Sovereign Network Group (202533249)

Decision
Case ID	202533249
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 May 2026

Background

The resident has asthma and a lung condition, which require careful management. She reported that the landlord surveyed the property and found damp and mould. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication, delays, and actions to resolve these issues.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp, mould and follow on repairs
2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and follow on repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Responses to damp, mould, and follow on works

The landlord did not keep to the timeframes set out in its Repairs Policy, and its communication was poor. These issues continued after its final complaint response. It did not show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when managing the repairs and missed opportunities to put things right sooner.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 2 response fell slightly outside of the timeframes set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident. Its other actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 09 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £729, made up as follows: £529 it offered after its stage 2 response to recognise the impact caused by its damp and mould handling £150 additional compensation for the distress and uncertainty caused by its failure to assess and confirm the habitability of the bedroom and failure to consider the impact on her as a vulnerable resident £50 additional compensation to recognise the time and trouble in the resident chasing the outstanding repairs 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 09 June 2026
3	Competing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the bathroom and kitchen extractor fan repairs are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the above by the due date.	No later than 09 June 2026
4	Post inspection The resident has reported that the finishing works to the bedroom windowsill have not been completed. The landlord must take all steps to ensure it post-inspects the window and external repairs by the due date. If the landlord cannot post inspect the works in this time, it must provide evidence of its attempts to arrange the meeting. What the post inspection must achieve: assess the quality of the works that have been carried out confirm to the resident whether it is satisfied that the works meet an acceptable standard If further works are required, it must write to the resident setting out what repairs are needed and provide timescales for completion. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the above by the due date.	No later than 09 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 March 2025	The resident made a complaint. In summary, she said: on 18 February 2025 the landlord surveyed the property, found damp and mould, and said it was likely caused by rising damp on 20 and 28 February 2025 she asked the landlord for updates, but it did not respond the landlord should treat the mould as a priority as she has a health condition
3 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
13 March 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it did not receive the survey report until 10 March 2025 as it had carried out multiple property surveys, which led to several actions it had followed its Damp and Mould Procedure, but it should have called the resident back when it said it would
24 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. In summary, she said: she could not sleep in the bedroom with mould as it had an adverse effect on her health she has asthma and a breathing disorder the landlord did not provide a clear timeframe for when it would resolve the damp and mould
31 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
30 April 2025	The landlord gave its final response. In summary, it said: it found it had delayed reporting the damp and mould to the correct department and apologised for this on 10 April 2025 its Surveyor attended and recommended works to the external of the property, bathroom, bedroom and kitchen on 23 April 2025 its damp specialist attended and were writing the report with the necessary repairs it would send the resident a repairs timeframe when it had the information it did not have the resident’s vulnerabilities on its housing system it apologised that the resident was not sleeping in the bedroom, but it would raise the works as soon as possible The landlord offered the resident £138 compensation, made up as follows: £60 for repair delays £60 for distress and inconvenience £18 for time and trouble
12 September	The landlord reviewed the complaint and repair delays. It increased its compensation offer to £529.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord had not completed all the repairs. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise complete the outstanding repairs compensate her for the distress and inconvenience it caused

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and follow on repairs
Finding	Maladministration

