Sovereign Network Group (202307583)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307583

Sovereign Network Group

9 September 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 handling of her concerns about:
1. The condition of the property and repairs needed, including:
  1. Gap underneath the back door.
  2. The previous tenant’s belongings in the property.
  3. No lintels supporting the window.
  4. The shower not working.
  5. The roof’s condition.
  6. Damp and mould.
  7. Asbestos.
2. Safety concerns regarding the hedge.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 17 February 2023.
During March 2023 the resident raised reports with the landlord concerning the condition of her property. She said there were several repairs which should have been noticed during the void period. A complaint was logged on 10 March 2023. In her complaint the resident stated:
1. 3 days after moving into the property she experienced damp and mould.
2. Items were left from the previous tenant in the loft.
3. The house was freezing all over. During an inspection it was noted there were holes in the roof and poor insulation. She stated this needed replacing.
4. There was no cavity insulation in the walls.
5. There were gaps in the back door and it was not secure.
6. There was an asbestos pipe in the garden.
7. The windows did not have lintel beams which was causing structural damage.
Throughout March to May 2023 the landlord arranged for inspections to be carried out. Work orders were completed to:
1. Remove the damp and mould.
2. Remove the previous tenant’s belongings from the loft.
The resident had also made a request for the landlord to install fencing during this time following an alleged kidnapping. The landlord carried out inspections of the hedge and boundary.
During May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord twice chasing for an update to her complaint and the repairs. She said this was not the first time she had been “ignored” by the landlord and explained she would be contacting her local MP and our service to assist in resolving the matter.
On 1 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and us explaining she had not had a response from the landlord. She also stated damage had been caused to her home, as a result of cracks, mould and roof issues. The resident explained that despite her making the report in March and the landlord obtaining quotes in April, no further progress had been made.
During June 2023 contractors attended to adjust the resident’s door. A further inspection took place to assess the resident’s concerns of cracks in the ceiling, hole in the gable end and issues with the roof. The landlord also arranged to install cavity insulation.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 30 June 2023. It offered £150 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the inconvenience the resident had experienced. In the stage one response the landlord explained it:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. The loft containing the previous tenant’s belongings – it agreed these belongings should have been removed prior to the resident moving in and apologised for this.
2. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. No lintels supporting the window which was causing cracks.
  2. Mould and there being no cavity wall insulation.
  3. The shower not working when she moved in – it stated this should have been checked and in working condition when she moved in. It apologised for this.
3. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. The back door as it said a repair was carried out within the 90-day target for routine repair.
  2. Defects with the roof as it had been added to the year’s replacement programme as soon as the defects were identified.
  3. The resident’s request to remove boundary hedges and replace with fence – its surveyor attended on 5 July 2023 at the earliest available opportunity.
  4. Asbestos pipe in the garden attached to the wall – it explained it would not routinely remove an item where the asbestos specialist report said it could manage in situ. It would only be removed if there was major damage.
  5. Cost of heating the house – it stated the energy performance certificate (EPC) was checked during the void period and no works were required. Her heating was due to be assessed around 2026.
The resident was unhappy with the stage one response and the length of time taken to receive this.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 18 July 2023. It identified service failings and increased its offer of compensation to £300. The stage two response explained that the landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. Lintels not being present – it explained it had arranged for a quote to install lintels to the windows as per the independent survey report.
  2. Back door – it apologised that the back door was missed while the property was empty. The door had since been adjusted and no further works are required.
  3. Loft clearance.
  4. Gable end – it had arranged for a quote to have repairs completed to the hole in the gable.
2. Partially upheld the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. Hedges – it agreed to install fencing in the front of the hedge to provide security.
3. Did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning:
  1. Cavity wall and roof insulation – this had been extracted and refilled. It explained the loft insulation would be installed at the same time as the roof replacement.
  2. Mould – an operative attended in March 2023 to carry out a treatment. At the time the operative had forwarded recommendations to the landlord for follow on works to the roof and insulation. It explained it arranged for a further treatment to be carried out and its operatives should be in touch.
  3. Roof – it explained the recommendations from its operatives visit on 10 March 2023 had been done. It also aimed to have the new roof installed in December 2023.
  4. Asbestos pipe – it explained no works were required.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and offer of £300 compensation. She escalated the complaint to our service and explained she was seeking more compensation.
On 27 July 2023 the contractors carried out an inspection and noted there was no extractor fan in the bathroom which was causing damp and mould issues. A further survey was arranged on 17 October 2023 for the bathroom extractor fan. Following this, a work order was raised on 2 November 2023 to have the extractor fan installed, however this was later cancelled on 14 November 2023.
On 14 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord as she could not understand why there was a delay of 5 months in having the asbestos sampling completed for the roof. She also stated that prior to moving in she had asked the landlord if there was asbestos in the property and was told no. She stated with this in mind she had been putting things in the walls.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 December 2023, explaining that it was unable to contact her on her phone. It asked her to confirm her number. It also explained the roof replacement would not be completed by December 2023 as previously stated because asbestos sampling was required before any works could be completed. It explained it was chasing for an update regarding dates and would update her when this is known.
During December 2023 a further inspection and treatment was carried out for damp and mould.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 January 2024 stating it had been informed by its contractors that it had made three attempts to access to carry out an asbestos survey, but it had not heard back from the resident. It stated it may have had an incorrect number, so it supplied them with the resident’s number and asked the contractors to contact her again.
In the resident’s email to the landlord on 9 January 2024, she stated she was told asbestos sampling would be done. However, when she was contacted by the landlord’s contractors, she was informed a survey was done in 2019 and that another one was not needed. In order to carry out another one, a job would need to be raised by the landlord.
On 17 January 2024 a report was raised to carry out quoted works to the fan installation.
During February 2024 the resident’s roof replacement was completed.
On 5 April 2024 the works order to install the fan was cancelled. This was because the landlord’s contractor was unable to book in the works.
On 10 September 2024 a work order was raised to install the extractor fan. This was completed the following month.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident has expressed distress over the issues raised in this complaint, stating it has affected her health and wellbeing. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
We see repairs remained outstanding after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, this service has considered events relating to these repairs beyond this date. This is to accurately determine the complaint and come to a fair decision.

