Sovereign Network Group (202508050)

Background

1. The resident has vulnerabilities including learning difficulties, mental health, and asthma, which the landlord is aware of. He complained about how it handled reports about a leak. The resident is represented by his sister in bringing the complaint to the landlord and us. For convenience, the sister and the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak over the front door.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance. While the issue is ongoing, it has evidenced it is taking steps to find a lasting solution.
6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident was concerned that the damp from the leak was harming his health. He said the situation was affecting his mental wellbeing. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident also told us about damp and mould in the bathroom. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised complaints with the landlord about these issues. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these matters. Any mention is for context only. You can raise a new complaint to the landlord about the damp and mould in the bathroom and if you are unhappy with how it responds you can bring the matter to us.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
10. The resident first reported the leak above the front door to the landlord on 3 January 2023. It had previously filled a hole, but the leak returned. It raised an urgent repair to make safe the same day, in line with its repairs policy which aims to complete urgent repairs within 24 hours
11. The resident chased the landlord 3 times between January and September 2023 as it had not raised any follow on work. He believed the leak was from the balcony above when it rained. There is no evidence to show that the landlord attempted to complete repairs until he made another report on 27 September 2023. This was 267 days after the first report.
12. On 3 October 2023, the resident told the landlord the repair had not worked. It completed an inspection on 12 October 2023 but there is no evidence it shared its findings or arranged further action. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires sharing reports and action plans with residents.
13. The resident kept reporting water ingress to the landlord and on 20 November 2023 it repaired the balcony above. However, there is no evidence it fixed the internal damage or raised any repairs. He reported that the balcony repair had failed 2 weeks later, on 4 December 2023.
14. On 14 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that planned repairs were complex and would take time but promised short term solutions. Another inspection took place in March 2024 but there is no evidence that any repairs took place. He chased 4 times between March and August 2024. On 14 August 2024 he provided a doctor’s letter saying the situation was affecting his physical and mental health. The landlord agreed to give weekly updates for reassurance and in December 2024 he confirmed he was happy with progress and the improved communication.
15. The landlord considered the resident’s request for a temporary move but following a further inspection in September 2024 found only a small patch of damp and mould. However, it gave details of other moving options which was a positive action.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged communication had been poor and apologised for the stress and anxiety caused.
17. It said the planned balcony works were due to start in November or December 2024 and offered £450 compensation for poor communication and inconvenience.
18. Following the landlords final response, it completed balcony works on 12 December 2024. However, in January 2025 he reported damp remained and 3 further inspections and mould washes followed. The landlord demonstrated that it has attempted to resolve the issue and is still seeking solutions and planning more balcony works to find a lasting resolution.
19. In summary, while the landlord’s communication was poor and it failed to comply with its damp and mould policy, it acknowledged and apologised for its failings. Its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 days for stage 1 and 20 days for stage 2, each extendable by 10 days. The landlord’s policy is compliant with the Code.
21. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident 23 working days later than its policy timescale. It advised of a delay at stage 2 but was 52 working days late in providing its stage 2 response.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response gave the resident conflicting dates of the planned works and an incorrect date of escalation. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
23. That said, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and made an offer of £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

24. Landlords must ensure accuracy of information given in complaint responses to avoid confusion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it difficult for us to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations.

Communication

26. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents, so they are aware of actions taken, timescales and the progression of queries or complaints. It is positive that the landlord said it will consider the communication concerns when next reviewing policies.