Sovereign Network Group (202400635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400635

Sovereign Network Group

28 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health. This case relates to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbour. For the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
3. On 30 May 2023, the resident reported noise disturbances from the neighbour, specifically late-night door slamming and furniture movement. She also said that she had confronted the neighbour who shouted at her. In June 2023, the landlord asked the resident to keep a diary of events and prepared an action plan with her. This included:
   1. Providing the resident with a recording doorbell.
   2. A referral to victim support.
   3. The use of a noise app.
   4. Referral to environmental health for an “independent investigation”.
4. In June and July 2023 the resident continued to report late-night noise and liaised with the landlord. She expressed her concerns that her case officer had been changed and there was no progress with the case. She also made reference to how the situation was affecting her mental health. A risk assessment was also carried out and the resident was advised to speak with the crisis team and Samaritans. On 10 July 2023, the landlord contacted the resident following a meeting with her and said that it was taking her reports seriously. The landlord emphasised the importance of gathering clear, concise information to meet its criteria for ASB. The case notes show that the resident was provided with a recording doorbell in August 2023 and regular visits from the landlord were made to her.
5. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident raised a complaint. However, the landlord sent a stage 1 response on 10 September 2023. This response addressed her complaint regarding its lack of action on her ASB case, stating that her complaint was not upheld due to “insufficient evidence” to proceed.
6. Between October and December 2023 the resident provided the landlord with a diary of the noise and doorbell recordings. The landlord sent warning letters to the neighbour on 5 and 30 October and 19 December 2023. A new case officer was assigned to the case in January 2024.
7. On 30 January 2024, the landlord visited the resident and attempted to make contact with the neighbour. The landlord explained that, as part of its pre-legal escalation protocol, it needed to demonstrate that visits had been made to the neighbour and that any care or support needs had been addressed. It also said it was an opportunity to discuss whether interim measures were appropriate, such as door closures and sound insulation.
8. On 21 February 2024, the resident raised a second stage 1 complaint. She reported ongoing noise disturbances, including late-night noise and frequent visitors, which she said affected her sleep and mental health. Despite multiple reports and warnings issued to the neighbour, she said the issues persisted. She expressed dissatisfaction with how her case was handled, citing poor communication and delays, especially following staff changes.
9. The resident and landlord continued communication following this, and on 20 March 2024, a peer review meeting was held with the local authority. The case notes concluded that there was no evidence of ASB, as the resident had not provided supporting evidence. She was offered tools like the noise app, with reviews scheduled bi-weekly. The landlord updated the resident on the meeting’s outcome on 28 March 2024, though she expressed dissatisfaction with the conflicting information she felt she had received.
10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024, stating that the resident was dissatisfied with how her ASB case was managed. The landlord concluded that there was no service failure and did not uphold her complaint. It explained that the initial noise nuisance was investigated and discussed with the neighbour. Additionally, later reports of noise were considered to be regular domestic activity, with no confirmed evidence of ASB, including from the doorbell recordings. It also said that it had maintained regular updates with the resident and the review included a comprehensive assessment of the case history and peer review documents. It said that based on the findings, there was insufficient evidence to support further investigation of the ASB.
11. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 18 July 2024, apologising for the delay in escalating it. The stage 2 response was issued on 29 July 2024. It stated that the landlord’s investigation had confirmed there were delays and mixed messages provided to the resident. It said the local authority had reviewed the case and found no evidence of persistent ASB that required further action. It acknowledged that staff changes and absences had caused confusion over previous actions and correspondence. The landlord advised the resident that her recent noise reports did not meet its criteria for persistent nuisance, and suggested she follow a specific reporting format to avoid multiple emails in one day.
12. The response went on to say that the complaint was partially upheld, acknowledging the delays and communication issues. An offer of £50 compensation was made to the resident, which would be applied to her rent account. The landlord said it had recognised the impact on her and had committed to reviewing policies to improve service.
13. The resident continued to report noise from slamming doors. The repair log shows that repairs to the neighbour’s front door were carried out in June and October 2024.
14. On 13 December 2024, the landlord informed the resident that the heavy-duty front doors and their closing mechanisms complied with fire and security regulations. It confirmed that staff had inspected both the doors and the closers and found they were fully operational. The landlord then closed the ASB case and offered support through third-party mediators.
15. The resident has since informed the Ombudsman ASB concerns remaining ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

16. The evidence shows that the resident had been reporting ASB and noise related incidents to the landlord since 2021, with those cases being closed due to insufficient evidence. In line with the Scheme, this investigation will focus on the resident’s most recent reports from May 2023 and the events surrounding her formal complaint of February 2024.
17. This Service acknowledges that this has been a difficult situation for the resident, and recognises that the ASB and noise reported to the landlord would have caused her distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures, as well as what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
18. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB

