Sovereign Network Group (202341831)

Decision
Case ID	202341831
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 February 2026

Background

1. During May 2023 decorators attended the resident’s property. They told her there were patches on the ceilings. She asked the landlord to inspect the roof space because she was concerned about mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. While some of the delays resolving the damp and mould were outside the landlord’s control, the overall delay was unreasonable. The landlord failed to adhere to its damp and repairs policies. It also failed to consider the impact on the resident’s health and its communication did not demonstrate any concern or empathy for her situation.

Handling of associated complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed. It apologised and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £720 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to her reports of damp and mould. 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 any payments it has already made.	No later than 04 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £100 for its delayed stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider if its damp and mould policy adequately sets out its response to high levels of condensation where mould is not necessarily visible.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 November 2023	The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its handling of appointments in response to her reports of damp and mould. She asked to make a formal complaint.
29 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it: partially upheld the complaint had not met its service level agreement for some appointments had not found any damp and mould but had agreed to assess the cavity insulation would contact its contractors to arrange dates for outstanding works
5 December 2023	The resident called to say the contractor who attended that day was late. She told the landlord that when they arrived they said the job was too big for them and left. She asked to escalate her complaint.
13 December 2023	The landlord emailed the resident to confirm the complaint had been escalated.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it: partially upheld the complaint due to a lack of communication and delays had identified cold spots and condensation in the property and was carrying out works to resolve the issue had enclosed a public liability form for the resident to make a claim for damages to her health and/or belongings apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint had provided feedback from the complaint to property services to monitor contractor jobs through to completion had also highlighted to the locality manager the need to keep residents updated offered £470 comprised of: –       £100 for the delay in the cavity wall insulation being checked –       £75 for the lack of communication –       £75 for distress and inconvenience –       £100 for the delays in its stage 2 complaint response –       £120 towards the cost of running a dehumidifier
Referral to the Ombudsman	In the resident’s call to us on 29 August 2024, she asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to identify the root cause of the problem and review its offer of compensation.

 

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	Response to reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