The condition of the property and repairs needed

The resident expressed upset with the condition of the property when she moved in. She stated the property should not have been signed off as ready during the void period. She stated concerns about:
1. Gap underneath the back door.
2. The previous tenant’s belongings in the property.
3. No lintels supporting the window.
4. The shower not working.
5. The roof’s condition.
6. Damp and mould.
7. Asbestos.
We have reviewed the void repair records and can see the landlord carried out multiple work orders during this period. We also reviewed the landlord’s suitable to let form which was completed for the property on 16 February 2023. This confirmed that an inspection was carried out prior to the resident moving in. Images were also attached to the report to show the condition of the property. This was signed off as being suitable to let.
We have reviewed the landlord’s empty homes standard. This is a set of criteria used to ensure that a property is safe, clean, secure and in good repair before it is let out to a resident. Taking this into consideration, we have gone on to address each point below.

Gap under the back door

Section 3e of the landlord’s empty home standards policy refers to its requirements for doors during the void period. It does not specify gaps in particular, however it states that it will make sure rear doors are safe, secure, and working properly.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the back door not being secure and having a gap under it on 9 March 2023. She stated this should have been noticed during the void period.
When the resident made a report to the landlord about the gap under the door, we would expect it to attend to the matter in line with its repair guidelines. The landlord’s repair guidelines state it will offer the first available appointment it has or an appointment which better suits the resident.
In this instance, when the resident had reported the issue on 9 March 2023, the landlord logged it in the system. The repair records show the repair was completed on 1 June 2023. An operative had attended to adjust the door.
We have reviewed the landlord’s correspondence and on 22 March 2023 it had informed the resident it had spoken to the delivery manager for her area regarding the required works. It explained it was in the process of organising contractors to visit. It further stated the manager would be in direct contact with the resident to book in a date.
We have not seen a record to show when the direct contact was made with the resident. However, we see on 3 April 2023 the landlord confirmed a job was booked to investigate the door and gap around it. It also informed the resident this had been booked in for 1 June 2023 as a “school run” appointment.
In its formal response, the landlord explained it had spoken to the voids team who apologised for the oversight. In recognition of the service failing identified, we see the landlord offered compensation. The £300 offered in the formal response did not offer a breakdown of how this was applied across the different service failings identified in the complaint. Therefore, we have split this evenly across the four identified failings in the landlord’s formal response. With this in mind, we have apportioned that £75 was for the gap to the back door, and £75 each was to reflect the other failings identified in the response.
Overall while there was a failing in the works not being carried out during the void period, the landlord was proactive in logging the report on the repair system, updated the resident and carried out a repair within a reasonable period of time. Given these actions, we consider the offer of £75 to be reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.

The previous tenant’s belongings in the property.

The resident complained to the landlord about the previous tenant’s belongings being left in the loft. She expressed concern that this should have been noticed during the void period.
The resident complained on 10 March 2023 about the previous tenant’s belongings, however a report was logged on 6 April 2023 to clear the loft. This was completed on 11 April 2023. Whilst we acknowledge the landlord proactively resolved the matter. the landlord’s empty home standards’ policy, states it is expected to clear the loft of any rubbish. As the evidence shows this was not completed, its contractors failed to carry out the standard checks as stated in its guidelines, there was a failure.
In the formal response we see the landlord acknowledged there was a failing and upheld the resident’s complaint. In recognition of this it offered an apology and compensation. As stated above we have apportioned £75 of the landlord’s overall compensation offered in the formal response for the failing identified.
Overall, we find the landlord had appropriately taken action to resolve the issues when informed. Furthermore, we find its apology and offer of compensation to be reasonable when considered against the minimal impact, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The shower not working

The resident stated that when she moved in the property the shower was not working. In accordance with the empty homes standard the landlord was required to ensure the showers were in good condition prior to the property being let out.
The void repair records show that during the void period a plumber had attended to renew the shower. The voids inspection also states that the bathroom was checked. In the landlord’s stage two response it explained at the time the shower had been tested and was in working order during the void period.
While we do not dispute the resident’s claims that the shower was not working when she moved in, we have not seen evidence to support this. The correspondence shows she had reported this to the landlord on 9 March 2023, having moved into the property during February 2023.
The repair records show that a repair was completed on 27 April 2023. We understand the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint, stating she still had use of washing facilities. However, the length of time to complete an essential repair was longer than expected.
While we recognise the landlord’s stance that a bath was available, a 7 week delay to fix a broken shower was unreasonable. We have not seen evidence to suggest why it took this amount of time. This caused an inconvenience to the resident.
Overall, while we recognise the shower was eventually fixed, there was a service failure by the landlord due to the unreasonable delay in carrying out repairs. In its formal response the landlord did not offer compensation with regard to the delays in carrying out works..

