Sovereign Network Group (202501881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501881

Sovereign Network Group

30 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to a leak.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for the property with the landlord. The property is a first floor flat in a low rise block.
In or around February 2025 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of a repair to a leak into his flat.
On 27 February 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident’s property was affected by leaks for some time. Its response focussed on what it said was a leak the resident reported on 25 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged it had not managed the repair properly. It said the repair was delayed due to difficulty getting access to the flat above. The landlord offered the resident £391 compensation. It agreed to monitor the case and take the relevant action if the resident of the flat above did not provide access.
On or around 5 March 2025 the resident escalated the complaint. He said he did not report the leak in October 2024 but instead reported the issue more than 12 months earlier. The resident also said the response lacked an action plan and did not provide timescales for when the landlord would complete the repair.
On 7 April 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said its contractor attended on 13 February 2025 and found a leak was affecting the first floor communal hallway. The landlord said its contractor reported it completed the repair to the wall in the communal area in March 2024. However, it said it was not satisfied it had completed the repairs to the resident’s flat and it raised another repair for a new contractor to attend. The landlord offered the resident £805 compensation in total.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 13 April 2025. He was unclear as to whether the landlord resolved the leak, as the affected area in his flat remained damp. The resident said he wanted the repairs completed and additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout communication with this Service, the resident said the leak in his property has resulted in him being exposed to damp. He said the situation had a detrimental impact on his asthma. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the leak

