Sovereign Network Group (202334235)

Background

1. The resident lives with mental health vulnerabilities. Her husband is her representative. For simplicity, we will refer to both as the resident in this report. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was experiencing noise from the flat above. The landlord visited multiple times. It completed repairs in November 2023. The resident and her husband terminated their tenancy and moved out of the property in February 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of noise

4. The landlord delayed in taking action and missed several opportunities to assess the noise the resident was experiencing and how it was impacting upon him and his wife.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord confused the process by providing an informal response to the resident’s complaint. It also allowed the same person to investigate both stages of the complaint, which was contrary to its own policy.

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.

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 did not look at

6. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on his wife’s health and wellbeing. 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 any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did look at

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair the structure of the property, including internal floors. This responsibility extended to the neighbours flat as it was also the landlord of that property.
8. On 7 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that the creaking floorboards in his upstairs neighbour’s flat were creating an intrusive noise nuisance that was affecting him day and night. He said the noise was causing sleep disturbance. He informed the landlord that he was complaining about the defective floorboards not his neighbour.
9. The landlord responded on 13 June 2023, it advised that it would create a noise case and tackle the issue sensitively. Its communication was appropriate. However, it took no further action.
10. In an email on 28 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the noise continued to disturb his sleep and that it had failed to consider his wife’s vulnerability.
11. The resident contacted it again on 4 August 2023, he said it had been 7 weeks since he had raised the issue. At the time the landlord did not have a policy in place indicating how it would address such noise complaints. However, the delay and lack of action was unreasonable. It likely left the resident feeling unheard and that the issue was not a priority for the landlord.
12. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property on 10 August 2023. The notes from the inspection stated, “No major concerns with floorboards – slight squeaks – normal noise transference to be expected”. The landlord communicated this to the resident on 24 August 2023. Without an officer being present in the resident’s property to adequately assess the noise, and the resulting impact on him, it is difficult to see how the officer could make the judgement they did.
13. This point was raised by the resident in his complaint on 24 August 2023. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said that it had not visited because the resident had indicated he did not want to make a complaint against his neighbour. And that it wanted to maintain a neutral position until after the inspection. However, this was not what the officer communicated in the post inspection email. The officer said the noise was minimal and requested further information. They did not offer or suggest an additional visit to assess the resident’s experience. The email indicated the investigation would only progress if he provided further information.
14. Had the landlord’s intention been that stipulated in its complaint response then it should have explained this to the resident, prior to the inspection, so that he understood the process. The resident said he felt the landlord was attempting to unfairly find reasons why it did not conduct a 2 person visit in the first instance. From the differing messages in the post inspection email and complaint response we can understand why he would feel this way.
15. In the resident’s original email about the noise he said he was complaining about the structure of the property not his neighbour. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the neighbour from the outset that the resident was experiencing noise that could be the result of a structural defect. It could have then openly conducted a thorough inspection and noise assessment in the first instance. Not doing so caused unnecessary delays and frustration for the resident.
16. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord had asked him to provide additional information, which he considered had been covered in his original email on 7 June 2023. We can understand a landlord trying to obtain specifics to identify the noise. However, had it conducted the initial inspection thoroughly it would not have had to request the additional information.
17. The landlord conducted a noise test on 26 September 2023, with an officer in each property. It concluded that the noise was minimal but acknowledged that this could be due to the neighbour relocating their bed. The landlord asked the resident to continue to monitor the situation and notify it if he experienced issues. This indicated an additional missed opportunity to conduct a thorough inspection. Without moving the bed and testing the whole of the floor the landlord was again not able to witness what the resident was experiencing. This led to further time, trouble, delays, and frustration for the resident.
18. The resident informed the landlord on numerous occasions about his wife’s mental health vulnerability. Despite this, there is no evidence that it considered the vulnerability and how the noise she was experiencing would affect her, or if there was a requirement to tailor its service. Both these omissions demonstrate a failure on the part of the landlord.
19. In its stage 2 response on 2 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the process had taken too long and that an officer would be required in each property to assess the noise. It went on to advise that it would be repairing the floorboards, replacing the carpet, and underlay. The landlord’s response showed that it had acknowledged its errors and taken learning from the experience, which was appropriate.
20. However, it did not offer the resident any compensation, which was not in line with its compensation policy. The policy allows compensation to be paid where the landlord has taken too long to do something and where the resident has suffered upset and inconvenience, which all applied to this case. We feel the landlord’s decision not to offer compensation was unfair in the circumstances.
21. We have therefore made an award of £300 compensation. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment.

What we did not look at

22. There appeared to be some initial confusion with the resident’s complaint. The landlord raised a complaint after the resident left a review on Trust Pilot. The review mainly concerned a toilet and the landlord’s out-of-hours service. We have discounted this from our investigation as it was not the complaint the resident brought to our service. Due to the confusion caused we have included it in our learning section below.

What we did look at

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. On 24 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. Within the email he specifically referenced the complaint team and the fact that he was making a complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint; this was a failure to comply with the Code and its own policy.
25. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint via an informal email on 12 September 2023. This was unreasonable and left the resident confused whether he was meant to accept the communication as a complaint response. This caused him further time and trouble pursuing the landlord.
26. The landlord acknowledged its error and said it would provide a stage 1 response that would contain the same information. It provided this on 14 September 2023, which exceeded the required response time by 5 working days. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £20 for the delay, which was appropriate. However, it did not offer compensation for the confusion in handling the complaint.
27. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation he said that the landlord had not considered his wife’s vulnerabilities and asked it to evidence how it had complied with its policies on the matter. The landlord did not answer this point in its complaint response. This was a failure to comply with the Code, which requires landlords to answer all complaint points. The resident was required to expend further time and trouble pursuing a response, which the landlord provided on 14 November 2023.
28. The landlord’s policy states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to by a staff member and overseen by a team manager. Stage 2 complaints will be investigated by a complaints officer, overseen by either the complaints manager or member of the executive team.
29. In this instance the original error in logging the complaint and the subsequent stage 1 and 2 investigations were conducted by the same person. This was not in compliance with the landlord’s policy. It was also not in compliance with the Code, which states that the person investigating the stage 2 complaint must not be the person that considered the complaint at stage 1. Even though the landlord has indicated the stage 2 review was overseen by another party we see this as a failure to comply.
30. The process is set up to ensure any review is impartial and that potential stage 1 errors or omissions are considered without bias. Having the same person conduct both stages reduces a resident’s confidence in the process.
31. We have made an additional award of £130 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the resident was adversely affected, but there was no permanent impact.

Learning

32. The landlord raised a complaint after reading a review the resident had left on Trust Pilot. We are aware it did this because it perceived the review to be an indication of dissatisfaction. However, it caused confusion and led to the resident questioning the landlord’s motives. In future similar instances it would be beneficial for it to contact residents to ask if they would like a complaint raised before doing so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord acknowledged that it had not correctly recorded the resident’s wife’s vulnerabilities across all its systems. It demonstrated learning by investigating the error and finding a fix to prevent future occurrences, which was appropriate.

Communication

34. There was evidence of both good and poor communication throughout the complaint. Had the landlord’s communication been more consistent, it might have avoided some of the distress caused to the resident during his complaint.