Sovereign Network Group (202405519)

Decision
Case ID	202405519
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s. He lives in a ground-floor flat. The flat is in a converted house which has a garden to the rear. The resident has a long running dispute with the landlord about the garden. This has involved some neighbours over the years. The resident is disabled and has mobility issues. He says the garden belongs exclusively to the flat.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around a garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around a garden.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns around a garden

The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. Having identified a delay, it awarded him a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord overlooked allegations of discrimination and unfair treatment. It should have addressed these in line with its policy. There is no indication it has done this to date.

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 a relevant manager. 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 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its complaint handling. £100 which it awarded him during its complaints process (for complaint handling failures it identified). 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 27 March 2026
3	New complaint If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the landlord must raise a new complaint to address his concerns around discrimination and unfair treatment. It may need to contact the resident to clarify these. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 27 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, we recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £50 which it previously awarded him during its complaints process. This figure relates to the substantive issue (the garden). Our finding of reasonable redress depends on this payment being made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord by email. With reference to attached documents, he claimed that the property’s garden was not shared (with the upstairs flat). He also claimed the landlord had known this since 2013. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: The garden dispute had been ongoing for many years. The landlord had misled the resident and the police. Its actions had caused him stress, pain, and anxiety. A previous neighbour had broken his arm.
15 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referred to a similar investigation that it had recently undertaken. In summary, it said there was no evidence that showed the garden was solely for the property. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord’s other key points were: It had previously reviewed the resident’s documents. It had previously checked his tenancy agreement. It had also consulted its legal team. Its previous investigation had confirmed that the garden was shared.
18 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He listed 15 reasons why he felt that the garden was not shared. For example, he said that historical legal documents did not give a definitive answer about the status of the garden. In a subsequent email, he alleged that the landlord had discriminated against him and treated a neighbour differently.
28 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It reiterated its previous view about the garden. However, it said it had taken too long to provide this information. It also identified a complaint handling delay. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded him a total of £150 in compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In September 2024, the resident told us that he had used his own funds to improve the garden. He also said that he was experiencing anti-social behaviour (ASB) linked to it. In February 2026 he told us that: The landlord had told his new neighbour not to enter the garden. It should confirm in writing that the garden belonged to the property. It should also tell the police that the garden was not shared. It had not addressed his concerns around discrimination. Its actions/approach had caused him prolonged distress.

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 concerns around a garden
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident wants exclusive use of/access to the garden. He feels that the evidence supports his position. The landlord has said it is a shared garden. The evidence shows that, over the years, the garden has prompted significant tension between the resident and a number of different neighbours. It is likely this was distressing for the resident.
During its complaints process, the landlord said it had reviewed the tenancy agreement and the resident’s supporting documents. It also said that it had consulted its legal team about the garden. These were reasonable steps. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows its position (shared garden) was consistent with legal advice it received. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its legal specialists.
From the evidence both parties provided, it is not clear that the landlord is obliged to implement the resident’s desired outcome. For example, the tenancy agreement does not clearly state that the property enjoys sole use of the garden. If the resident wants to pursue the matter further, we encourage him to take legal advice.
The landlord identified a related delay/lack of communication during its complaints process. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address this. Ultimately, it recognised that the resident’s concerns were important to him. Similarly, that he was waiting for the landlord to respond to these. The landlord showed a sensitive approach.
Based on the period between 12 April and 28 June 2024, it took the landlord 11 weeks to fully answer the resident’s concerns. Its compensation award shows it considered the related adverse impact. Its calculation was reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with our remedies guidance. As a result, we find the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective July 2023) does not refer to the Code. However, it does include broadly similar response timescales.
It took the landlord 1 working day to issue its stage 1 response. The Code shows that landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days at stage 1. In this case, the landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with its policy and the Code. This was appropriate complaint handling.
During his escalation emails, the resident alleged that the landlord had discriminated against him. He also alleged that it had treated a neighbour favourably. His comments show that he was unhappy with aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling at this point. Ultimately, these were serious allegations that warranted a response from the landlord.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says it will take any concerns that it has not acted in a fair way seriously. It also says it will deal with these matters as swiftly as possible. In this case, the landlord did not mention the resident’s allegations in its stage 2 response. Its approach was not consistent with its policy. It was also unreasonable.
We checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s allegations. There is no evidence to show that the landlord favoured a neighbour. Similarly, there is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted because it overlooked any protected characteristics or related legal duties.
However, there is evidence that the resident has made similar comments to the landlord on several occasions. He recently told us it had not addressed these to date. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary. If the resident felt that his persistent concerns had been ignored, this may have added to his view that he was being treated unfairly.
It took the landlord about 49 working days to issue its stage 2 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 25 working days at stage 2. In this case, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code. There was a corresponding delay that lasted for about 6 weeks. The resident was adversely impacted.
The landlord recognised the above identified delay during its complaints process. Having done so, it awarded the resident £100 in related compensation. We find this was a reasonable and proportionate approach to the matter.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord overlooked allegations of discrimination and unfair treatment. It should have addressed these in line with its policy. There is no indication it has done this to date. Its approach may have added to the resident’s overall distress. We have ordered it to pay him a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord overlooked concerns around discrimination/unfair treatment. This can compound a resident’s existing view that they are being treated unfairly. The landlord could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

Our investigation did not highlight any significant gaps in the landlord’s records.

Communication

Our investigation did not highlight any significant issues with the landlord’s communication.