The resident said in his complaint he had reported leaks in his property at least 12 months before he raised his complaint. The landlord has provided limited information in relation to the repair to the leak. Its repair logs show the resident reported a leak into his flat on 13 May 2024, 3 December 2024 and 27 December 2024. The landlord’s response to the complaint states it received a report from the resident on 25 October 2024, however, this is not reflected in the repair records provided.
Nevertheless, based on the evidence we have been provided, we are satisfied it shows the resident made frequent reports (within 6 months of one another) of a leak into his flat from 13 May 2024 onwards.
The landlord has not provided us with evidence of the reports from its contractor visits to the resident’s flat, prior to the resident’s complaint. Based on the information within the stage 1 response, the evidence suggests the landlord’s contractor attended on 25 October 2024, which was the same date as the resident’s report.. The landlord instructed its contractor to attend to the flat above the resident’s to trace the leak. The contractor was not able to get access to the flat above and referred the matter back to the landlord to try and gain access into the property suspected to be the source of the leak.
The landlord’s repair policy states the landlord will complete an emergency repair within 24 hours. The policy states the landlord will complete most routine repairs within a month. For routine repairs the landlord will provide updates as necessary to the resident while the job progresses.
The evidence we have demonstrates the landlord failed to progress the repair within a reasonable time following the contractor’s report of no access to the flat above. The landlord contacted the resident of the flat above on 10 February 2025. This was around 4 months since the first attempt to gain access. It asked the neighbour in the flat above to get in touch to arrange an appointment for its contractor to attend and complete an investigation. There is no evidence of an attempt by the landlord to contact the neighbour in the flat above prior to February 2025.
On 13 February 2025 the landlord’s contractor attended the property. Based on the report, it appears the visit was to the communal area and not the resident’s property. The contractor reported a leak affecting the communal hallway on the first floor. The leak originated from a flat on the second floor. The contractor reported it required access to those flats as soon as possible.
Following its visit on 13 February 2025 the evidence shows the landlord, made contact with the neighbour in the flat on the second floor. The landlord asked the neighbour again, to call and schedule an appointment.
The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. We have not therefore, been able to ascertain when it received the complaint, or its content. However, its stage 1 response indicated it received the complaint on 9 February 2025.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 February 2025. It acknowledged it became aware of access issues with the flat above in October 2024. The landlord said its contractor attempted visits to the neighbours flat on 9 December 2024 and 3 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged it did not follow through with chasing the resident of the flat above for access after its contractor had informed it this was required to fix the leak. It apologised and said it contacted the resident of the flat above with a deadline to arrange an appointment. It said if this did not happen, it would take further actions against the neighbour in the flat above. The landlord offered the resident £391 in acknowledgment of time taken to resolve the leak and the inconvenience the resident experienced.
We do not have records of the visits the landlord said its contractor made to the flat above between October 2024 and January 2025. Nevertheless, it is evident from the landlord’s account of events it was unable to complete repairs during those visits. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation in the circumstances as the leak remained unresolved due to access issues and its failure to act on this within a reasonable time.
The landlord agreed to monitor the situation, however, it did not provide the resident with any timeframes about when he could expect it to take action. As the leak was ongoing the lack of definitive timeframes was unreasonable. In addition, despite its agreement to monitor the situation, there is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident with updates on the progress of the repair, after its response.
The resident escalated his complaint on or around 5 March 2025. He was unhappy the landlord only considered its handling of the repair to the leak from October 2024. He said he reported the leak at least a year before and chased the landlord to resolve it. The resident also said the landlord’s response did not provide definitive timeframes as to when it would take action to address the leak.
On 7 April 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said as part of the stage 2 process, it would look at the repair history up to 12 months prior. The landlord confirmed the outcome of the contractors visit on 13 February 2025, where it found a leak in the communal area. The landlord said its contractor completed a repair to the wall in the communal hallway on 27 March 2025. The landlord said it was not satisfied it had completed the repairs to the resident’s flat and it raised another repair for its new contractor to attend.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord did not provide an adequate response to the substantive complaint. The landlord said it had considered the repair records from the previous 12 months but gave no conclusion as to it findings. The landlord relied on its contractor’s feedback, which identified a leak in the communal hallway, rather than in the resident’s flat. It did not demonstrate what action it took, if any, to address the source of the leak affecting the resident’s flat. The landlord admitted it was not satisfied it had completed the repair to the resident’s flat. However, it failed to inform the resident when the contractor would attend. This left the issue unresolved and the resident without clarity on how long the repair would take.
The resident’s tenancy confirms, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair any installations it provides for water heating, the supply of water and sanitation. The repairs policy requires the landlord to complete any repairs within a reasonable time.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord has failed to provide the resident a lasting resolution to the leak he reported in his flat since May 2024. While the landlord acknowledged its failures in both complaint responses, it did not take action during the course of the complaint, to ensure it repaired the leak.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered the resident £805 compensation. This considered the period between 25 October 2024 and 9 April 2025 and comprised:
1. £460 for high impact delay for 23 weeks.
2. £230 for medium impact distress for 23 weeks.
3. £115 for high impact time and trouble for 23 weeks.
The landlord’s response to the complaint did not provide an appropriate resolution to the substantive repair, which remained outstanding when it provided its final response. There is no evidence of any communication from the landlord to the resident while the repair was ongoing. This was contrary to the landlord’s repairs policy, which requires it to provide updates to residents as a repair progresses.
The landlord’s consideration of compensation was limited to October 2024 onwards. This was unfair, as its own repair records confirm the resident reported the leak before this date. It was therefore, unreasonable for the landlord not to take the earlier reports into account when it calculated compensation. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failure to address the leak within a reasonable timeframe. Its acceptance there was no evidence of it completing repairs to the resident’s flat, is compounded by its response failing to provide an action plan to resolve the outstanding repair.
In addition the landlord provided limited information in relation to the repair to the leak. For example, its repair logs show 3 reports from the resident about the leak prior to his complaint. These relate to reports in May 2024 and December 2024. The landlord’s complaint responses refer to a report the resident made in October 2024. This is not reflected in the evidence the landlord provided us for the purposes of this investigation. Furthermore, the records do not show the outcome of its contractor’s visits to the resident’s flat following his reports.
It is unclear whether the landlord failed to keep accurate records or failed to provide the relevant records to the Ombudsman. Regardless, this is evidence of record keeping issues. The landlord’s failure to provide the required information in this case has impeded our investigation into its handling of the substantive issues of complaint.
These combined failures result in a maladministration finding in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the leak. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £1000 compensation. We have ordered this compensation in line with our remedies guidance which states this amount is appropriate where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
We do not have evidence to show the landlord resolved the leak, or the associated water damage in the resident’s flat. The landlord’s records show its contractor identified the potential source of the leak in September 2025. We have made an additional order for the landlord to clarify to the resident its plan of action to complete the repair to the leak and the associated damage to his flat. This must include timescales for attendance and completion and an agreement to provide the resident with updates in line with its repairs policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the leak.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1000 for the impact as a result of its handling of the repair to the leak. The compensation is inclusive of the £805 the landlord offered in its response to the complaint if this has not already been paid to the resident. The additional £195 we have ordered must be paid directly to the resident and should not be used to offset any arrears the resident may have on his rent account.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must provide the resident with an action plan, in writing, to address the outstanding repair to the leak and any water damage to the resident’s flat as a result. The landlord must provide in this plan:
1. Information about when the resident can expect contractors to attend. The landlord must provide a date to start any works required within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
2. What action the resident is to expect during each visit.
3. An agreement by the landlord to provide regular updates to the resident until the repair to the leak and the associated damage to the property has been completed.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide us with evidence of the compensation payment and a copy of the action plan.