Sovereign Network Group (202403104)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first‑floor, two‑bedroom flat within a converted house. His tenancy began in March 2006, and he lives with his partner and two children. During the complaint, he told the landlord that one of his children has diabetes and that he is receiving treatment for cancer. In August 2023, the resident reported a pest infestation in the attic, and in November 2023 he reported a leak in the roof. The landlord handled these as two separate complaints under its complaints procedure. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and brought the complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.

6. There were avoidable delays in completing the repairs needed to address the pest infestation. The landlord did not progress the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident experienced prolonged inconvenience, including a temporary decant and the need to make repeated contacts to seek updates. Although the landlord later awarded proportionate compensation, it did not demonstrate effective learning from the failings it had acknowledged.

The handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

7. There were avoidable delays in repairing the leak reported by the resident. Communication with the resident during this period was inconsistent, and the landlord did not demonstrate effective oversight to ensure the repair progressed within a reasonable timeframe. Although the landlord later applied its compensation policy appropriately, it did not identify any learning from its failure to progress the works in line with its repairs policy.

The handling of the complaint.

8. It is positive that the landlord met the required complaint response timescales. However, it addressed issues from Complaint A within its responses to Complaint B, which created unnecessary confusion. The landlord also committed to completing the works during the complaint process but did not follow through within a reasonable timeframe, which was a missed opportunity to resolve the issues sooner and required the resident to chase updates. While the final response showed improved handling and offered proportionate redress, the landlord did not identify any broader learning from the issues raised.

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.

What we did not investigate and why

9. The landlord attended the resident’s home in May and June 2022 in response to a report of a pest issue. In the interests of fairness, and given the passage of time, this investigation focuses on events in the period up to 5 August 2023, when the resident first raised a complaint with the landlord. References to earlier events are included for context only.
10. This Service does not typically consider matters that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This Service has not seen evidence that events after 24 June 2024 exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. These events have therefore not been considered in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord handled these later matters, he may choose to raise them as a formal complaint with the landlord.

What we found

11. It is not disputed that the landlord’s responsibilities included resolving the pest infestation in the property.
12. The landlord has a pest control policy, but the policy does not set out any response timescales for managing reports of pest activity. This Service’s pest guidance states that landlords should carry out timely inspections after a resident reports an issue and that any required repairs should be completed promptly, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 1 calendar month, and complex repairs within 90 days.
14. The landlord attended the resident’s home in May and June 2022 but reported that it could not safely access the attic, which it considered the resident’s responsibility. The resident made a formal complaint about an ongoing mice infestation on 5 August 2023.
15. The landlord made an initial appointment for 5 October 2023 which was reportedly cancelled due to “staff shortages”. The landlord attended on 12 October 2023 and removed contaminated insulation. The contractor raised a concern that the insulation might contain asbestos, and the landlord moved the resident out of the property in mid‑October 2023 while this was investigated. The resident reported that this displacement lasted approximately 7 to 10 days. The landlord told this Service that it does not hold records confirming the exact dates of the temporary move. An internal email dated 20 October 2023 shows that the landlord’s testing found no asbestos and confirmed that the property was safe.
16. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 1 December 2023 and identified several entry points that required proofing. A repair order was raised for the contractor to return on 19 December 2023 to complete the proofing works.
17. The evidence shows that the resident had 25 contacts with the landlord between 5 August 2023 and 12 June 2024. This includes 15 appointments made during this period. Of those appointments, 9 were attended and 6 were missed, cancelled, or not completed. The resident also chased progress on 4 occasions. The landlord did not use these repeated contacts as a trigger to review progress and oversee the case to ensure the repairs were completed by its contractors.
18. In its stage 2 response for Complaint B, the landlord acknowledged that the repair work related to the pest infestation was not completed until 12 June 2024. Its contractors attended on that date and confirmed that the works had been completed. This was more than 10 months after the resident first complained.
19. In summary, there were avoidable delays in completing the works required to address the pest infestation. The evidence shows repeated missed or incomplete appointments and long periods without progress. The landlord’s records also show shortcomings in how it planned and coordinated the repairs with its contractors, which contributed to the overall delay.
20. Taken together, these issues show that the landlord did not meet its obligations and did not demonstrate a reasonable standard of service in its oversight of the repairs. The evidence indicates weaknesses in how the landlord monitored and progressed the works within a reasonable timeframe.
21. The resident experienced disruption over an extended period while the pest issue remained unresolved. He was temporarily moved out of the home during safety checks and had to manage numerous contacts and several failed or incomplete appointments, which caused avoidable inconvenience. The delays meant the resident continued to live with an active pest issue for a prolonged period. These impacts were greater because of the resident’s serious illness and his caring responsibilities for his children.
22. In its stage 2 response for Complaint B, the landlord applied its compensation policy for time and trouble, missed appointments, delay, and distress. The amount awarded was proportionate to the undisputed impacts and is consistent with the level of compensation this Service would consider appropriate.
23. Although the landlord stated in its stage 1 response to Complaint B that it would use the issues raised to drive learning and improve its service in relation to the contractors involved, the subsequent delays indicate that this learning was not embedded in practice. In its final response, the landlord did not consider broader learning from its acknowledged failings towards improvement in its services. Although evidence of positive practice was seen, including adequate redress, this lack of learning means that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and service failure is therefore determined.

