Sovereign Network Group (202507005)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The resident reported a leak coming into her property on 27 January 2025. The resident has a representative and we refer to both as ‘the resident’ for ease of reading.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in its response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not follow its leak escalation policy. It also failed to appropriately consider a temporary move for the resident given the ongoing uncontainable leak. It failed to offer proportionate compensation to reflect the distress of the leak and the inconvenience of the temporary move.
8. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

9. The resident reported a leak coming into her flat through the hallway ceiling on 27 January 2025. The landlord attended on the same day. It made the electrics safe and identified that the leak was likely coming from another flat. The landlord acted appropriately here by attending on time in line with its policy on emergency repairs that says it should attend within 24 hours for an emergency repair.
10. Given the landlord was unable to stop the uncontainable leak, it would have been appropriate for it to have followed its ‘escape of water escalation process’. This says that the operative must exhaust all efforts in tracing and remedying the escape of water. It says in situations where this is not possible due to access and/or the location of the water escape, the operative must call a supervisor or contract manager to the site for assistance. It adds the operative “must not” leave the site without authorisation from the landlord.
11. The process describes the decisions that should be made during the escalation process including whether any temporary moves are needed. It adds that the landlord must determine who has responsibility of the repair for any necessary subsequent orders or external escalation raised. The process adds that, if the repair is the responsibility of another property owner, the landlord must impress the urgency of the matter on them to ensure adequate handling of the repairs, or ensuring safe shelter of its residents.
12. As the landlord has acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response, its contractor did not follow this process at any time. That was a significant failing. The landlord also said that its contractor had failed to communicate with it and had told it the matter was resolved. The evidence shows the contractor did visit the block on 3 occasions between 27 January and 3 March 2025 but did not gain access to the flat where the leak was coming from. The landlord failed to monitor the actions being taken by the contractors adequately. In early March 2025 it changed the contractor dealing with the leak.
13. During this period, there is no evidence that the landlord proactively contacted the resident. The landlord did not provide clear and effective communication to her. In this case, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not reasonable and she had to regularly chase for information.
14. The landlord should have considered a decant for the resident when it was unable to resolve the leak on 27 January 2025. The resident subsequently reported to it on 27 February 2025 that she was worried for her safety in the property. The evidence shows the hallway ceiling had collapsed on 6 February 2025. We understand a bedroom ceiling also collapsed in early March 2025. By mid-March 2025 the resident was living with a family member and she informed the landlord of that at the time. The landlord then offered her a temporary move. Given the significant repairs required to the property which were getting progressively worse, the delay in doing so was not appropriate. However, the landlord acted reasonably in continuing to offer the resident alternative accommodation if staying with a family member was no longer feasible.
15. Once the resident had moved out of the property the landlord should have changed the lock in line with its decant policy. The policy explains that this is essential to prevent unauthorised entry into the property under renovation whilst works are underway, which could present a health and safety risk. Had it done so, it would then had to have taken responsibility for the ongoing leak. The evidence suggests, as it did not do so, the resident returned there to empty the buckets of water to prevent further damage.
16. We understand the landlord isolated the water on 20 March 2025. At this time the new contractor identified the source of the leak. It took approximately 7 weeks to do so from the date of the report. The landlord offered to repair the leak in the neighbouring property even though it was not obliged to. This was a reasonable step to take. When the leaseholder did not agree to that, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered legal action promptly to compel them to fix the leak or allow it entry to do so. It took the leaseholder almost 7 weeks to carry out the repair to stop the leak. They did so on 7 May 2025.
17. The landlord then undertook repairs to the resident’s property. We understand the works were completed on 31 July 2025. The time taken was appropriate as it is in line with the 90-day timescale set out in the landlord’s repair policy for complex work. We understand the landlord completed the post-inspection report on 20 August 2025 and confirmed the repairs had passed the post-inspection on 26 August 2025. The resident moved back into the property at that stage.
18. While the landlord offered compensation in its final complaint responses, it agreed to look at this again once the works had been completed. This was a reasonable approach in this case as it was not clear how long those works would take. When the landlord reviewed this in October 2025, it increased its offer of compensation to £1,224.69. This was made up of £685 for inconvenience and distress, £60 for missed appointments and £479.69 as a reimbursement for utility costs while the resident was living away from the property.
19. The resident is seeking reimbursement of the rent she paid while she was living away from the property. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that rent should continue to be paid by the resident while they are temporarily moved away from the property. However, our remedies guidance sets out that, depending on the presenting level of service failure and the impact of the complaint on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property, we may consider awarding an amount of compensation equivalent to a full or partial rent refund for the period in question. In this case there was a significant detriment to the resident from the end of January 2025 to when she was able to return to the property at the end of August 2025. In these circumstances, we consider compensation based on 50% of the rent is appropriate for the period from 27 January to 27 August 2025. This is approximately 30 weeks and amounts to £2,480.86 (50% of 9 weeks at £156.34  and 21 weeks at £169.27).
20. This sum is in addition to the £1,224.69 offered in October 2025. This was made up of £60 for missed appointments which was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also offered a sum for reimbursement of utility costs while the resident was away from the property which was based on actual costs. This again was in line with its compensation policy. These payments were therefore appropriate. We consider the sum of £685 for distress and inconvenience also to be proportionate. This is in line with our remedies guidance That sum was appropriate in line with our remedies guidance in cases where there has been a failure which had a significant physical and emotional impact on the resident.
21. We have made a finding of maladministration because the landlord did not adequately put things right with its offer of compensation. Had the landlord not taken steps to put matters right in its complaint handling, we would likely have made a finding of severe maladministration.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaint and its escalation within its timescales.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being submitted. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 12 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 25 workings days. It failed to keep to the timescales set out in its policy on both occasions.
24. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays on either occasion. The leak had not been resolved by the time of the stage 2 response. Because of this, the delays to the complaint responses likely contributed to the distress and inconvenience that the resident was experiencing. Given the impact and because the landlord cannot demonstrate learning as it did not acknowledge the delays, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should apologise and pay compensation. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level would be £50.

Learning

25. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management explains that failures can be avoided when landlords store and maintain information appropriately.
26. In this case, the landlord’s records of its repair efforts were reasonable. However, the resident has referenced calls made to the landlord which the landlord has not provided evidence of. If calls had been recorded appropriately, the landlord may have initially identified it should have taken more robust action to resolve the leak.