Sovereign Network Group (202413383)

Decision
Case ID	202413383
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of its security staff after he witnessed them praying in an office. He said when he challenged them, their behaviour towards him was threatening, disrespectful and unprofessional. He also queried the landlord’s service charge for cleaning services. The landlord said that the staff had not breached its code of conduct and that it could not provide a breakdown of the cost of communal cleaning.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. The resident’s queries about communal cleaning costs.
   3. The complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s queries about communal cleaning costs.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Concerns about staff conduct

4. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. Based on the available evidence, its conclusion that the staff members’ actions did not breach its code of conduct was reasonable.

Communal cleaning service charges

5. The landlord did not provide a clear and relevant response to the resident’s request for information about the cost of communal cleaning.

Complaint handling

6. There were minor delays in issuing the complaint responses, but there is no evidence these delays caused a clear impact to the resident.

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	Specific action order The landlord must take appropriate action to fully respond to the resident’s request for information about the cost of communal cleaning in his complex. If it is unable to provide the information, it must signpost the resident to the correct route for obtaining it, or clearly explain why it cannot provide it, given that its previous answer was not relevant to the resident’s query.	No later than 23 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in responding to the resident’s query about communal service charges. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 April 2026

 

Our investigation

 

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord after seeing security staff praying in the CCTV office of his building. He said this was unprofessional and disrespectful, and the staff became aggressive when he questioned them, which made him feel unsafe. He also asked the landlord how much was spent on communal cleaning service charges each year at the complex.
9 April 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord said it did not consider the staff’s actions to be unprofessional or disrespectful. It apologised if the resident felt confronted when raising his concerns. It signposted him to his annual service charge breakdown letter for information about cleaning costs.
12 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said it was not acceptable for staff to pray while on duty. He said he felt threatened by their behaviour and that the landlord had changed his account of events by describing him as feeling disrespected and confronted. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about cleaning costs, as he felt it had not provided a clear answer.
20 May 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord said it was unable to provide the cost of cleaning as this was not part of the resident’s “rent increase”. It said it was unable to see from his original complaint that the resident stated he felt threatened by staff. It said it had spoken to the staff members and was willing to meet the resident to discuss any remaining concerns.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. He wanted financial compensation from the landlord.

 

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	Staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

7. The resident’s complaints in March and April 2024 focused on the behaviour of security staff in his building. He said he saw staff praying in the CCTV office and felt this was unprofessional and disrespectful. He said they became aggressive when he questioned them and that they were not wearing identification, which made him feel unsafe. He asked the landlord for compensation and for the CCTV room to be used only for its intended purpose.
8. In response to the complaints the landlord apologised if the resident felt disrespected or confronted, but said that it would not consider staff members praying in the reception space during Ramadan to be unprofessional or disrespectful. It said staff were expected to prioritise interactions with residents and should always wear identification. In its final response of May 2024, the landlord said the resident had not provided details about how he felt threatened. It confirmed it had spoken to all staff on site and reminded them of its expectations around customer service and wearing identification.
9. The evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It explained that it had discussed the matter with the staff involved and considered their actions against its code of conduct. Although we have not seen documentary evidence of those discussions, the landlord’s explanation that the officers’ praying had not been inappropriate— in the circumstances of there being no measurable affect from their actions on the resident—was reasonable.
10. It was not accurate for the landlord to say it could not see any details of the resident complaining he had felt threatened, as this was clearly stated in both his original complaint and his escalation. However, there is no evidence to show the resident provided any independent or corroborating information to support this aspect of his complaint, and the actions taken by the landlord to discuss the matter with the staff was appropriate in the circumstances.
11. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the issue of staff not wearing identification and to remind them of their responsibilities. It was also entitled to conclude that staff praying did not breach its code of conduct, based on the information it gathered during its investigation of the complaint.
12. Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns. In the absence of independent evidence to support the resident’s allegations, and when considered alongside its code of conduct, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

Complaint	Communal cleaning costs
Finding	Service failure

13. The resident’s complaint focused on the cleaning provision for the communal areas of his block. He asked the landlord to explain how much it spent each year on cleaning services for the complex.
14. In its complaint responses, the landlord said an additional cleaner had been authorised due to building safety works and confirmed the resident’s service charge would not increase. It referred him to his annual service charge breakdown letter and asked him to report any concerns about cleaning standards to its customer service team. In its final response, the landlord said it could not provide the specific cost of communal cleaning because this was not linked to his rent increase. It instead explained how his rent had increased in line with government guidance.
15. The landlord’s complaint response did not address the substantive issue of the complaint, which was his request for the cost of communal cleaning. The tenancy agreement shows the resident does not pay a separate service charge, as fixed charges are included within the overall rent. However, there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this or explained how cleaning costs are managed within the rent structure. Its focus on the rent increase did not answer the resident’s question and left the complaint unresolved.
16. Overall, the landlord did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns. It should have acknowledged that he does not pay a separate service charge and, if it was unable to provide the information requested, signposted him to the most appropriate route for obtaining the cost of communal cleaning. Instead, the landlord provided answers and information for questions the resident had not asked, and did not clearly address what he had asked.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement, unless an extension is required. The landlord’s policy complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 within its published timescales. It has not provided evidence of it acknowledging the complaint at stage 2. It responded to the stage 1 complaint 2 days after it should have and the stage 2 complaint 26 days after it was made.
19. Although there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaints, they were short and there is no evidence of any impact from them.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

20. Some aspects of the landlord’s record keeping were poor. It assigned incorrect reference numbers to some complaints, which made it difficult to establish which complaints had completed its internal procedure. It also did not keep documentary records of the discussions it held with staff about the resident’s concerns.
21. This was also an issue in the landlord’s communication with the resident, due to him having multiple complaints about several issues being handled at the same time. It resulted in the resident believing some of his other complaints had not been fully addressed or responded to.
22. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, and Knowledge and Information Management for further guidance on how to effectively communicate with residents in the future and the importance of good record keeping in providing a high-quality service to residents.