Sovereign Network Group (202401272)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom property with her partner and her autistic son. At the time of the complaint, she was heavily pregnant with physical health concerns. She reported a leak coming in through the roof that was causing damage to her son’s bedroom ceiling. There was subsequently a partial collapse of the ceiling. While the repairs were completed and the family no longer live at the property, the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord handled the matter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A report of a leak in the roof and associated ceiling collapse.
   2. The resident’s concerns regarding its contractor’s conduct.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a report of a leak in the roof and associated ceiling collapse.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its contractor’s conduct.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a report of a leak in the roof and associated ceiling collapse.

4. The landlord agreed to review its compensation offer further once the repairs were complete and failed to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding its contractor’s conduct

5. The landlord committed to providing the resident with feedback following its investigation into her concerns about the conduct of its contractor and failed to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord failed to address all of the resident’s concerns. It also committed to considering matters further but failed to do so and therefore failed to ensure it had taken steps to put things right.

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.

7. The resident has told us that the leak started in December 2022. Whilst the resident’s comments are noted, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the report in December 2022 and completed repairs. There was then a 10-month gap before a leak was reported again. We have therefore regarded that as a report of a new issue and assessed the landlord’s response from then until the end of the complaints procedure.
8. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that there are 3 repair classifications:
   1. Emergency repairs – completed within 4 hours of the request.
   2. Routine repairs – completed within 1 calendar month.
   3. Complex repairs – completed within 90 days of the request.
9. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report on 31 October 2023 of a water ingress and associated damage in a timely manner. The resident reported the matter on 2 further occasions before the landlord confirmed on 6 November 2023 that its latent defects team would be in touch. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. The resident had explained the damage that was being caused to the property, their belongings and that she had concerns about the impact on her health too.
10. Later on, 6 November 2023, part of the ceiling in the bedroom collapsed and the landlord visited the property. While the landlord’s comments are noted, the evidence does not show that any emergency repairs were completed. This is because the contractors were concerned about damaging the electrics or ventilation system. On 9 November 2023, it carried out a temporary repair on the roof and was looking into full repairs on the 13 November 2023, weather permitted. Internal repairs would start once it had fixed the roof, which seemed reasonable considering that was where the issue started.
11. On 10 November 2023, the resident informed the landlord she had spoken to Citizens Advice, child services, an MP, Environmental Health and sought legal advice. All of which stated that the house was unfit for her family to continue living in. She wanted to be moved into alternative accommodation, especially considering there was exposed mould in the bedroom.
12. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
13. The resident had reported concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her and family 6 times. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given regard to HHSRS and completed a risk assessment. There is no evidence it did this, at any point. Whilst the landlord did place the resident and her family into alternative accommodation on 10 November 2023, it was unreasonable that the resident had to request it in the first place and seek the support of many third parties.
14. The landlord should have considered the possibility of placing the resident into alternative accommodation. This is considering the damage in the property and the likely disruption that was going to be caused by the remedial works.
15. Work to the roof started on 13 November 2023 and was completed on 20 November 2023. The landlord did meet the timeframe for completing this under complex repairs of within 90 days, which accounts for roof repairs.
16. The work to the internal repairs started on 24 November 2023 and the landlord completed it on 6 December 2023. This was outside of the routine repair time frames. However, it is noted that the landlord could not commence internal works until the roof repairs were complete – and it was satisfied they had been effective.
17. The evidence shows the landlord took 6 days to acknowledge the resident had a leak and then a further 3 days to make safe the roof. It should have been more proactive in its response, considering the resident’s condition and her son’s autism as it was his room that was affected. It also should have been more proactive in moving the resident and her family into alterative accommodation, especially because of their vulnerabilities. However, the landlord did subsequently arrange this and took steps to ensure that the family were not in temporary accommodation for longer than necessary.
18. In its complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had not initially acted fast enough in response to the resident’s report. It offered the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. Our guidance on remedies suggests awards of between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. We have also considered the time taken to complete the repairs and that after an initial delay the landlord’s handling of the matter was prompt and timely. Having done so, we have found that the landlord’s offer was proportionate given the circumstances up until the time the stage 2 response was issued. However, the landlord advised in its stage 2 response that it would consider further compensation once the works were complete and the leak was resolved. We have seen no evidence that it honoured this commitment, and for that reason, we cannot find that it took appropriate steps to ensure that it had put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to take such steps now.
19. The resident told us that the damp and mould had caused respiratory issues. 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 further.

20. On 13 December 2023 and 17 January 2024, the resident reported to the landlord the following:
    1. The contractors had painted rooms unaffected by the leak.
    2. The contractors had been smoking inside the house with the front door open.
    3. There was damage to the bedroom carpet including paint damage.
    4. Her partner saw a contractor standing on an expensive dressing chair to paint the ceiling.
    5. A £1000 wedding dress had been thrown in a heap.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the issues the resident had experienced with the contractors, and appropriately confirmed that it was not the standard that it would expect. It said it had approached the contractor with these issues and was waiting for their response. It also advised that a member of staff could visit the property to assess the damage that had been reported. The landlord asked the resident to confirm by reply when such a visit would be convenient for her. This was a reasonable step in investigating the resident’s concerns. However, the evidence does not suggest that the resident responded. As a result, the landlord was unable to investigate her concerns further.
22. We are satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns up until the end of the complaints procedure was overall appropriate. However, the landlord made a commitment to share the feedback it received following its enquiries with the contractor, and we have seen no evidence that it did so. This was a failing in its overall handling, and we have made an order accordingly.

23. Our Complaint Handing Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
24. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement response on time, which was consistent with the Code. However, its stage 1 response was 1 working day outside of the 10-working day timescale, which was a minor delay.
25. It issued its stage 2 complaint response outside the 20-working day timescale. Partly because of the additional points raised by the resident on 17 January 2024 and because that email had gone into its junk folder. On 23 January 2024, it explained that due to the additional points, it would fully respond by the end of 2 February 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
26. Within the resident’s complaint she said her personal belongings had been damaged by the leak. The landlord should reasonably have looked into this further given that the resident considered it was responsible for the damage and should have provided information about claiming for this via its insurer. This was a failing in its complaint handling.
27. The landlord also provided an assurance that it would consider further compensation once the repairs had been completed and the resident’s concerns regarding the contractor had been fully investigated. It was appropriate to provide such an assurance and to avoid a further delay in issuing the stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not issue a follow up response. It may have been the case that the landlord concluded that no further compensation was warranted, and that its investigations into the conduct of the contractors was inconclusive or could not be progressed owing to a lack of evidence. But irrespective of what conclusion the landlord had reached, this should reasonably have been communicated to the resident. It is unclear why it did not do so, but this was a further failing given the commitment it had made, and the resident was caused avoidable inconvenience in chasing the matter. Furthermore, as the landlord did not take these steps, it also missed an opportunity to ensure that it had taken steps to put things right. We have therefore made an order of compensation aimed at putting things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should ensure its future investigations and staff training in response to damp and mould are in line with Awaab’s Law, which took effect from 27 October 2025.
29. We have identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record-keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Communication

30. In this case the landlord mostly responded to the resident’s communication promptly and accurately. It should consider if it may have been more helpful to provide proactive communication rather than be reactive.