Sovereign Network Group (202323128)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about her neighbour and how the landlord managed these. During the complaint investigation, she also asked for an update on her request to have gravel in her front garden. The resident lives with several physical and mental health conditions, and the landlord was aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
   2. the resident’s request to put gravel in the front garden
3. The associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
5. There was no maladministration in resident’s request to put gravel in the front garden.
6. There was service failure in the handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

7. The landlord took some appropriate steps but did not communicate consistently, reassess risk when needed, or provide clear early advice.

The residents request to put gravel in the front garden

8. The landlord initially delayed giving a response. When it did respond it explained it could not give permission. It later changed its position after reviewing the matter. The impact on the landlord’s initial approach was limited, and it put this right in its stage 2 response.

The associated complaint handling

9. The landlord did not meet expected timescales, did not keep the resident updated, and did not fully address the issues she raised.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

10. The resident told us delays in the landlord’s action has caused her mental health to get worse. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We will decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. It is not for us to decide whether ASB occurred or who was responsible. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports it received and whether it followed its procedures, acted reasonably, and applied good practice considering the circumstances of the case.
12. There are reports of ASB after the stage 2 response. They are not the same reports as those assessed in this report, so the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to consider them through its complaints process. If the resident remains concerned about how these later incidents were handled, she can raise them with the landlord so they can be reviewed under the appropriate procedure.

What we have looked at

13. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 May 2023 after receiving a report about dog barking and comments made when calling the dog back. Its policy says it will assess ASB reports and set out next steps. Based on the information it held, it was reasonable for the landlord to speak to the resident and explain that direct contact between neighbours should be avoided.
14. On 9 May 2023 the resident emailed to say she was upset about the report. She explained that her dog was partially deaf and that many dogs in the area barked. The landlord had regular contact with the resident following this report and visited her on the 11 May 2023 to give her the opportunity to discuss her concerns. These steps were consistent with ASB expectations for timely engagement. However, the evidence does not show whether the landlord used this contact to provide clear early advice about ASB thresholds, its role, or realistic next steps, which would have been reasonable at this stage.
15. The resident later reported negative posts on social media. The ASB policy lists social media disagreements as issues the landlord will not investigate as ASB, although it should offer advice and signposting where appropriate. The landlord did not explain this exclusion at an early stage. It gave this explanation around 3 months later, which meant the resident lacked clarity about whether her concerns would be investigated and what support the landlord could offer. This delay was not in line with the policy’s requirement to set expectations from the start. While its decision to not investigate social media disagreements may have been reasonable in the circumstances, it would have been helpful to explain why not.
16. The resident and neighbour disagreed about use of the front path. The landlord did not clarify at an early stage that the path was communal. Its later review acknowledged this information could have prevented the situation from escalating. It is reasonable that the landlord recognised this during its review.
17. On 11 May 2023 the resident reported receiving a letter from her neighbour about her Ring doorbell and possible legal action. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it could not prevent legal action and to signpost the resident to legal advice. The landlord also completed a safeguarding check when the resident said she was feeling low, which was appropriate and in line with its duty to consider risk.
18. The resident repeatedly expressed fear that the neighbour was trying to have her evicted. The landlord did not explain the ASB thresholds, process, or safeguards. Given her vulnerabilities, providing this reassurance would have been reasonable and in line with the policy requirement to consider the vulnerability of those involved and tailor communication proportionately.
19. On 12 May 2023, the resident said she had adjusted her Ring doorbell, so it no longer captured the neighbour’s property. The landlord noted this, but it is unclear whether it took any further action or explained to the resident what it would do with this information.
20. On 8 June 2023 the resident reported fence‑banging, distress caused to her dog, and feeling forced out. She also disclosed several health conditions. The policy requires the landlord to assess harm and its impact on victims, and to consider the vulnerability of those involved so its response is reasonable and proportionate. There is no evidence it carried out a new risk assessment or adapted its approach. This was not in line with its policy.
21. The following day, the landlord spoke to the resident. It said it would speak to the neighbour about sprinklers, which was a reasonable step based on the information held at the time. On 13 June the resident asked it not to take further action and sought reassurance about additional reports, which the landlord provided.
22. On 17 July 2023 the resident asked whether further reports had been made about her. The call was passed to the ASB team, but the landlord did not keep a record of the discussion. The lack of records reduces transparency and limits evidence of a reasonable response.
23. Between 19 and 27 July 2023 the resident made several calls without receiving a reply, despite the landlord’s 5‑day call‑back target. This is the only recorded instance where the landlord did not meet its 5‑day call‑back target. However, the delay reasonably increased the resident’s uncertainty and distress.
24. On 28 July 2023 the landlord returned the resident’s call. It advised both parties to avoid contact and offered mediation. Mediation is an appropriate option in neighbour disputes and offering it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
25. In its stage 1 response on 29 August 2023 the landlord said the ASB concerns should be managed through the ASB process and said it would request a peer review. This was partly appropriate. However, it did not acknowledge or resolve the resident’s earlier concerns about delays and lack of updates.
26. In its follow‑up on 2 September 2023 the landlord accepted it should have been clearer that the path was communal and that it had not provided enough information about mediation. This recognition of missed opportunities was reasonable.
27. On 8 September 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour was posting letters through her letterbox and said she felt harassed. It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost her to the police where criminal behaviour was alleged. However, the records do not show that the landlord reviewed the risk to the or considered any additional support at that point, despite earlier vulnerability disclosures. This was a missed opportunity to apply a proportionate, vulnerability‑informed response and to give the resident greater reassurance.
28. On the same day the landlord discussed the stage 2 complaint with the resident, offered mediation again and explained the limits of its powers, which was appropriate. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concern that the ASB investigation felt one‑sided or explain how impartiality had been ensured.
29. The landlord acknowledged some shortcomings in its handling, including providing late clarity about the communal path and not giving enough information about mediation. It also took several constructive steps, such as visiting the resident, signposting her to other agencies, and offering mediation on multiple occasions. However, the records do not show that the landlord reviewed the resident’s situation after she disclosed further vulnerabilities, or that it clearly explained at an early stage what parts of the dispute it would investigate. The landlord also did not recognise the impact of the call‑back delays or the period of uncertainty caused by the lack of clarity on key points when responding to the complaint.

