Sovereign Network Group (202225562)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225562

Sovereign Network Homes

28 August 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 response to his reports about its contractors’ conduct.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom self-contained flat, which is located on the ground floor of the building. The resident lives at the property with his partner.
On 22 August 2022 the landlord raised repairs to the roof, as the resident’s neighbour was experiencing a leak in their property. By 10 October 2022 the landlord had contacted the resident about erecting scaffolding at the property to remedy the neighbour’s concerns. On 17 October 2022 the resident:
1. Asked the landlord when the scaffold would be removed after its installation.
2. Told the landlord that he wanted the scaffolding contractors to be wearing identification (ID) badges.
3. Had concerns about the contractors potentially causing damage to the property when carrying out scaffolding and roof works. If there was any damage, he wanted the landlord to carry out repairs.
The landlord responded on 17 October 2022 and said once repairs were completed, it would take down the scaffolding but could not confirm a date. This was because it had been unable to inspect the roof at that stage. The landlord confirmed its contractors would have ID badges. The landlord also said its contractors would take pictures before erecting the scaffolding and after completion of works. It suggested the resident also takes pictures of the area. On 18 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident about a scaffolding appointment which was booked for 24 October 2022. On 24 October 2022, this appointment was then re-arranged by the landlord and its contractors for 25 October 2022.
On 25 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its contractors’ conduct. The resident said:
1. The scaffolding contractors who arrived on 25 October 2022 did not provide ID badges.
2. He was “threatened” by one of the scaffolding contractors.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 October 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 November 2022 and tried to arrange a date for scaffolding contractors to attend the property. The resident replied on 3 November 2022 and said he was dissatisfied that contractors tried to attend the property on this date. However, the resident agreed to an appointment of 8 November 2022. On 8 November 2022 the location of the scaffolding was clarified with the resident and erected by the contractors. The landlord’s surveyor accompanied the scaffolding contractors on this date. The scaffolding contractors told the resident that access via his property was no longer needed.
After the scaffolding was installed, the resident told the landlord that its scaffolding contractors left ladders at the property which had damaged the grass. On the same day, the landlord told the resident that its scaffolding contractors would return to the property on 9 November 2022 to tidy up. The landlord also advised that roofing contractors would attend the property on the same date. The landlord said the roofing contractors would access the property via the side gate. On 9 November 2022 the resident told the landlord:
1. That the roofing contractors did not show ID badges.
2. That the roofing contractors accessed the building without his consent.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 November 2022. The landlord reiterated events from 22 August 2022 where works were raised to repair a leak in a neighbour’s property. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns about its contractors’ conduct on 25 October 2022. It said it had tried to get a written account of events from the scaffolding contractors. It had been unable to but had some information from them via a call where they said they were met with “frustration” from the resident. However, from its investigation it was not disputing the resident’s version of events. Said that it expected its contractors to treat residents with respect.
2. Apologised for its contractors not wearing ID badges despite this being made clear to the contractors in advance.
3. Identified learning from the complaint and said it would issue ID badges to its contractors for future attendances.
4. Said it would arrange repairs where there had been any damage caused by it and it was awaiting any images the resident may have.
5. Told the resident he was made aware of contractor appointments on:
  1. 18 October 2022 for contractor attendance on 24 October 2022.
  2. 24 October 2022 for contractor attendance on 25 October 2022.
  3. 2 and 3 November 2022 for contractor attendance on 8 November 2022.
  4. 8 November 2022 for contractor attendance on 9 November 2022.
6. Advised the resident that aside from ID, its contractors should wear uniform and have marked vans.
7. Advised it expects access to be provided by the resident in accordance with his tenancy agreement. If access continued to be refused it may need to consider applying for an access injunction. It had told him on 8 November 2022 that roofing contractors only needed access via the side gate.
By 21 November 2022 the resident had provided images of the garden area to the landlord. The resident said the garden area was damaged, this included the grass and the drainage pipes. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 November 2022. The landlord said it considered the 24 October 2022 appointment that was re-arranged for 25 October 2022 as a missed appointment. The landlord awarded £10 for the missed appointment. The landlord also reiterated that as the scaffolding was in place, the resident did not need to authorise access.
On 1 December 2022 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated as he remained dissatisfied with contractors’ conduct. The resident said:
1. Roofing contractors who attended on 1 December 2022 did not show ID and were “abusive and threatening”. He said inappropriate language was used.
2. He had asked the roofing contractors to turn off the radio as it was keeping his brother awake.
3. The roofing contractors were not wearing hard hats.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 8 December 2022 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 January 2023. The landlord said:
1. The resident was told on 22 November 2022 that roofing contractors would be carrying out works at the property on 1 December 2022. No access was required into the resident’s property.
2. Its subcontractors would have its own policies regarding hard hats, but it encourages its contractors to wear uniform.
3. It had investigated the resident’s reports of misconduct on 1 December 2022 by its roofing contractors. It found that:
  1. The roofing contractors had ID badges in their van.
  2. There was no evidence that the roofing contractors refused to supply ID badges to the resident.
  3. The roofing contractors agreed to turn off the radio when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. It apologised for any noise disturbance.
4. That it planned to remove the scaffolding on 11 January 2023 and would then assess any damage.
5. There was no damage to the grass from the images provided by the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and first contacted us about his concerns in January 2023. The resident subsequently confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint. In 2024 and 2025 the landlord told us that shortly after the resident’s complaint, it ended its relationship with the contractors involved.