No lintels supporting the window

The evidence shows the resident had raised concerns in March 2023 about the windows. In particular there were no lintels supporting the windows to hold them up. She also stated this was contributing to a draught in the property.
The landlord’s empty home standard’ states it will make sure all the windows are safe, secure, and working properly.
The landlord has an obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This is also stated in the resident’s tenancy agreement. Therefore, when the resident made a report, the landlord was obliged to investigate and make a repair if necessary.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not give specific timeframes on when a repair is to be completed. It states it will be done at the first available appointment. It also states that follow on work may be placed onto a programme for completion within 6 months of the date of the original repair visit.
The policy states in some circumstances it may be more appropriate for someone else to visit to identify the cause of the issue and fully specify and scope the remedial work that may be required. Examples include where there are:
1. Follow on works for repairs it has not been able to complete at the first visit due to the scope, complexity or extent of the actual work required.
2. Structural issues.
3. Work where it may need to employ a specialist contractor.
We see the landlord sent an email to the resident on 9 March 2023 explaining that it had arranged for an operative to attend the following day to inspect the windows. We can see that this took place, however we have not seen the operative’s notes from that visit. The repair records only state that no works were raised from the visit.
We also see that the landlord had raised a second work order which was for a carpenter for the windows on 9 March 2023. However, this was later cancelled on 10 July 2023. The only note on the repair record stated it was in the process of getting a quote.
The landlord’s stage two response states that a survey took place on 28 March 2023. This confirmed there were no lintels in any of the windows. However, it explained in a property of this age, timber-frame windows were usually fitted to support the brick work, therefore separate lintels were not often used. It found the only brick work which had moved significantly was to the front living room window. It further recommended works be carried out to remedy this.
During April 2023 the resident had contacted the landlord stating she was “disgusted” that she was having to chase for updates. The landlord wrote to the resident to explain it was awaiting approval for the quoted works to the lintels. Following this, it stated its contractors would be in direct contact with the resident.
In December 2023 the resident had contacted the landlord to state a contractor had come out to obtain a quote, but she had heard nothing since. She had further explained she had someone out independently who said it was dangerous, and the windows could go at any time. She further stated its contractor had said the same thing.
We have reviewed the records and have not seen evidence to suggest that there was an immediate risk to the resident. Regardless of this, we would expect the landlord to be taking steps to actively resolve the issue within a reasonable time. In this instance we have not seen that any further works were raised in regard to this until January 2024.
The repair records show on 4 January 2024 the landlord had raised major and external responsive works to carry out several repairs, this included the lintels. The records state this was completed on 27 February 2024.
We understand that some repairs, particularly those requiring specialist work, can take longer than usual. However, in this case it took 11 months from when the resident made the report for the repair to be completed. This length of time is unreasonable. Though we recognise the landlord’s repair policy states follow on works can take up to 6 months, it took the landlord longer than this to conduct the repair. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint in the stage two response dated 18 July 2023. It offered £75 compensation and agreed to carry out the required work. However, we see this remained outstanding for a considerable period before the work was finally done.
We have reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy. It states as a charitable organisation, it rarely offers compensation unless the resident has suffered financial loss, such as damage to their belongings or paying for a service they did not receive. While we acknowledge this, we would expect the landlord to fairly compensate the resident for failings identified.
In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord’s offer of compensation at the end of its internal complaints procedure was reasonable. However, it then failed to ensure that matters were put right in a reasonable timeframe following its final response which amounted to a further failure. The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation in October 2024 and made an additional offer. While this was appropriate and we acknowledge the landlord’s attempts to put things right, we have determined there was a failure by the landlord’s in its handling of the resident’s report.

