Sovereign Network Group (202509495)

Decision
Case ID	202509495
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since July 1999. The property is a 3-bedroom, mid-terraced house. In January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming into the backroom/office from the roof. As the landlord did not resolve the leak and subsequent damp and mould the resident raised her complaint in November 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Repairs to the roof.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The resident’s Right to Buy (RTB) application.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to repairs to the roof.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s RTB application.
7. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord relating to its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings in how it responded to the roof repairs and offered compensation. However, further compensation was required to adequately address the impact to the resident.
9. The landlord failed to treat the damp and mould reported by the resident. It also did not acknowledge this failing and did not offer adequate compensation to address the impact on the resident.
10. The landlord adequately explained to the resident why she did not qualify to purchase her property under the RTB scheme and did so within the relevant timescales.
11. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in recognition of these.

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 the landlord’s management team. 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 16 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: The £350 offered in for its stage 2 response for its poor handling of the roof repairs, as well as an additional £150. The £150 offered in for its stage 2 response towards the costs of the repairs the resident paid for, as well as an additional £300 for its failure to treat the 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 from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the roof and any outstanding damp and mould issues. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed and a timed action plan for any identified repairs is provided to the resident and this Service by the due date.   The roof inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.   If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspections, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the roof inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the roof of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the leak. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 16 December 2025
4	Works order The landlord’s timed action plans for any roof and damp and mould repairs must be overseen such that all reasonable attempts are made to complete the works within 12 weeks of the date of this report and include at minimum the following elements: –       When the works will take place, how long it anticipates these works will take and whether the resident can remain in the property while the works are in progress. –       What, if any, interim repairs or other measures it intends to carry out until the works are completed and when these will happen. –       If the landlord requires more than 12 weeks to complete the works, clearly explain why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works.	No later than 10 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the £75 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 November 2024	The resident raised her complaint. She said she had reported a leak from the roof to the landlord in January 2024 but it had failed to resolve the issue. She said the works in April 2024 were the only attempt the landlord had made to fix the leak and despite chasing it multiple times it had taken no further action. She said the leak had caused interior damage to the backroom/office. She said there had been issues with damp in the living room since 2010. She said the landlord had failed to resolve the issues with the exterior of the property which had deteriorated due to damp and mould. She said she had paid to have the exterior issues resolved and wanted the landlord to reimburse her. She also said that due to the costs of maintaining the property she wanted the landlord to send her a RTB application and be moved to another property.
12 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the delays in repair works were due to resource issues with the roofer. It said it had received the quotes on 10 February 2025 and these were being authorised. It said there was no set timeframe for these works but it would carry them out within a reasonable timeframe. It offered £30 compensation for the delays. It said that once the roofing works were completed and the root cause addressed, it would arrange to inspect and rectify any damage. It asked the resident to provide invoices for the exterior works she said she had had done so it could consider reimbursement. It said the RTB process was separate to the complaints process and the resident would need to follow the steps on the landlord’s website. The landlord also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £30 compensation for this.
4 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she accepted there may have been staffing issues. However, the landlord had failed to resolve the roofing issues for over a year and she felt this was a ‘severe breach’ of its duty as a landlord. She rejected the total offer of £60 compensation as she said it was not enough to address the damp and mould damage caused by the leak. The resident forwarded the landlord the invoices for the mould/algae removal, wall repairs and repainting the front of the house she had arranged. She said she wanted the landlord to reimburse the full costs, £935, under the terms of her original 1999 tenancy agreement. The resident also said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her RTB application. She said it was unfair that the maximum discount under RTB was £16,000 as this would not account for the ongoing and unexpected costs she had incurred.
14 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication with the resident, the delays in carrying out works on the roof and the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1. The landlord said that the quotes received in February 2025 were still going through the approval process. It said it could not give a timescale for how long this would take but that once they were approved its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. The landlord confirmed that with regard to the works the resident had arranged herself, it was only responsible for the terms of the most recent policies and not those from an old tenancy agreement. It said that under the current repairs policy resident’s needed to obtain the landlord’s permission before carrying out any works on their home and it would be at their own cost once permission was provided. The landlord provided the resident with an insurance form for internal and personal item damage caused by the damp and mould. The landlord also said it had reviewed the resident’s customer account and had not found evidence of communication about an RTB application other than through the complaint. It said it would arrange for an application to be sent to her. In recognition of the poor service, communication and complaint handling the landlord offered a total of £575 compensation.
28 August 2025	The resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs, damp and mould and her RTB application. She said she wanted the landlord to: –       Identify the causes of the damp and mould in the lounge and carry out the appropriate remedial works. –       Carry out repair works to the wall in the back bedroom damaged by the leak. –       Review R’s RTB application and the amount of discount that it would be willing to offer her. –       Reimburse her for the external decoration work she had carried out on the property.