Assessment and findings

We will not form a view on whether the contractors’ actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, our role is to assess how the landlord investigated and responded to the resident’s reports about its contractors’ conduct. For any staff or contractor conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation into the complaint and make a decision based on its findings.
We will also consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Under our Remedies Guidance, depending on the level of service failure, an apology can be sufficient to put things right.
In the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to allow access to the landlord, its staff members, or its contractors to complete works. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property.
We acknowledge that the reason the landlord wanted to erect scaffolding was due to repairs for a leak at a neighbour’s property.
The evidence shows on 17 October 2022 the landlord agreed its scaffolding contractors would wear ID badges for its attendance that month. An appointment for the contractors to erect scaffolding was arranged for 24 October 2022. However, the landlord and its contractors emailed the resident that day saying it was rescheduling the appointment for 25 October 2022. It was on 21 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it recognised this as a missed appointment and awarded £10. As such, the landlord used its discretion under its compensation policy where it says it can make awards of £10 for a missed appointment. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident complained about the scaffolding contractors’ conduct on 25 October 2022. In response, the landlord:
1. Retrieved a version of events over the phone from the scaffolding contractors.
2. Tried to get a written statement of events from the scaffolding contractors, but it had not received it.
3. Said it did not dispute the resident’s version of events.
The above demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to verify the resident’s reports. The landlord accepted there was lack of information provided by its contractor. However, the landlord acknowledged the effect on the resident and his experience. The landlord assured him that it expected its contractors to be respectful to its residents.
We acknowledge that the resident did not provide access to the landlord’s contractors on 3 November 2022 as this was not pre-arranged with him. However, on 2 November 2022 the landlord was trying to arrange a date of availability with the resident. Due to the resident’s concerns, the landlord was willing to provide additional support by co-attending the property with its contractors on 8 November 2022. This was agreed by the resident on 3 November 2022. The landlord said this was to ensure the resident was satisfied with its contractors’ conduct and the positioning of the scaffolding.
These actions showed it was trying to respond to the resident’s complaint appropriately. Although contractors did not write to the resident about its attendance on 3 November 2022, this was a minor failing and was remedied in a reasonable timeframe.
Following the scaffolding contractors’ visit of 8 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord on the same day. The resident was dissatisfied that ladders were left at the property. It was reasonable that the landlord responded on the same day and arranged for its contractor to tidy up the area on 9 November 2022.
The resident also expressed dissatisfaction about the roofing contractors’ conduct on 9 November 2022. The resident said the contractors accessed the property without his consent and would not show ID badges. In response, the landlord advised the resident he was made aware of the appointment on 8 November 2022. It also told the resident its contractors should be wearing uniform and arrive in marked vans. This was reasonable advice in the circumstances.
The landlord also advised the resident about his responsibilities regarding access in the tenancy agreement. It was reasonable the landlord provided its position regarding access to the resident, and on that occasion, it did not need him to provide access. This was because its contractors were able to gain access with the use of the scaffolding via the side gate. The evidence shows this was communicated to him prior to the roofing contractors’ arrival and reiterated on 21 November 2022.
Ultimately, the landlord recognised its contractors not showing ID badges as a service failure in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident by apologising for this. It evidenced it was learning from outcomes by saying it would issue ID badges to its contractors for future attendances. These actions follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Its apology was proportionate to the events at that stage and in line with our Remedies Guidance.
The resident was also dissatisfied with the roofing contractor’s conduct on 1 December 2022. We have seen evidence the landlord contacted its roofing contractors to obtain information. In the landlord’s investigation we have seen it considered the contractor’s recollection of events and the resident’s submissions. The landlord:
1. Confirmed that there was evidence to support that on this occasion the roofing contractors had ID badges with them.
2. Concluded that the roofing contracts were playing music but agreed to turn it off after the resident asked.
3. Reiterated that it encourages its contractors to wear uniform, but subcontractors may have their own policy.
4. Said no evidence was provided that inappropriate language was used by its contractor.
5. Apologised for any noise disturbance.
6. Told the resident he was made aware on 22 November 2022 of the 1 December 2022 appointment by roofing contractors.
As such, the landlord has evidenced it investigated the resident’s reports about contractors’ conduct. This is what we would expect and was a reasonable step. The landlord also showed it was treating the resident’s concerns seriously by notifying of him works to the roof, even when it was not obligated to.
During the resident’s complaint journey, he also reported that contractors had caused damage to the garden area. The evidence shows the landlord:
1. Assessed the images provided in November 2022 by the resident about damage to the grass. The evidence showed the landlord considered the resident’s evidence. It was reasonable that the landlord provided its position about this in its final response.
2. Told the resident in its final response that the scaffolding should be removed on 11 January 2023. This was reasonable action by it. We acknowledge the landlord inspected the garden area and the drains on 13 January 2023.
In this case, the landlord demonstrated it had considered the resident’s concerns and had taken reasonable action. The landlord investigated its contractors’ conduct. The landlord apologised for its contractors failing to provide ID badges in its stage 1 complaint response. It also followed its own compensation policy and appropriately awarded £10 in recognition of the missed appointment. It further apologised for the effect on the resident and any noise disturbance in its final response.
Overall, the landlord recognised all its failings, attempted to put things right, and demonstrated learning from outcomes. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports about its contractors’ conduct.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the resident’s complaint about its response to his reports about its contractors’ conduct.

Recommendation

If the landlord has not done so already, it is recommended that it pays the resident the £10 it offered on 21 November 2022. This was for the missed appointment on 24 October 2022.