Sovereign Network Group (202519869)

Decision
Case ID	202519869
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour and noise from his neighbour. He said it had been ongoing since December 2024. He reported this had affected his sleep and wellbeing, which he said impacted his ability to work. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability, which he said the situation had exacerbated.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and noise.
   2. Service failure in relation to the associated complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB and noise response

4. The landlord appropriately identified the resident’s reports as noise resulting from anti-social behaviour. It followed its policies and procedures when responding to the resident’s reports and took timely incremental action in tackling the resident’s concerns. While we have not identified an overall failure in service, we have identified some areas of learning for the landlord.

Complaint handling

5. There was confusion about the date of the landlord’s stage 1 response and a small delay in the landlord’s complaint response at stage 2. There is no indication that the landlord had notified the resident of an extension in advance, or that it acknowledged the complaint handling delay in its final complaint response.

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 complaint handling 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 27 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord to update the resident about the status of its handling of ongoing ASB and if it has not already done so, set a clear action plan for any future reports.
The landlord to review its risk assessment of the resident’s current circumstances.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 December 2024	The resident reported noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord.
25 June 2025	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said: There was a serious impact on his mental and physical wellbeing due to sleep deprivation. The landlord had not taken effective action to address his reports, and the situation had worsened. He wished for the landlord to be accountable and to take meaningful action.
27 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response It said: It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord opened an ASB case on 21 February 2025 and advised the resident to report noise nuisance to the local authority environmental health team. It took incremental action to address the noise and ASB in line with its policy. It apologised to the resident for the effect on his wellbeing due to the ongoing ASB but said the process of escalating to legal action can take time.
5 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did not uphold the complaint. It apologised it had not responded to the resident’s initial request for access to the noise app. It opened an ASB case on two occasions and took reasonable and appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns. Any delays were down to following relevant procedures. It did not agree there was a lack of communication. It apologised to the resident that the process about a potential move was unclear. There was no service failure. It had taken reasonable and appropriate action to in line with its policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. He said he felt misled about the move process and was unhappy about the landlord’s poor communication. He said he wanted the landlord to resolve the ongoing ASB so he could live peacefully, and he wished to move to a more suitable property due to his medical needs.

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 noise and ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. We note that the resident logged a new complaint about similar issues with the landlord for which he received a stage 1 response on 21 October 2025. We can only consider a complaint that has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have not seen evidence that this complaint has completed the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident can bring a new complaint to us within 12 months of a landlord’s final stage 2 complaint response. Our response is limited to the matters responded to under the complaints processes that ended in August 2025.
7. The resident has told us that the events and the landlord’s handling of the issues has severely impacted on his physical and mental health. While we are sympathetic to the resident’s experience, we cannot consider if a landlord’s actions or omissions have directly impacted a person’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts or other suitable process. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of any identified failings by the landlord.