 

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	Roof repairs
Finding	Maladministration

12. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete emergency repairs on the same day or within 24 hours of them being reported. In the case of non-emergency repairs, it says it aims to complete these within 38 days of the repair being reported. The policy also says follow on repair works may be placed onto a programme for completion within 6 months of the date of the original repair visit.
14. The resident reported that there was a leak coming into the back bedroom from the roof on 5 January 2024.
15. The landlord’s records show that it was due to visit the property on 21 March 2024 but this was rescheduled to 10 April 2024 due to illness. The resident later rescheduled that appointment to 26 April 2024 and the inspection took place on that day. The records show the landlord found that it needed to undo previous works on the roof and renew the lead in the parapet, wall and chimney.
16. Between 28 May 2024 and 11 November 2024 the resident chased the landlord for updates several times in May and July 2024. In each update request she said the landlord had not responded to her previous communications. In her update request of 27 July 2024 she also informed the landlord that the leak got worse every time it rained and it was damaging the bedroom. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to keep the resident updated and for it not to reply to her communications. This caused the resident unnecessary distress as the leak continued to worsen but also time and trouble as she had to chase the landlord.
17. The landlord’s notes from the resident’s call on 27 July 2024 say it had requested a quote from its roofers on 10 July 2024. The notes say it chased them and was told they would provide a quote by the end of the day. It informed the resident of this and she agreed to wait a further 10 working days. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord updated the resident further between this conversation and its stage 1 response dated 12 February 2025. During these 7 months the resident was in regular contact with the landlord regarding issues at the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to give her any updates about the roof repairs during this period.
18. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman indicates the landlord requested the roofers quote on 10 July 2024 and chased it following the resident’s call on 27 July 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that despite not receiving the quotes it did not chase the roofers again until 11 December 2024. The roofers then provided the quote for the roof and chimney works on 10 February 2025. The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord has no control over the roofers and how long they take to provide a quote. However, landlords should be proactive in seeking to resolve issues that are brought to their attention. In this case, by failing to proactively monitor the repairs and chase the roofers for a quote the landlord missed an opportunity to potentially receive the quote earlier than it did and then start the works. As a result of this failing, the resident was left in a property with a recurring leak in the back room for over a year. This caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience as well as impacting her full enjoyment of the property. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure caused a significant delay which meant the repairs were not completed within its repairs policy timescales.
19. In its stage 1 response, dated 12 February 2025, the landlord confirmed it was reviewing the roofers quotes for authorisation. However, it said that it was unable to provide a timescale for how long this would take or when it would be in contact to arrange an appointment for the works. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response, dated 14 April 2025, that the quotes were still waiting to be authorised. It said that this was taking longer due to year end budgeting and the large cost of the job itself this. The landlord records do not show when these works were authorised. Although, they do show that it attended on 11 June 2025 and completed works on the chimney and parapet. Given the significant delay that had already taken place, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take around 4 months to authorise and start the works.
20. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to:
    1. Adequately monitor the repairs and actively chase the roofers.
    2. Complete the roof repairs within its policy timescales.
    3. Adequately communicate with the resident and keep her updated.
21. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
22. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there had been service failings with its handling of the roof repairs. It apologised for these and said it would review its procedures and processes to improve how it works. It also offered a total of £575 compensation broken down as:
    1. £250 – Timescale and delay to completing repairs.
    2. £100 – Lack of communication/updates.
    3. £75 – Complaint handling delay in responding at stage 1.
    4. £150 – Good will gesture towards the invoice for external works.