What we did not investigate and why

24. This Service has not seen evidence that events after 24 June 2024 completed the landlord’s complaints process. These events have therefore not been considered in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord handled these later matters, he may choose to raise them as a formal complaint with the landlord.

What we found

25. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the roof leak affecting the property. Under its repairs policy, routine repairs should be completed within one calendar month and complex repairs within 90 days. No evidence has been seen that the landlord categorised the works as complex or informed the resident if it had done so.
26. The resident first attempted to report a leak on 21 September 2023, affecting his son’s bedroom and the living room. The landlord raised a repair order on 23 September 2023 but cancelled this on 26 September 2023 and raised a new order. On 2 October 2023, the landlord reallocated the repair to a different contractor. The new contractor attended on 25 October 2023 and carried out general roof repairs, including work to the flashing, gutters and debris clearance. Further roofing and guttering works were recorded as completed on 20 December 2023, including reinstatement of flashing, repair of gutters, correction of roofing felt installation, sealing of parapet defects, and additional gutter clearance. Between September and December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times to request updates and to prompt progress.
27. The evidence shows that the landlord initially raised the repair order with the wrong contractor and then had to reallocate the job. The landlord also experienced difficulty obtaining timely updates from the new contractor once the order had been reassigned. In addition, the first contractor visit did not resolve the leak, leading to further required works. As a result, the leak was not repaired until around 3 months after the resident first reported it.
28. There were avoidable delays in repairing the source of the leak. The landlord’s communication with the resident during this period was not consistent, and there were periods without updates. The landlord’s records also indicate gaps in how it planned and coordinated the repair with its contractors, which contributed to the delay. Overall, the landlord did not act in line with its obligations and did not demonstrate a reasonable standard of service in its oversight of the repair. It also did not progress the works within a reasonable timeframe.
29. In its final formal response for Complaint B, the landlord applied its compensation policy to address time and trouble, missed appointments, delays and distress, including matters relating to both the pest infestation and the roof repairs. The amount awarded was proportionate to the undisputed impact on the resident and is consistent with the level of redress this Service would consider appropriate.
30. However, in its final response the landlord did not look beyond the immediate circumstances of the complaint or identify any wider learnings to improve its services. A finding of Service Failure is therefore determined.

31. The landlord’s 2023 Complaints Policy is compliant with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code timescale targets, with targets of acknowledging complaints within 5 working days and issuing responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The evidence shows that the landlord largely met these timescales in its handling of both complaints.
32. The landlord handled the two complaints separately, but its stage 1 response to Complaint B included issues raised under Complaint A. This meant the landlord was addressing the resident’s pest‑related concerns across two overlapping complaint processes rather than keeping them distinct. This approach was unclear and resulted in confusion for the resident.
33. In its stage 1 response to Complaint B and its stage 2 response to Complaint A, the landlord said it would complete remedial works to address the pest infestation and replace the insulation on 19 December 2023. However, it did not progress these works to resolution within a reasonable timeframe. This meant the landlord did not fulfil its stated commitments to resolution sufficiently promptly and required the resident to spend further time and effort seeking updates.
34. In its final response to complaint B, the landlord provided a more detailed review of the issues and set out a proposed resolution, including compensation that aligned with its policy. This showed improved complaint handling.
35. However, the landlord did not demonstrate learning from the shortcomings identified in its complaint responses. The final response did not adequately consider learning or identify steps to improve its complaint management service. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not maintain effective oversight of known repair needs, which contributed to delays and uncertainty about the status of outstanding work. The landlord should ensure that repair completion and non completion information is monitored and reviewed with sufficient regularity to support timely progression of works through to effective completion. It is likely of benefit if “non standard” works such as pest control be included in such oversight arrangements despite the absence of a definitive target timescale within its associated policy.
37. The landlord did not follow through on the commitments made in its complaint responses. The landlord should ensure that commitments given at all stages of a complaint are tracked, actioned, and evidenced, and that any relevant organisational learning is captured.
38. The landlord did not provide records relating to the resident’s move into temporary accommodation to this Service, and the available information indicates gaps in its record keeping in this area. Accurate and complete records are essential to support effective communication, enable informed decision making, and evidence the actions taken. The landlord should consider this and how it might be confident that future such events are recorded clearly and consistently.

General

39. This case featured an amalgam of separate complaints, with some elements erroneously included in the landlord’s response to a separate complaint. The landlord may wish to consider how best to avoid any recurrence of this.