There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events related to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould and follow on repairs between February 2025 and October 2025.
In her complaint, the resident said the landlord visited on 18 February 2025 and completed a property survey, which identified damp and mould. She contacted the landlord twice between 20 February 2025 and 3 March 2025 for an update.
There is no evidence the landlord contacted her until 7 March 2025. This was not consistent with its Damp and Mould Policy, which requires it to regularly contact the resident following a damp and mould report. Its lack of communication likely made the resident feel her concerns had been overlooked.
On 13 March 2025 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. This went someway in putting things right. It reasonably explained the cause of the delays and identified learning about the timeframes it gives residents when it finds repairs during surveys.
The landlord also acknowledged it failed to call the resident back, which was positive. However, it was not appropriate for it to say it had followed its Damp and Mould Procedure as it had not maintained regular contact.
In its response, the landlord missed the opportunity to give the resident a repairs timeframe. On 24 March 2025 the resident escalated her complaint for this reason. She also explained that she could not sleep in the bedroom as the mould affected her asthma and lung disorder.
On 10 April 2025 the landlord re-surveyed the property and recommended a damp specialist, who attended on 23 April 2025. While it was reasonable for the landlord to get a specialist’s opinion, this was more than 2 months after finding the damp and mould. This exceeded its 1-month Repairs Policy timeframe. This likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs handling.
In its stage 2 response, dated 30 April 2025, the landlord apologised for its repair delays. It explained that it had passed the damp and mould issue to the wrong department. This showed it had identified contributing factors.
The landlord summarised the findings from its April 2025 visits and committed to giving the resident a repairs timeframe once it had received the specialist’s report. This was reasonable, as it would not be able to provide this information without knowing all of the necessary work.
The landlord’s £138 compensation offer was also consistent with its Compensation Policy. This sets out that it will pay up to £10 per week for delays, £10 for distress, and £3 for time and trouble.
However, the landlord missed the opportunity to respond to the resident’s reports that she could not sleep in the bedroom. Instead, it said that it “hoped” to raise the repairs as soon as possible.
The resident had told the landlord the mould could impact her health conditions, but its response did not show it took these concerns into account. This likely made the resident feel her concerns were not taken seriously.
Despite committing to providing a repairs timeframe, the landlord did not do so. The resident chased the landlord at least twice between 28 May 2025 and 10 July 2025 for this information. On 10 July 2025 it shared the required external works but did not include the timeframes. This left the resident uncertain as to when the issue would be resolved.
However, the landlord did explain that it would re-inspect the property for internal repairs after completing the external works. This was reasonable, as the internal conditions may have worsened since the earlier surveys.
Between 18 and 29 August 2025 the landlord completed the external repairs, 6 months after finding damp and mould. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out that mould can cause breathing difficulties and fungal infections. Considering this alongside the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord could have progressed the repairs sooner. It did not meet its Repairs Policy’s 1-month timeframe, prolonging the resident’s distress and exposure to the mould.
On 12 September 2025 the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered the resident £529 compensation. Although this was after its final complaint response, both parties had previously agreed that the landlord would review the level of compensation once the outstanding repairs were completed. Therefore, it was reasonable to make a late offer.
The landlord based this award on a 23‑week delay in completing the repairs, which it assessed as having a medium impact on the resident. The amount aligned with the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance, which says that awards between £100 and £600 are appropriate where failures have caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
While the landlord completed repairs and resolved the damp and mould, it missed another opportunity to set out its position about the bedroom’s habitability. Throughout the period of investigation, the resident continually told the landlord about her health conditions and how this could be impacted by the presence of damp and mould. She explained that she could no longer sleep in the bedroom.
We cannot say whether the bedroom was habitable or not. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to understand the resident’s individual circumstances, any potential risks and if it needed to reconsider its approach. It did not show regard to its Damp and Mould Policy, which says it will consider case-by-case support where residents are vulnerable.
Between 12 September and 23 October 2025 the resident told the landlord not all of the repairs were fully completed. This included bedroom windowsill finishing, and kitchen and bathroom extractor fan repairs. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. This caused her time and trouble. We have made orders to put things right.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged its delays and offered compensation. However, this did not go far enough in putting things right. It did not show how it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and did not meet to its stage 2 commitment to provide a timeframe for repairs. It failed to satisfy itself about the bedroom’s habitability and show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
These failings caused the resident avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Our compensation order includes the landlord’s post-stage 2 offer and reflects both its Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s Complaints Policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, dated 3 March 2025, on the same day. This met its Complaints Policy and the Code’s 5-working day acknowledgement timeframe.
On 13 March 2025 the landlord gave its stage 1 response, 9 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This met the Code’s 10 working day timeframe. The landlord’s complaint definition was also consistent with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation, dated 24 March 2025, within the Code and its policy’s timeframe.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 30 April 2025, 21 working days later. This fell 1 day outside of the 20-working day timeframe set out in its police and the Code. However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident.

Learning

The landlord’s surveys did not log whether a room is habitable. The landlord could consider adding this to its reports. This would support clearer decisions about temporary measures, prioritisation, and whether compensation for loss of room use is appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord said it did not hold details of the resident’s vulnerabilities, although the resident had historically provided this information. Keeping housing systems up to date ensures vulnerability information is available, and help informs the landlord’s approach from the outset.

Communication

Keeping residents informed of delays, appointment changes, and next steps helps build trust and transparency. Poor communication can increase the impact of failures and contribute to prolonged dissatisfaction.