Sovereign Network Group (202408285)

Decision
Case ID	202408285
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. He has complained about delays to repairs after raising concerns that the fascias and soffits were rotting. The landlord has partially resolved the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of the fascias and soffits.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the fascias and soffits.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Fascias and soffits

4. The landlord repeatedly exceeded its repair timescales, delayed in raising follow-on works, and failed to maintain adequate oversight of the resident’s repairs, resulting in the works taking nearly 6 years to reach a conclusion. Throughout this period, it did not provide the resident with sufficient updates, leaving him without clarity on what action would be taken or when the issues would be resolved.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages and did not escalate the complaint when the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction, requiring our intervention. It also failed to monitor or follow through on commitments made in its final response after the complaints process ended.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his reports about the condition of the fascias and soffits. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 17 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February 2020 to March 2023	The resident reported concerns to the landlord about the condition of the fascias and soffits.
21 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said scaffolding had been erected to begin the works in November 2023, but he was later informed that the repairs could not proceed due to the presence of asbestos. He advised that he had contacted the landlord numerous times for an update but had not received any response.
19 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it had failed to communicate with the resident in a timely manner. It explained that a request had been made to its planned maintenance team for a roof replacement.
9 April 2024	The resident made a further complaint to the landlord. He said there had been a “complete silence” regarding the outstanding repairs and he would be contacting the Ombudsman.
6 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint on the basis that there were delays completing the repairs as well as poor communication. It said that its contractor would contact the resident to schedule the outstanding work. The landlord also offered £250 in compensation for the delays, poor communication, and complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said the repairs had not been completed in full and that the presence of the scaffolding had affected his enjoyment of the garden.
19 January 2026	During his contact with us, the resident confirmed that scaffolding had been erected and that work had begun that day on the gable end of the property. As an outcome, he said he would like the landlord to improve its communication with residents. He also asked us to review the level of compensation he was offered.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the fascias and soffits
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the fascias and soffits on 24 February 2020, reporting that they were rotten and damp. The landlord attended on 17 July 2020 – 5 months after the repair was raised – significantly exceeding its 38-day timescale for non-emergency repairs. Although an inspection was completed, the outcome is unclear due to gaps in the landlord’s records.
7. The resident raised the issue again on 16 November 2021, explaining that no action had been taken following the July 2020 inspection. The landlord attended on 13 January 2022, 58 days later, exceeding its non-emergency repair timescale. Another inspection was completed, and records indicate that an internal email was sent, but no further action followed. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord again on 1 March 2023, reporting that the fascia was now coming away and completely rotten. By this point, 3 years had passed since the resident’s initial report, and aside from inspections, the landlord had taken no substantive action to address his concerns. This was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
8. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 28 April 2023, 58 days after the resident’s subsequent report, again exceeding its non-emergency repair timescale. Records from the inspection confirmed that the fascias and soffits were rotten and required either replacement or repair and repainting. However, follow-on works were not raised until 3 July 2023, 66 days after the inspection. The reason for the delay is unclear, but the length of time taken to raise the works was inappropriate, particularly given the delays the resident had already experienced.
9. In July 2023, the landlord also instructed its contractor to carry out an asbestos survey, which reported in August 2023 that no asbestos was present in the under‑cloaking of the roof. Despite this, the landlord did not progress the follow‑on works, which was unreasonable. Gaps in its records between August and November 2023 make its actions during this period unclear and indicate shortcomings in its record keeping.
10. On 23 November 2023, the landlord requested a further asbestos survey so that the soffits could be sampled ahead of works scheduled for 29 November 2023. This indicates that the earlier survey had not been sufficient to confirm whether asbestos was present in all relevant areas, resulting in further delays. On 4 December 2023, the landlord recorded that asbestos had been identified and the works could not proceed, with a report on 12 December 2023 confirming this. Although the landlord’s approach aligned with its asbestos safety management plan, it was inappropriate that it took 7 months from the most recent inspection to establish the asbestos risk.
11. At this stage, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident, but there is no evidence of any communication. Instead, the landlord removed the scaffolding that had been erected for the works, prompting the resident to chase it for an update. This likely caused him further frustration and uncertainty, and contributed to his decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
12. On 2 January 2024, the landlord updated the resident, explaining that asbestos had been found in the rear soffit of his property and that a request had been made to its planned maintenance team for a roof replacement from April 2024. This position was reiterated in its stage 1 response on 19 January 2024. However, on 5 February 2024, the landlord raised a major works job to remove the existing soffits and fascias and replace them with new ones. It is unclear why the landlord changed its position, and there is no evidence that it communicated this revised plan to the resident, which was unreasonable.
13. The landlord began progressing the works from 6 March 2024, obtaining quotes from its contractors. The works were initially scheduled for 15 April 2024 but were rearranged at the resident’s request. Scaffolding was erected on 8 May 2024, after which further delays occurred due to adverse weather, access arrangements and contractor availability. As multiple specialist contractors were required because of the asbestos, some of these delays were unavoidable, and the landlord took reasonable steps to try to move the works forward. However, the prolonged presence of the scaffolding understandably caused frustration for the resident, and these delays were compounded by limited communication from the landlord during this period, which left him uncertain about progress. This ultimately led the resident to make a further complaint on 11 June 2024.
14. On 27 June 2024, the existing soffits and fascias were removed, and asbestos air testing was completed. Between 28 June and 16 July 2024, the contractor made further attempts to arrange follow‑on works to install the new soffits and fascias at the rear of the property but encountered access difficulties. It is unclear when the subsequent works were completed, as there are further gaps in the landlord’s records between July and October 2024. In its final response on 11 November 2024, the landlord stated that works had been completed to the front and rear of the property, but that works to the gable end remained outstanding. It said that its contractor would contact the resident within the month to schedule the outstanding works.
15. When we requested an update as part of this investigation, the landlord provided emails from its contractor stating that it had tried to contact the resident on 5 occasions between 9 June and 1 October 2025 to arrange the outstanding works. However, when asked, the landlord was unable to explain the lack of contact with the resident between November 2024 and June 2025. It is therefore unclear why it took 7 months from its final response on 11 November 2024 to make further attempts to schedule the remaining works. This reflects further shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping and communication, and makes it difficult for us to fully understand the cause of the additional delays.
16. When providing its updates, the landlord advised that it contacted the resident and scheduled works to begin on 16 January 2026. During our contact with the resident on 19 January 2026, he confirmed that scaffolding had been erected and that a contractor had attended that morning to begin works to the soffits and fascias on the gable end of the property. Although the works were close to completion at the time of writing this report, this progress came nearly 6 years after the resident’s initial report. While there were some mitigating factors, it is our view that there were failings in the landlord’s actions throughout the timeline of our investigation which unreasonably prolonged the process and contributed to the overall delay.
17. In its final response, the landlord offered £175 in compensation for poor communication and delays. We consider an additional payment of £425 to be appropriate, bringing the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £600. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident and where the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

18. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2‑stage complaints process. While the policy does not specify timescales for acknowledging complaints, it states that responses should be issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. At stage 1, it took the landlord 18 working days to provide its response, exceeding the timescales set out in its policy.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will recognise an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint and will accept requests for review within one year of the stage 1 response. On 9 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord stating that he would be contacting the Ombudsman as there had been a “complete silence” from it regarding the outstanding repairs. Despite this, the landlord did not offer to escalate the resident’s complaint, which was unreasonable given his reference to the Ombudsman. In line with its policy, the landlord should have treated this correspondence as an expression of dissatisfaction and escalated the matter to stage 2. It did not do this, which likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
20. The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint led him to contact us on 20 July 2024, after which we had to prompt the landlord to issue its final response. On 3 October 2024, we contacted the landlord and requested it to provide a written response by 10 October 2024. It subsequently issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024 – 19 working days after the deadline we had set. We acknowledge, however, that part of this delay resulted from our correspondence being sent to the incorrect point of contact.
21. The landlord failed to monitor or follow through on the commitments it made after the complaints process had ended. There is no evidence that its contractor made any contact to schedule the outstanding works until June 2025. The landlord should have tracked the outstanding actions identified at stage 2 and provided the resident with regular updates. It did not do this, which was unreasonable. As a result, it missed an opportunity to resolve the issues and did not use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
22. At stage 1, the landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident despite upholding his complaint. This was inconsistent with the approach set out in its compensation policy. It appropriately addressed this omission in its final response by offering compensation for both the substantive issue and its complaint handling. The landlord offered £75 in recognition of its delay in issuing the stage 1 response. However, given the additional complaint handling failures identified in this investigation, this amount is not considered proportionate redress.
23. We consider an additional payment of £125 to be appropriate to recognise the landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint and to monitor the commitments it made in its final response. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay for complaint handling to £200. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

24. The landlord should implement a system for tracking and monitoring outstanding commitments made during and after the complaints process. This will help prevent delays and ensure the complaints process is used effectively to resolve issues.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s repair records did not contain sufficient detail about the inspections carried out, particularly those completed in July 2020 and January 2022. As a result, there was no record of the surveyor’s finding or what was discussed with the resident. There were also notable gaps in the landlord’s records between August and November 2023, and again between July and October 2024, which made its actions during these periods unclear. The landlord should ensure it has effective systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents, including notes from phone calls and home visits, as well as the outcomes of operative, contractor, and surveyor visits.
26. The landlord was unable to explain the lack of contact with the resident between November 2024 and June 2025, instead directing the matter to its contractor for an explanation. This highlights the need for improved record keeping between the landlord and its contractors.

Communication

27. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek updates regarding the repairs. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues.