obtain 3 quotes for new door sets. Although the landlord was not specific, the Ombudsman understands this to be in relation to flat doors. The resident provided us with a quote which one of the landlord’s contractors sent to her in error. This was a quote for replacement flat doors. The contractor recalled the quote and the landlord apologised that this was sent. The landlord has since advised it repaired the doors. The resident remains concerned that the landlord should have replaced the doors rather than repaired them, as she believes they are non-compliant. While we recognise the contractor sent the quote in error, we note that the stage 2 response also advised that the doors would be replaced. We understand that if the landlord subsequently felt it could repair the doors to the correct standard, that this may have been an appropriate action. However, we have seen no evidence to support why the landlord felt a repair was more appropriate than a replacement. The landlord has not communicated this to the resident. As such it is understandable the resident has outstanding concerns.
  9. Although the landlord has said the doors our now safe, the resident remains concerned. The communication from the landlord has been poor and there has been conflicting information given to the resident. The communication has caused confusion and uncertainty for the resident. Due to the lack of clarity in the landlord’s records, we are unable to determine that the landlord has properly demonstrated that the flat doors are compliant. We further note that the matter has been ongoing for a significant period of time. This is concerning as the landlord was aware of a potential safety risk. We therefore consider there to be maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns of fire safety.
  10. In making orders, we consider it important for the landlord to rebuild trust with the resident. We therefore consider it appropriate for the landlord to secure an independent fire safety check. This should be from a company that has not already been involved. The check should ensure all doors are compliant with any relevant fire safety regulations.
  11. We have considered the time the resident has taken in raising the safety concerns and consider that a compensation payment is appropriate. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord sent a compensation form for £150 to the resident previously, however this is undated. The compensation notes it was because the resident had to raise issues with the fire doors. The resident informed us as of December 2023 that she received this payment. However, the landlord did not mention the compensation in the stage 2 response, which was after the date the landlord made the payment. We further acknowledge that since the landlord offered this compensation, the resident has had to continue raising concerns. The landlord’s records indicate repairs were completed on 17 February 2025, and that it considered all flat doors to be safe. This is more than 2 years since the resident first raised the door safety concern. As such we have made a separate award of £250 for the continued effort in raising concerns with the fire door. The landlord may not deduct any previous compensation payments.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. The resident raised the complaint on 6 November 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord took 189 working days. We consider this to be an unreasonable delay. The landlord has provided no explanation for this delay, and it did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 143 working days. This is a significant delay, and the landlord has not provided any explanation for this. It also did not acknowledge this in its complaints response.
  3. The stage 1 and stage 2 response was completed by the same member of staff. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that the person considering the stage 2 complaint must not be the person that considered the stage 1 complaint. We consider that the resident did not have a fair review at stage 2 of the complaints process.
  4. The member of staff who completed the complaints response was also the person who had oversight of the repairs, and who had completed an inspection on 7 July 2023. We have noted in paragraph 18 of this report that there was some conflicting information from this inspection. While we would expect input on the complaint, from the individual dealing with the substantive issue, we consider that there may be concerns with impartiality, if that person also reviews the complaint. In this instance, we cannot see that an independent review of the actions taken by the landlord has been completed.
  5. Due to the substantial delays, the failure to acknowledge these and the fact that the same person issued the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint, we consider there to be maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any guidance on the amounts it may pay for poor complaints handling. We have considered our own remedies guidance and consider an award of £250 to be appropriate. This is because we have identified 3 significant complaint handling failures.
  6. The Ombudsman does not expect a landlord to revisit a complaint once it has completed the stage 2 response. However, as the matter is ongoing, and has not been independently reviewed by someone who has not been actively involved in the complaint, we consider that a review of actions taken to date is appropriate. This review should identify if there is anything the landlord has not yet done to address the resident’s concerns, and how it will address this moving forward.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £250 for the time and trouble the resident has had in raising the fire safety concerns.
    2. £250 for the complaint handling failures.

The landlord may not deduct the £150 it previously paid to the resident in relation to the fire doors. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the report being issued.

  1. The landlord is ordered to review the complaint and actions it has taken so far. This review must be from someone who has not previously been involved in the case. If the landlord identifies any actions it should have taken to address the concern, it should consider whether it can take appropriate remedial action.
  2. The landlord is ordered to secure an independent fire risk assessment. This fire risk assessment must review the flat doors within the building and any communal doors. If any aspect of the fire safety risk is found to be non-compliant, the landlord must confirm what actions it will take to address this. It should communicate this to the resident. The landlord most provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 12 weeks of this investigation report being issued.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord confirm whether the resident was charged for any emergency lighting installation. As per the stage 2 response, if the resident should not have paid this, it should ensure that this is refunded.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord consider the impact this investigation has for other residents within the building. If appropriate the landlord should update the other residents in relation to what action it is taking to address any fire safety concerns.