What we have investigated

8. We have investigated the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) between 16 December 2024 (the resident’s first report) and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 August 2025. We can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies, procedures, and good practice. However, we cannot determine whether the alleged ASB occurred.
9. The landlord’s policy sets out that it aims to take steps to resolve ASB matters as quickly as possible. It says it will take effective and realistic action to tackle ASB on a case-by case basis. Its policy aims to consider a reasonable and proportionate response to ASB based on the vulnerability of those involved. This may include working with other agencies and taking steps such as issuing warnings and cautions to deter ASB, as well as legal action where it considers it is appropriate.
10. We have assessed whether the landlord applied its policy to its response to the resident’s concerns and whether we consider it had communicated appropriately and managed the resident’s expectations.
11. The resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 16 December 2024. This included noise nuisance caused by loud music at unsociable hours, parties, suspected drug use. The landlord responded the next day, asked for diary sheets for two weeks to establish the nature and frequency of incidents, and signposted the resident to complain to environmental health. We consider the initial response was reasonable. However, the resident requested access to the noise recording app. The landlord did not respond at that time, but it later apologised for this omission in its stage 2 complaint response.
12. Following further reports on 20 January 2025, the landlord opened an ASB case. It set out an action plan naming an ASB officer. The landlord contacted environmental health and issued a first warning letter to the neighbour. The landlord said it would contact the resident in a week to follow up. It contacted the resident on 7 and 14 February 2025. The resident reported improvement and with the resident’s agreement, the landlord closed the case. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
13. On 21 February 2025, the resident reported further incidents. The landlord opened a new ASB case. It listened to the noise recordings submitted and confirmed the noise was unacceptable. It issued a second warning letter and arranged to meet the neighbour. The landlord asked the resident to continue submitting recordings and to engage with environmental health. It set out a further action plan which included a one week follow up. While the landlord contacted the resident outside of the timescale it set out, it acted appropriately to complete all other substantive actions, that adhered to case progression in line with its ASB policy.
14. Between March and May 2025, the resident continued to submit recordings which included a new issue (dog noise). The landlord issued what it described as a second warning letter on 15 April 2025 that included the dog noise. While this was the third warning overall across both ASB cases, this was the second warning letter recorded regarding the ASB case opened in February 2025. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to label it as a second warning as part of the incremental escalation connected to the second ASB case. The landlord made further contact with the resident on 25 April and 2 May 2025. Despite the lack of clarity about the warnings the landlord’s actions continued to show a timely and resolution focused approach to the issues.
15. On 21 May 2025, the landlord served a 7-day notice to the neighbour to remove the dog by 30 May 2025. This followed further ASB submissions by the resident and a grievance about the landlord’s lack of communication. The dog was rehomed on 6 June 2025. On 29 May 2025, the landlord issued a final tenancy warning and confirmed it was seeking legal advice regarding the issue of an ASB injunction (a civil court order) to the neighbour. The resident had also requested a community trigger on this date. We consider the landlord took timely and proportionate action as the issues continued to escalate.
16. The resident said each time a warning was issued to his neighbour the ASB worsened. The landlord visited the resident on 30 May 2025. The evidence shows the landlord understood the process of escalation to legal action to tackle the ASB could be lengthy. It communicated this to the resident on 12 June 2025, which was appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations.
17. The resident said the landlord had discussed with the resident the possibility of a move to another property. The resident said he perceived this as the ASB officer’s intent to provide this as an alternate option rather than to act to address the resident’s ASB issues. The resident said he was frustrated due to having to follow the landlord’s internal banding and allocations process, which took additional time.
18. We note the ASB officer had discussed a potential move with the resident on 30 May 2025. The case notes show this was because the ASB officer had recognised the impact to the resident’s health due to the ongoing ASB. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to discuss alternate options with the resident given his vulnerability. However, we accept decisions about allocations and banding fell outside of the ASB officer’s control. We understand that the landlord could not deviate from its banding and homes transfer policy. The ASB officer acted to gather medical evidence from the resident to assist in submitting this to the panel responsible for banding decisions. However, securing alternative accommodation in these circumstances requires the resident to follow the appropriate process, and this usually takes time and relies on a suitable property becoming available.
19. We note that the ASB officer apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding about the process. This was a reasonable response to acknowledge its part in not fully managing the resident’s expectations about the re-housing process.  The landlord also apologised to the resident about the lack of clarity about the process in its stage 2 response. Therefore, we have highlighted learning for the landlord surrounding managing a resident’s expectations. However, the evidence shows the matter of rehousing did not detract from the landlord’s escalation of the ASB matters. The landlord was progressing the ASB reports in accordance with its policy, which was reasonable.
20. The resident reported ASB continuously throughout June. On 18 June 2025, the resident had contacted the police and asked the landlord to seek an injunction. An injunction warning letter was issued to the neighbour on 24 June 2025 advising them of its intention to seek legal action. This was less than a month after the landlord had issued its final warning letter to the resident. During this time, the evidence shows the ASB officer was working with partner agencies.