The roof’s condition

We understand the resident stated there were holes in the roof, which should have been identified during the void period. She further stated this was contributing to leaks in the home and costing a “fortune” to heat her property.
The landlord’s empty homes standard policy states it will:
1. Visually inspect the roof structures and coverings, fascias, and soffits to see that they were wind and weatherproof and all roof vents are clear.
2. Ensure the loft space is sufficiently insulated.
When the resident made a report concerning the hole in the roof and gable, the landlord proceeded to have an inspection carried out on 10 March 2023. We understand the landlord informed the resident that her roof had been added to the annual maintenance programme for 2023 and it estimated this would be completed by December 2023.
We find it is reasonable for the landlord to consider roof replacements as part of its planned programme, because such works often require budgeting, scheduling and coordination with contractors. However, in the meantime we would expect that any immediate repairs are carried out to ensure the property remains safe and watertight in the meantime.
The repair records show on:
1. 21 March 2023 – A work order was raised to carry out an inspection of the property. It stated this was completed on 5 April 2023. However, the records do not provide the outcome of this inspection.
2. 16 June 2023 – A report concerning cracks in the ceiling and a hole in the gable end and issues with the roof. The operative attended on 26 June 2023 and stated there were no cracks. It needed a roofer to assess the roof as it was in poor condition.
3. 25 July 2023 – A work order was raised to carry out an inspection of the roof and inside the loft. There is no completion date, but the evidence states this was passed onto its contractors.
4. 18 October 2023 – A work order was raised to inspect the roof for leaks. The landlord cancelled this repair as the property was on the roofing programme.
5. 19 March 2024 – A work order was raised to install tank jackets, pipe lagging and loft hatch insulation. This was not shown as being completed.
On reviewing the repair records, we have not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord carried out the necessary repairs to the roof. For example, when the resident raised concerns about the leak from the roof, we would have expected the landlord to assess and make interim repairs if needed, however we cannot see this was done. The repair records show that works were raised in 2023, however later cancelled as it stated it would be covered under the roof replacement programme. We also see that in the landlord’s stage one response it had stated that its operative would be returning to insulate the loft hatch and lag pipework. The repair records show during an inspection in 2025, this still had not been completed.
While we understand the landlord’s decision to wait until the roof replacement was carried out under the planned programme, there was a further delay. The landlord had informed the resident a roof replacement would be completed in December 2023. However, the evidence shows that on 14 December 2023 it had then informed the resident the roof replacement would not be carried out as it was awaiting an asbestos survey.
The repair records do not show when the roof was replaced. However, we asked the landlord to clarify when this was done and it confirmed a replacement was carried out in February 2024.
Overall while planned maintenance can be an appropriate method for addressing major works, where repairs are outstanding for an extended period of time, the landlord is expected to take reasonable steps to consider interim or temporary repairs to limit the impact on the resident. In this instance we are not satisfied this was done. Furthermore, we see there were delays which caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. With this in mind we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs.

Damp and mould

We understand the resident had reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord soon after moving into the property. In particular she stated the mould appeared 3 days after she moved in. She believed the property may have had issues prior and it was painted over. She also informed the landlord she could see black patches in the bedroom and water droplets on the loft hatch. There also was no cavity wall insulation which was contributing to cold spots.