6. The repair logs dated 11 May 2023 show the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to inspect the roof space because she was concerned about mould. It booked an appointmentto attend in June 2023. Updates on the logs show the resident called the landlord on 14 June 2023 to ask to rearrange. The appointment was rebooked for 20 July 2023. However, it was then moved to 21 September 2023 at the resident’s request.
7. Considering the landlord had not already attended by 14 June 2023, it did not adhere to the timescales in its damp and mould policy to attend within 10 days. However, we acknowledge the subsequent delays were outside its control.
8. When the landlord attended on 21 September 2023 it said there were no issues. However, it said works to carry out stain blocking and painting were required. While its attendance was positive there’s no evidence it carried out a thorough damp and mould inspection. It was therefore unable to demonstrate it had complied with its damp policy to consider all potential causes of damp, mould and condensation. The resident’s frustration was evident in her call to the landlord on 29 September 2023when she reported damp throughout the property.
9. Also on 29 September 2023 the landlord raised a works order to inspect, treat and identify the cause of any damp and mould. When it attended on 4 October 2023 it noted there were black spots “all over” the property. It requested that a building inspection be carried out. While this was positive this was the third appointment in a matter of weeks to investigate the same issue which caused inconvenience to the resident.
10. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 4 October 2023 when she said she was unhappy with how long it was taking. It failed to demonstrate that it was adhering to its damp and mould policy to take a customer-centric approach to resolution.
11. The resident called the landlord again on 5 October 2023 to report she was having problems breathing and her whole house was damp. On the same day the landlord raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection. It also raised an order to inspect the roof for leaks.
12. The repair logs show that the landlord called the resident on 6 October 2023 to book the damp and mould inspection. The resident subsequently asked to rebook the appointment on 2 occasions. The delay in the landlord’s attendance was outside of its control. The repair logs say it attended on 30 October 2023. We’ve not seen any reports setting out the outcome of the inspection which is a record keeping failure.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 April 2023 said that the inspection concluded the marks were not mould. It said they were cold spots from the dot and dab plasterboard system combined with condensation. It did not believe they were mould spores. It said adequate heating and ventilation was required to prevent this.
14. While this was positive there’s no evidence that the landlord considered the impact the condensation was having on the resident. This was relevant given her reports that the situation was impacting on her health. It failed to demonstrate that it adhered to its policy to understand the health risk associated with damp and mould.
15. On 3 November 2023 the landlord appropriately raised a works order to check levels of insulation. Also on this date, the resident emailed the landlord setting out her concerns about her health for which she was undergoing tests. There’s no evidence that it considered the information she provided to take a customer-centric approach in line with its damp and mould policy.
16. On 13 November 2023 the landlord appropriately chased the contractor to ask when they were attending for the insulation. It asked the contractor to contact the resident to book the appointment. While this was positive there’s no evidence that the landlord updated the resident accordingly to manage her expectations. On 15 November 2023 the resident called the landlord to complain that she’d contacted the contractor herself to book the appointment. She was unhappy that she’d had to chase. Her concerns were reasonable because the onus should not be on the resident to book repairs.
17. On 20 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor inspected the property. They said there was some staining on the walls and ceilings. It said the marks on the walls were due to dot and dab showing through the plaster. Marks on the ceiling were caused by gaps in the loft insulation. It recommended stain blocking the walls and adjusting/topping up the loft insulation.
18. The resident called the landlord on 24 and 29 November 2023 to try to discuss the inspection. There’s no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 November of 2023 said the roof inspection was arranged for 4 January 2024. This was 91 days after the job was raised on 5 October 2023. It also said works to the insulation would take place on 1 February 2024. This was 90 days after the job was raised on 3 November 2023. The landlord therefore failed to comply with its repairs policy which says it will complete repairs within 38 days of a repair being reported.
20. The landlord’s response also said it had “no sway” over the availability of its contractors which was inappropriate. This is because we expect landlords to have monitoring systems in place to ensure their contractors respond in line with their policies.
21. On 5 December 2023 the resident called the landlord to report that the operative had not arrived for a damp and mould appointment. She said when they did arrive, they said the job was too big for them and left because they only had wipes to clean the mould. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s account. It was inappropriate that, having already inspected the property, its contractors were not sufficiently prepared to carry out works as necessary. The handling of the appointment caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
22. During her call the resident reported having a chest infection which was being treated by antibiotics. The landlord raised a works order to deliver a dehumidifier the following day at her request. This was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.
23. Also on 13 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an action plan. She said her health improved when she was away from the property but got worse upon her return. She also called later that day because a visit due to take place had not happened. The landlord’s evidence shows the operative was unwell. We understand that sickness may impact on appointments. However, the landlord should proactively communicate with residents to advise them accordingly. The resident said she was at her “wits end.”The evidence shows that ineffective handling of the 2 repair appointments compounded the resident’s existing distress.
24. An internal email dated 18 December 2023 confirmed the landlord visited the property on 15 December 2023. It told the resident there was staining from cold spots but the resident asserted it was black mould. It confirmed its plan of action was to raise a quote for loft insulation and to address the stains. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the inspection because it did not take damp readings. She was also concerned that the landlord wanted to collect the dehumidifier which was filling with water.
25. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of condensation on the resident’s ongoing health concerns. This was further evidence that it failed to comply with its damp and mould policy as set out above.
26. The repair logs show that the landlord was due to attend the property on 12 January 2024 to renew the insulation. When it failed to do so the resident called the contractor to rebook for 19 January 2024. This was further evidence of ineffective management of repair appointments, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
27. The repair logs show that on 12 January 2024 the landlord raised a works order to upgrade the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. On 19 January 2024 it raised a works order to install data loggers.
28. A damp and mould inspection carried out on 26 January 2024 confirmed the property was suffering from condensation and that it was evident in all rooms of the property. It recommended further steps including installing a humidity controlled bathroom extractor fan and use of data loggers. On 30 January 2024 a works order was raised to install a tile vent above the bathroom to link to the new extractor fan.
29. The steps taken by the landlord in January 2024 were positive. However, they took place 8 months after it was first put on notice of the issue. We acknowledge the resident asked to rearrange some of the appointments. However, the issue may have been resolved much sooner if it had carried out a robust damp and mould inspection at the outset.
30. An internal email dated 9 February 2024 said the contractor attended that day to carry out a mould wash and survey. It said there were a few “small areas” where damp and mould was present. The resident declined the mould wash because she was concerned about the use of harmful chemicals.
31. On 8 March 2024 the resident called the landlord to follow up because she’d not received an update regarding the mould wash. Its stage 2 complaint response of 26 April 2024 said it offered to use an organic product which the resident declined. It’s unclear when this took place which is a record keeping failure.
32. The evidence shows that humidity loggers were installed from 1 March to 12 March 2024.There’s no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the outcome which would’ve been appropriate. Its stage 2 response of 26 April 2024 said the results from the data loggers were within the normal range.
33. An internal email dated 4 April 2024 confirmed that the landlord had installed loft insulation. It had also checked the wall insulation which was in order. While this was positive the landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 November 2023 said it would inspect the cavity insulation as part of its complaint resolution. The delay of 5 months was therefore unreasonable. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 April 2024 appropriately acknowledged its failure and offered compensation to try to put things right.
34. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 April 2024 confirmed that it upgraded the kitchen extractor fan and assessed the bathroom extractor fan on 19 January 2024. It had subsequently arranged to fit a roof vent tile on 22 April 2024. However, the resident was unavailable on that date so it was rearranged to 14 June 2024. It’s unclear why an appointment could not be arranged sooner.
35. The landlord’s records show that:
    1. a mould wash was carried out on 14 May 2024
    2. work to the bathroom extractor fan was completed on 21 June 2024
    3. redecoration works were completed by 2 October 2024
36. We do not consider impact on health in the same way that a court or personal injury claim might. However, we do consider whether the landlord’s response to health issues raised by the resident were reasonable. In this case the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to make a claim with its insurers. However, it failed to demonstrate any meaningful consideration of her health issues. Its communication with her also failed to express any concern or empathy for her lived experience.
37. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £600 to £1,000 are appropriate where the failure had a significant impact on the resident. In ordering £720 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s communication failures and its failure to respond to their account of events.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

38. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days in line with the Code. If it needs more time it may extend the deadline by a further 10 working days at both stages which is over and above the requirements of the Code. Therefore its policy is in line with the Code.
39. On 15 November 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. It appropriately provided its response on 29 November 2023 in line with the timescales set out in the Code and its policy.
40. An internal email dated 5 December 2023 confirmed that the resident had asked to escalate her complaint. On 13 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint. However, it did not issue its response until 26 April 2024. This was 99 working days after the complaint was made and was therefore significantly out of time. The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £100 to try to put things right.
41. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate to put right failings which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with our remedies guidance. It was also in line with the landlord’s compensation guide which says it may offer compensation where failure of service caused distress or inconvenience.
42. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Learning

43. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it had raised the need for learning with the relevant departments. It would also have been appropriate for it to have confirmed what it would do differently as part of its complaint resolution.
44. The landlord should also consider its learning regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about her health and how it will do things differently.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

45. Overall, the landlord provided appropriate records for the purposes of this investigation. There were examples where the landlord’s record keeping could’ve been improved including setting out clear outcomes of its inspections and recording dates of events.

Communication

46. The landlord did not always respond to the resident’s communication. It also failed to proactively update her on progress.