21. A joint agency case review meeting took place on 3 July 2025. Environmental health installed noise monitoring equipment on 9 July 2025, but it did not record a statutory noise nuisance. The resident continued to submit recordings throughout July and August 2025. On 15 July 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it could apply to the courts for an injunction, and this required the resident to continue to submit recordings of recent incidents as evidence to submit to the courts. The evidence shows the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s progress therefore he was reluctant to engage. It was reasonable for the landlord to take a step-by-step approach to gather evidence before seeking an injunction. The landlord demonstrated it followed its policy to give the neighbour an opportunity to change behaviour at every stage before escalating action.
22. The resident complained about the landlord’s poor communication throughout. The resident said the communication was vague and delayed and left him feeling ignored. The landlord’s policy states that it will agree its approach to communications on the case in its action plan. While the action plan did not specify how frequently it would communicate with the resident, the evidence shows the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident overall. The landlord did not always acknowledge the resident’s recordings and emails straight away. However, having reviewed the ASB case file we consider it was in regular and proportionate contact with the resident, particularly in relation to providing updates about key steps in the process.
23. The ASB officer reported having received 20 emails a week from the resident over a period of three months between April and June. Given the demand on its service, and the landlord’s competing caseload it would not be reasonable for the landlord to respond to each recording and incident report immediately.
24. The evidence shows the landlord routinely notified the resident about what it had done to tackle the ASB at each stage. We consider, given the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been good practice for the landlord to provide the resident with clearer expectations about when and how it would maintain communication with the resident. However, the level of communication and action evidenced in the case timeline was consistent. While this does not amount to a service failure, we have made a learning recommendation about this.
25. While its overall communication could have been better, it is apparent that the substantive actions taken by the landlord to tackle ASB and the communication issues did not undermine the actions it took to escalate the resident’s case, which we consider were reasonable and proportionate.
26. The landlord’s policy states it should complete a risk assessment to assess the impact on the victim and the community to provide a reasonable and proportionate response to ASB. The landlord recorded risk assessment updates on 30 January, 14 February, 18 March, 12 June, and 31 July 2025. However, it did not supply us with copies of the completed risk assessment forms. While the evidence shows the landlord took an active approach to risk and took actions accordingly, we have identified learning in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s request for the noise app in December 2024. It also apologised about the lack of clarity regarding its allocations process and acknowledged the resident’s frustrations. It summarised the action it had taken which it said aligned with its policies and procedures and explained it was bound by exhausting all avenues before it could take legal action.
28. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord had taken all reasonable actions available to it in the circumstances to tackle the resident’s reports of ASB. We consider it demonstrated that it was empathetic to the resident’s circumstances. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to gather evidence as part of an incremental approach.
29. The landlord demonstrated that it had worked with partner agencies, including the local authority and the neighbourhood policing team, to tackle the ASB. It also sought advice from its legal team about escalating to further legal action. The landlord took steps to proceed down this route following this internal consultation. The evidence shows the landlord periodically completed risk assessments in line with the changing circumstances, and that it progressed its actions in line with the level of risk identified.
30. We have listened to the resident’s concerns and can empathise with the impact and distress caused to him by the ongoing ASB by his neighbour and the process of reporting the matters. However, we consider the evidence shows the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to address the resident’s reports in line with its policy. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the ASB.
31. We note legal action was in progress at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to update the resident about the status of his reports of ASB. We have also made a recommendation for the landlord to review its risk assessment based on the resident’s current circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

32. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in 10 and 20 working days, with the option of giving notice of an extension of no more than 10 working days, respectively. This aligns with our complaint handling code (the Code).
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 3 working days, which fell within the expected timescale. However, there was a slight discrepancy in the date of the complaint response. The evidence shows the landlord emailed the stage 1 response to the resident on 27 June 2025, but the date on the formal response letter was 30 June 2025.
34. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 27 June 2025. The landlord responded 24 days later. This fell outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The evidence does not indicate that the landlord notified the resident about an extension in advance. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its final complaint response or offer appropriate redress.
35. When we consider the delay in its complaint response together with the discrepancy about the date of its complaint responses, we find a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
36. We therefore order the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling omissions.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord should ensure it retains risk assessment forms so that they are available to us to reference against the case timeline and its actions.

Communication

38. The landlord should ensure it completes all follow up contact agreed with the resident.
39. The landlord should specify in its action plan when and how it will update a resident following ASB reports and the submission of evidence, such as emails and recordings from the resident. The landlord should note the importance of managing a resident’s expectations to build trust in the resident and landlord relationship.