As such, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that a total of £350 compensation, for the delays and lack of communication, was offered for this head of complaint.

23. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing and offer compensation in recognition of these. However, further compensation is warranted to adequately address the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident. This is mainly in relation to the significant delay to the roof repairs caused by the landlord’s failings which in turn led to the worsening of damage to the bedroom over an extended period. Additionally, the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate with the resident caused her unnecessary and avoidable time, trouble distress and inconvenience over an extended period of time. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation for the failures identified in this report.
24. Furthermore, the resident contacted this Service on 4 November 2025 and said the property still suffers from the leak and it gets worse whenever it rains. In light of this, we order the landlord to instruct a third party to carry out a structural survey of the roof and carry out any identified repairs.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

25. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
26. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter, in order to establish the underlying cause of the issues experienced within a property, the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp, and to assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem in order to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
27. In the resident’s complaint of 11 November 2024 she said that there had been damp and mould issues in the living room since 2010. We may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of the issue arising (usually 12 months). The landlord’s records indicate the resident raised a complaint regarding a leak from next door and subsequent damp and mould in 2020. The records indicate that complaint was resolved and we have not seen evidence of any further complaints until November 2024. Due to the time between these complaints, this means we will only consider the landlord’s handling of damp and mould from November 2023 (12 months before the resident’s November 2024 complaint), up to the point the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in April 2025. Any events before or after that timeframe may be referred to for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.
28. In the resident’s complaint of 11 November 2024 she said there had been persistent damp and mould in the living room since 2010. She also said the exterior of the building had deteriorated due to the damp and mould but she had addressed these issues herself. She said there was a term in her original tenancy agreement which said the landlord would reimburse her for any works she carried out herself and she wanted the landlord to do so.
29. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 19 November 2024. The notes say some damp was found on the inside of the living room bay wall and damp stains on chimney breast. It says the landlord was unable to treat the mould because the resident needed to go out. It also says the landlord raised a job relating to the gutters and confirmed the roof works needed to be completed. The landlord’s stage 2 response also says this inspection found the bathroom extractor fan was not working correctly and instructed an electrician to inspect it. It also said that no other damp and mould washes were requested after this inspection. The records seen do not show evidence of any damp and mould treatments being carried out after this date.
30. While the resident did not request any further mould washes, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have re-arranged the mould wash. The landlord’s records from 6 February 2025 also indicate it thought the damp and mould on the chimney breast wall in the bedroom would be dealt with as part of the roof repairs. Although, the records say the landlord needed the quotes from its contractors to confirm this. In itself this was reasonable as there would be no point carrying out works on the damp and mould if the root cause had not been dealt with. However, the landlord requested these quotes on 10 July 2024 and the roofers had not responded to its chasers. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to be proactive and treat the damp and mould in the meantime to prevent it getting worse. As a result the resident was left in a property with worsening damp and mould for an extended period of time. This impacted the resident’s full enjoyment of the property. It also caused her time and trouble because she regularly contacted the landlord about the outstanding issues, including the damp and mould.
31. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident is vulnerable and should be moved from the property at an early stage.
32. The resident has said that because the landlord did not resolve the damp and mould issues, she had works carried out on the outside of the property herself. The invoice she has provided is dated 29 October 2024 and she has said she wants the landlord to reimburse these costs. She has also said there was a term in her original tenancy agreement which required it to do so. However, the resident’s 1999 tenancy agreement does not contain reference to a landlord obligation to reimburse her for repair works she has done to the property.
33. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to treat the damp and mould in the property to prevent it worsening.
34. In its complaint responses the landlord did not provide any timescales for when the damp and mould issues at the property would be resolved. It only said the roofing works were still being authorised, but once these had been completed it would inspect and fix any damp and mould issues. It also made a good will gesture of £150 towards the costs of the external works the resident had had done.
35. It was appropriate for the landlord to contribute to the works the resident had had done to help with the damp and mould. However, the landlord has not acknowledged that it failed to treat the reported damp and mould. As such, further compensation is warranted to adequately address the impact the landlord’s failing had on the resident. This is mainly in relation to its failure to treat the damp and mould to prevent it worsening and the consequential trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings.
36. Based on all the information provided, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the damp and mould. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the compensation to £450. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Additionally, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide the resident and this Service with a timed action plan for repairs relating to the damp and mould.

