Sovereign Network Group (202506468)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in late 2023. In November 2024 the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the property. The resident and both children have autism and are survivors of domestic violence, the landlord is aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request to be placed in a higher bidding band.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be placed in a higher bidding band.
4. There was a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, we found that the landlord:
   1. Did not demonstrate it had considered all of the resident’s evidence and her family circumstances, in order to support its decision making.
   2. Did not provide the resident with details of its banding decision at the earliest opportunity which caused distress.
   3. Took appropriate steps to redress its complaint handling failures.

 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.

6. We understand that the resident is seeking to be rehoused in order to resolve her complaint. We are not able to make an order for the landlord to permanently move the resident, this is because we do not have access to information about the landlord’s housing stock or the circumstances of its other residents seeking to be housed.
7. We would also not propose a remedy that would put matters right for the resident but could adversely affect other individuals or mean that the resident had received preferential treatment compared to others in the same situation. This investigation will therefore focus on how the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns rather than whether it should or should not move the resident.
8. The landlord’s banding criteria for a transfer document says that when residents apply for a transfer, it can place them in one of 2 bands. This is according to their housing need and current circumstances. Residents must provide evidence of how a move will improve their circumstances. The landlord prioritise applications by band, then date of application.
9. When the landlord made its initial decision to not place the resident in a bidding band, it said it had not had the chance to complete repair works. It would have been reasonable at that stage for it to have outlined what works it would do and when. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations or show it was taking her concerns seriously
10. When the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s decision, it missed the opportunity to provide further information to assure the resident it had made the right decision. This was distressing to the resident because she did not feel that landlord had listened to her or understood her situation. The resident made it clear that her circumstances made it challenging for her to accommodate the amount of repairs the landlord was trying to complete and we cannot see that this was considered by the landlord.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that the property was not suitable for the resident’s circumstances. At this stage, the landlord should have explained its decision to not place the resident in a bidding band. The resident was not placed in a bidding band until March 2025, some 2 months later, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident when it had done so. The resident expressed frustration that she had not been able to bid on properties during this time because she was unaware she could.
12. The landlord did explain the difficulties of finding a suitable 3 bedroom property for the resident and advised the resident what she could do to increase her chances, including applying to her local council. This was a reasonable step to take to make sure the resident was aware of her options. It also took steps to ensure that there a female member of staff present for repairs or for the resident to be out of the property when they took place. This was also a reasonable step to mitigate the distress caused to the family by the ongoing repairs.
13. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication was poor and offered £150 to reflect this. It is disappointing to note that the resident remains unclear on why she does not meet the criteria for a high bidding band. The landlord did not take the opportunity to learn from its failures and provide the resident with a clear explanation. The offer of compensation did not go far enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures we have identified.
14. We find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be placed in a higher bidding band. An order has been made to the pay the resident additional compensation of £150 to reflect the full impact of the landlord’s failings in this case. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

15. We have not been provided with copies of the resident’s original complaint or escalation request to assess whether its responses were provided within the timeframes set out in the complaint handling code (the Code). This is a record keeping failure.
16. The landlord has accepted that it did not escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint appropriately because it did not recognise it as a complaint at the time. Instead it treated it as a banding review. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it also failed to inform the resident about that. This meant there was a delay in the resident receiving a final response and being able to access our service.
17. The landlord offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures. We consider that this amount is proportionate to the delay the resident experienced and in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure that did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint but caused inconvenience.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. It was not possible to assess the landlord’s complaint response times because it did not provide the resident’s complaint and escalation request. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Communication

19. Had the landlord outlined its banding decision and the reasons why to the resident at the earliest opportunity, it may have avoided the matter being escalated. Good communication is vital to maintain a good landlord and resident relationship.