30. On 28 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord whether she was allowed to have gravel on her front garden. She said she had been given verbal permission. When the landlord spoke with her on 25 August 2023, she said she had still not received an update. As the landlord had not responded to the original enquiry, it was reasonable for it to address this point within its complaint response and provide the clarification she requested.
31. On 2 September 2023, the landlord followed up its stage 1 response. It explained that, because the property was a new build, permission for changes to the front garden had to come from the developer and it held no record of this. It therefore said the gravel breached the covenant preventing alterations to the front garden. It asked the resident to remove the gravel by 31 October 2023. This was a reasonable position based on the information it held and consistent with the tenancy requirement for written permission.
32. In its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident had not been provided with the covenant documents. It also noted the tenancy still required permission for changes to the front garden. The resident said a developer representative had visited and commented positively on the gravel. The landlord therefore agreed the gravel could remain unless the developer raised a breach. This was a reasonable position based on the updated information and clarified the earlier uncertainty.
33. The landlord used its stage 2 response to reconsider its position and provide a resolution. The evidence does not show that the initial delay or inconsistency caused the resident significant or lasting detriment, or that it affected the overall outcome.

34. The landlord has a 2‑stage complaint process. It says stage 1 complaints should receive a formal response within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It may extend these timescales if it needs extra time. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
35. The landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. The stage 1 response was issued 23 working days after the complaint was raised on 27 July 2023. The landlord did not request an extension. It acknowledged the delay when it sent the response on 29 August 2023. This meant it failed to meet the required timescale or keep the resident updated. The landlord did not recognise this delay in its response, and the resident had to chase the matter, which caused her additional time and trouble.
36. The stage 1 response did not address all the points the resident raised. It did not respond to her concerns that the landlord failed to provide updates during the ASB case or during the complaint process.
37. The resident requested escalation on 6 September 2023 and explained why she remained dissatisfied. The stage 2 response on 11 September 2023 addressed some of the issues but did not fully consider her concerns about delayed contact, the late stage 1 response, or the distress she reported.

Learning

38. The landlord should give early, clear advice on what they can investigate. It should refresh risk assessments when new information arises, especially where vulnerabilities are known. It should provide regular updates, set realistic expectations, and explain early‑intervention options such as mediation so residents can make informed decisions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord should keep complete records of contact, advice, risk assessments, decisions, and reasons. Good records support transparent decision‑making, consistent handovers, and evidence that actions were reasonable.

Communication

40. The landlord should meet published timescales, return calls within stated targets, and give proactive updates. Clear, plain‑English explanations and consistent signposting to relevant agencies help ensure fair complaint handling and effective ASB case management.