Complaint	Right to Buy application
Finding	No maladministration

37. The landlord’s RTB factsheet says that once it receives an application it has 4 weeks to check if the resident is eligible and respond. However, if it needs to request further information from a previous landlord then it has 8 weeks to respond.
38. The Government’s RTB guidance says that normally assured tenants of registered providers, such as a housing association, do not have the RTB. However, it says that if they were previously a secure tenant of a local authority and became an assured tenant when ownership of their home transferred to a registered provider, they may be eligible under the Preserved RTB. It says this only applies if the resident was living in their home when it was transferred.
39. Additionally, the guidance also says that residents of a housing association in England could be eligible to buy their home at a discount of between £9,000 and £16,000 under the Right to Acquire scheme. It says that the landlord will be able to confirm whether the resident is eligible.
40. The resident submitted her RTB application on 13 November 2024. The landlord provided its response on 15 November 2024 and confirmed it had denied the resident’s application. It explained that based on its records and information the resident provided, she had not lived at a property owned by a relevant local authority on or before the date on which the property was transferred to the landlord. Therefore, she did not meet the Preserved RTB criteria and was not eligible to buy the property under the scheme. It also explained that under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement she was entitled to apply to purchase the property under the Right to Acquire scheme and not RTB. The landlord replied to the resident’s RTB application within the 4 week deadline. It also adequately explained why the resident did not meet the Preserved RTB criteria needed to be eligible to purchase the property.
41. The resident responded to the landlord decision on 20 November 2024. She said that she understood the specific criteria for Preserved RTB but she felt the system was unfair because another of the landlord’s properties on her road had recently been sold under that scheme at a discount of £100,000. She said she had made a significant investment in the property and the limited discount of £16,000 available under the Right to Acquire scheme meant she would not be able to purchase the property. She asked to appeal the landlord’s decision.
42. The landlord responded on 21 November 2024. It confirmed that the resident’s application had been assessed in line with legislation and the relevant criteria. It said each applicants’ tenancy history is different and there is no broad-brush approach to these schemes. Therefore, even if a property on her road qualified for the RTB, that did not automatically mean other properties qualify. It also confirmed there was no appeals process and the resident could seek legal advice for advice on RTB and her eligibility.
43. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s RTB application within the relevant timescales and adequately explained how it had reached its decision. As such, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s RTB application.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

44. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed.
45. The resident raised her complaint on 11 November 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 November 2024. The landlord then contacted the resident on 30 January 2025 to apologise for the delay in issuing its response. It explained the delay was caused by the previous case handler leaving the organisation and the complaint being overlooked when their caseload was reassigned. It later issued its stage 1 response on 12 February 2025.
46. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident and apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint. However, it is still the case that the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This was an unnecessary delay and could have been avoided with more adequate oversight of the reassignment of the previous case handler’s cases.
47. The resident escalated the complaint on 4 March 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this on 19 March 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 14 April 2025. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
48. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
49. Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it issuing its stage 1 response. In recognition of this it offered a total of £75 compensation. It also confirmed that it had provided training to the relevant team to improve the service provided for complaints to all customers.
50. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, we finds that the total amount of £75 offered for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s complaint handling failure did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident, and it has compensated her for the inconvenience caused by the delays.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

51. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs.
52. Similarly, clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.
53. In this case, the landlord failed to adequately monitor the repairs and chase the roofers for the required quotes. It also did not adequately communicate with the resident and keep her updated. Had the landlord done so it may have avoided the significant delays caused to the repairs and the inconvenience caused to the resident by her having to chase it for updates.