Sovereign Network Group (202518274)

Background

1. The resident bought the property lease in March 2025. In April 2025, he reported damp, dry rot, and a trip hazard to the landlord. He requested permission for his contractor to undertake repairs, which were the landlord’s responsibility, with the costs shared between both parties. The landlord did not agree and opted to investigate the issues itself.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports. It did not communicate effectively or keep him updated. However, it fully accepted its service failings, apologised, and offered proportionate redress.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it acknowledged the delays in handling the resident’s complaint and offered proportionate redress.

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.

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. The landlord completed a further survey after the resident brought his complaint to us. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s up-to-date proposal of work, he should log a new complaint with it. We do not have the power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
7. The landlord has accepted it caused unreasonable delays and did not communicate adequately with the resident. It has explained its findings and position. Overall, our own investigation found the same.
8. The resident reported a potential hazard on 25 April 2025, and the landlord confirmed this was a health and safety risk in its survey of 7 May 2025. Its repair policy required it to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The resident’s lease allowed emergency attendance without prior notice. It completed the emergency make-safe repair on 19 August 2025, 3 months later. This was not in line with its policy.
9. The landlord’s survey of May 2025 confirmed the repairs recommended in the resident’s independent surveys. Its surveyor recommended obtaining quotes from 2 other independent contractors to compare costs. This was a necessary step in the section 20 process it had to follow to carry out the repairs. However, the landlord took until October 2025 to obtain, compare, and accept a quote. This was a delay of 5 months.
10. The landlord accepted there were unreasonable delays in doing this and explained why. The resident said its second contractor could not complete the survey because the landlord had not given them a scope of works. However, evidence shows it gave them the relevant survey reports, including the resident’s own, and asked for a quote for the work shown. It has explained where the confusion occurred on the day of the contractor’s visit, which was a reasonable response.
11. The evidence confirms the resident’s timeline of contact and chasers, which the landlord has also accepted. It found a staff member caused these, but that its teams also did not take responsibility. It explained this to the resident and reassigned ownership of the matter to a complex works manager and involved its regional repairs director. It said it was working to address the underlying issues to implement solutions. This was a suitable response given the issues it found.
12. The resident believes the landlord could issue the section 20 notice without confirming who would carry out the work. It explained that was incorrect because the notice required a named contractor and the estimated cost. Therefore, it could not issue this without first obtaining all the quotes. The landlord then submitted the notice in the period advised in its stage 2 response.
13. However, there were unexpected issues involving the landlord’s contractor. This required the landlord to obtain an independent survey to confirm the scope and cost of the works. For the reasons explained, the resident will need to raise a new complaint about issues that arose after the landlord’s final complaint response before we can investigate.
14. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports. It did not communicate effectively or respond promptly to him. Its failures also delayed decorative work and the resident’s move into the property. However, it has fully accepted its failures, sincerely apologised, and offered £900 compensation.
15. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer was proportionate and consistent with our compensation guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the £900 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code. Its responses addressed the issues raised in sufficient detail.
17. The landlord did not send a formal acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1, causing the resident to chase. It then explained it needed more time to investigate, apologised, and told him a revised date. Its stage 1 response was issued in line with this.
18. We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement at stage 2 and the response was issued 5 working days late. The landlord explained a system error generated the wrong response date and offered £50 for the delay. It has since told us it has corrected the error on its system to prevent a repeat. This was a reasonable response.
19. The landlord has apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered £50 compensation. The compensation it offered was proportionate for the failures we found and consistent with our compensation guidance. Therefore, we have not made any further orders.

Learning

20. This case highlights the importance of maintaining landlord and resident relations through clear communication, timely action, and follow‑through on commitments. Where these elements are missing, residents may lose confidence in the landlord’s service and complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information, such as emails. This added an avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

22. The landlord did not communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.