In any instance where residents make a report of damp and mould, we would expect the landlord to conduct an assessment to determine the cause and carry out any necessary remedial works.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states when a report is made, it will aim to assess this where possible within 10 working days. Where there are young children and vulnerabilities it will aim to assess within 3 working days. The policy states it will:
1. Complete repairs identified as quickly as possible.
2. Take actions, such as:
  1. Treatment to the affected area and follow on inspection to ensure the issue is resolved.
  2. Installation of specialist equipment such as vents, extractor fans and positive input ventilation systems.
When the resident raised concerns on 9 March 2023, the landlord arranged for an operative to attend the following day and a damp and mould treatment was carried out.
We have reviewed the repair records and can see there were several work orders raised concerning the damp and mould. These were raised on:
1. 4 April 2023 – A work order was raised to carry out an inspection. This is not showing as being completed. There are no further notes regarding this.
2. 16 May 2023 – A work order was raised to extract and reinject cavity insulation. This was carried out on 30 June 2023.
3. 30 June 2023 – A work order was raised. An operative attended on 25 July 2023. It stated the bathroom was lacking an extractor fan. This work order was raised. The notes also suggest that it had raised a job for roofers to attend.
4. 27 July 2023 – A report was raised stating the resident had no extractor fan in the bathroom which was causing damp and mould issues. On 17 October 2023 a survey for the bathroom extractor fans was completed and the details sent to the electrical manager.
5. 2 November 2023 – A work order was raised to install a wall mounted extractor fan in the bathroom. This was cancelled on 14 November 2023, as the landlord was awaiting an asbestos survey.
6. 14 December 2023 – A treatment for the damp and mould was carried out that day. The operative notes stated it was very minimal and that the roof was due to be replaced soon.
7. 17 January 2024 – A report was raised to carry out quoted works to fan installation. This was cancelled on 5 April 2024 as the contractor was not able to schedule this, the landlord stated it will bring this back in house.
8. 19 March 2024 – To install tank jackets, pipe lagging and loft hatch insulation. This was not shown at being completed.
9. 10 September 2024 – A report was raised to install fans. This was completed on 9 October 2024.
On reviewing the evidence, it appears that there were several factors possibly contributing to the damp and mould within the property. This included the roof issues, no cavity in the walls and the bathroom not having an extractor fan.
We have addressed the roof issue in the report above.
While we understand the landlord had attended to reports of damp and mould and carried out treatments, this did not appear to resolve the matter. The landlord had also attempted to resolve the issue by adding insulation to the cavity wall. However, in the landlord’s repair records we see during a later inspection carried out in 2025, it stated the insulation in the walls failed and was not done properly. We have not seen that any further works had been done to address this.
There was also a delay installing the extractor fan in the bathroom. The repair records show this was not completed until 11 months after its operative had requested this.
We understand the landlord had stated it required an asbestos survey to be carried out first. The evidence shows that on 4 January 2024 after the resident chased a repair and expressed upset over the issues in the property, the landlord informed her its contractors had been in touch. It stated the contractors had made 3 attempts to contact her but had not heard back from her. It further stated the contractors may have been given the incorrect number.
While we acknowledge the landlord’s reason for the asbestos test not being carried out sooner due to an incorrect number, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that its contractors have accurate and up-to-date contact details. Failure to do so resulted in an avoidable delay. It added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs. We also consider it to be unreasonable that after this was acknowledged, it then took a further 9 months for the extractor fan to be installed.
Overall while we understand the landlord did take steps to resolve the matter, we find the length of time to carry out the repair to be unreasonable. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Asbestos

We understand the resident had raised concerns to the landlord about an asbestos pipe in the garden attached to the wall. She wanted this to be removed. However, the landlord had stated that it would not routinely remove asbestos pipes unless there was major damage. It did ask her to let it know in future if there was any major damage to the pipe so it could investigate it.
We have reviewed an asbestos survey report which was carried out on 4 December 2019. This was prior to the resident moving in. It shows that asbestos was detected in the external downpipe. The report recommended the landlord inspect at intervals and update the register. The surveyor did not state any remedial works were required or that it posed an immediate risk to the resident.
The landlord’s website provides residents with information about asbestos and how this is handled. It explains that if left undisturbed, it is generally not a risk. However, if it finds any asbestos containing materials have been damaged, it will use specialist contractors to attend and remediate. It further states if residents think an asbestos containing material has been damaged in or around the property, they should inform the landlord.
In this instance we have not seen any evidence to suggest the resident had made a report that the downpipe was damaged. We have also not seen evidence to suggest it posed an immediate risk to the resident.
In summary while we understand the resident’s concerns regarding the asbestos pipe in the garden, we find that the landlord’s response to her reports was in line with its guidelines. It appropriately addressed her concerns, making her aware of its position.

Multiple repairs to property – summary

Our investigation identified several concerns that should have been addressed during the void period. Additionally, we found that when the resident raised repair reports, the landlord failed to complete some of the necessary works within a reasonable timeframe.
In its formal response, the landlord awarded £300 compensation to acknowledge its failures. However, this amount did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Additionally, we identified further service failures that were not originally addressed. For these reasons, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair reports.
The landlord informed us on 1 July 2025 that it had reconsidered its position on the complaint and offered the resident an additional £970 in October 2024. This was a year after its final complaint response had been issued. The landlord has confirmed to us that a total of £1,270 has been paid to the resident.
We accept that this compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right. However, the landlord offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted – some twelve months later. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process or shortly after once works were completed.
While it was positive that the landlord reviewed the case and made a new offer of compensation, an effective complaint procedure should identify significant service failures at the earliest opportunity. It should aim to provide reasonable redress from the very first stage. This ensures fairness to all residents who access its complaint handling procedures.
As the landlord’s offer of redress during the complaints process was not sufficient to recognise the impact and failings on the resident, we have made an overall finding of maladministration in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and the repairs needed. However we have not ordered further compensation in this case, as the landlord’s subsequent payment was appropriate. We have made an order for an apology and for the landlord to feedback to us on what it has learnt from this case.

Safety concerns regarding the hedge

We understand the resident had requested the existing hedge in her back garden which was on the boundary be removed and replaced with a fence. She had stated in the winter months the hedge was sparse and could be walked through. On 27 April 2023 she informed the landlord she was concerned about safety. She stated on 25 and 26 April 2023 a stranger tried to take her 5-year-old by offering sweets. Both incidents were reported to the police.
We have reviewed the landlord’s policies and it does not reference its responsibilities with regard to the hedge or the fence. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the boundary fencing in good repair.
In this instance we have not seen evidence to suggest the hedge were insufficient or that the landlord was obliged to carry out improvements to the property by installing a new fence in place of the hedge. However, when the resident raised concerns of safeguarding the landlord was required to carry out an assessment. The evidence shows the landlord raised a job on 28 April 2023 for its surveyor to inspect the area on 12 May 2023. We have not seen the outcome of this inspection.
The repair records show the landlord arranged a further hedge inspection on 22 June 2023. This was carried out on 5 July 2023. The surveyor’s notes stated the hedge formed a sufficient boundary, but this was due to it being summer. Images provided by the resident showed in the winter the hedge was sparse and did not provide a sufficient boundary. The evidence shows that following this inspection, the landlord raised a work order on 6 July 2023.
In its stage two response dated 18 July 2023, the landlord informed the resident it would install fencing in the front of the hedge to provide security. The repair records show this was completed on 23 January 2024.
While we recognise this home improvement was completed 6 months after the report was raised on 6 July 2023. We do not consider this timeframe to be unreasonable. Once the landlord confirmed its position, it kept the resident informed and took steps to progress the installation. Given the fencing works can required planning, contractor availability, and scheduling, the time taken falls within what we would expect for non-urgent works of this nature.
In summary, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a fence. Whilst it is noted that it initially declined to replace the hedge, there is no evidence to suggest that it was obliged to do so, and it appropriately explained its position to the resident. Following further consideration after the resident’s reports of safety concerns it then agreed to have this replaced.

Complaint handling

We understand the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s delay when handling the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days. In the event response times are extended the resident will be notified and will be updated. For stage two, it will aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
The evidence shows the resident raised a formal complaint on 10 March 2023 as she had not received a response, she had asked for the case to be escalated to stage two on 28 June 2023 and we also contacted the landlord regarding this. The landlord provided a stage one response on 30 June 2023.
The resident’s complaint was escalated on 28 June 2023. This was prompted by our involvement and the landlord issued its stage two response on 18 July 2023. Throughout this period, we can see the resident expressed upset with the length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the complaint.
At stage two the resident had escalated her complaint on 28 June 2023, and the landlord provided a response on 18 July 2023. This response was provided within a reasonable timeframe.
We have not seen any evidence to support why there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage one response. Further we have not seen in its formal response that it acknowledged the delay or apologised for this. The delay caused avoidable frustration for the resident, who had to seek our help to get a response, adding to her overall distress. With this in mind we have found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage one complaint.
As stated above, the landlord reconsidered its position regarding its failures in October 2024. It wrote to the resident apologising for its complaint handling and offered her compensation of £250. This was part of the £970 offered.
Overall, we find this amount to be proportionate and therefore will not ask the landlord to compensate the resident further. The £250 offered fairly reflects the landlord’s failure to provide a timely response and the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Regarding our determination, it will remain as a service failure for the reasons explained in paragraph 94 of this report. However we are satisfied the offer was appropriate and therefore will not make a further order of compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property and repairs needed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of safety concerns regarding the hedges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The landlord to write a formal apology to the resident for its repairs and complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide feedback to our service on what is has learnt from this case.
All orders should be completed within 3 weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to our service.

Recommendation

The landlord should ensure that all compensation considerations are fully addressed within the internal complaints process, rather than after it has concluded. This should be taken as a learning opportunity to improve future complaint handling and ensure timely offers of redress.