19. The landlord’s ASB policy emphasises the need for early intervention, investigation, and a fair, proportionate response to reports of ASB. It says it aims to work collaboratively with tenants, neighbours, and relevant agencies to resolve issues effectively.
20. The policy specifies response times ranging from 3 to 5 working days after receiving an ASB report, depending on the severity of the incident. It also commits to providing regular updates throughout the investigation process, with ongoing communication adapted to the case’s complexity. Additionally, the policy outlines various enforcement actions, legal procedures, and support options available to residents.
21. On 30 May 2023, the resident reported issues related to late-night noise including door slamming. The landlord responded on 2 June 2023, which was within 3 working days and aligned with its ASB policy response timescale. The resident was also advised to keep a diary of incidents, which was an appropriate initial step in the investigation. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment at this point given the resident’s reports. Government guidance on “putting victims first” under the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014 helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with anti-social individuals. In accordance with this guidance it is best practice to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm.
22. On 9 June 2023, the resident provided the landlord with recordings of the noise she said she was experiencing. The case notes said that the recording was “not very clear”. On 16 June 2023, the landlord prepared an action plan with the resident which included provision of a recording doorbell, use of a noise app, and referrals to victim support and environmental health. The resident disputes the referral occurred or any contact with victim support and as such a further recommendation will be made.
23. The action plan was agreed promptly and demonstrated good practice by the landlord in implementing this at the early stages of the investigation. Providing information on environmental health demonstrated that it was following its ASB policy by signposting the resident to other agencies that may be able to help.
24. In this case, it is unclear if and when the landlord carried out a formal risk assessment. The case notes for 3 July 2023 acknowledged that a risk assessment was needed, and attempts were made to telephone the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord’s action plan demonstrated that it was taking a victim centred approach by considering what support was available to the resident and offering her a recording doorbell to “help her feel safe”. These were positive steps.
25. The case notes for 10 July 2023 show that the landlord wrote to the resident following its visit to her. It said that it was taking her complaint seriously and highlighted the need to gather clear and concise information. It also noted that it would visit her every two weeks to discuss the case, but clarified that it could not discuss any enforcement related to the neighbour’s tenancy due to data protection. This communication helped manage the resident’s expectations and demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to support her. It was also in accordance with its data protection responsibilities.
26. Between 5 and 26 October 2023, the resident provided additional doorbell recordings. She also provided diary sheets covering events from 8 to 19 December 2023. Following this, the landlord sent warning letters to the neighbour on 5, 30 October and 19 December 2023. This appeared to be a proportionate response and consistent with its ASB policy.
27. A new case officer was assigned to the case in January 2024. Around 16 January 2024, the resident was advised that the warning letters issued to the neighbour were incorrect. The case notes indicate that the landlord acknowledged the issue and confirmed it would review the legality of the warning letters, which had been issued over the previous 4 months. The landlord also recognised that the letters had been sent without proper approval and that the case management needed to be corrected moving forward. Although obtaining legal advice was appropriate, it was unreasonable that this issue was not recognised earlier. More frequent and consistent case reviews may have highlighted these issues sooner, leading to a more timely resolution for the resident.
28. On 16 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about a missed appointment with a staff member. She was dissatisfied because she was not notified about the cancellation. The next day, the staff member apologised, explaining the appointment was missed due to emergency leave. While this was an appropriate response, the landlord should have measures in place to ensure that staff appointments are managed appropriately to avoid disadvantaging residents due to staff absence. If it was not possible for the pre-arranged appointment to be attended by a different staff member, efforts should have been made to notify the resident of the cancellation on the day if possible.
29. On 12, 14, and 15 February 2024, the resident inquired about the progress of her case. The landlord responded on 14 and 15 February 2024, arranging a visit on 20 February 2024 and informing her that her designated contact would provide updates during that visit. The landlord responded to the resident within its policy timescale, and it was reasonable for it to advise her that her single point of contact would provide the necessary updates. This is because a single point of contact helps manage expectations and ensures consistent communication.
30. The resident formally complained on 21 February 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with how her case was handled. Case notes from 7 March 2024 indicated that the landlord liaised internally about the legality of its warning letters, which were found not to align with procedure, prompting a review with its solicitor. It also said that training had been provided for the team, which was proactive action by the landlord.
31. On 20 March 2024, a peer review meeting was held between the landlord and the local authority, which concluded there was no evidence of ASB. The resident was offered tools like the noise app, with bi-weekly reviews scheduled. Previous warning letters were deemed inappropriate due to lack of evidence. The landlord updated the resident on 28 March 2024, but she remained dissatisfied, citing she was provided with conflicting information. At this point in the investigation, the landlord’s conclusion aligns with its ASB policy, which emphasises the importance of evidence-based case management. It had reviewed the evidence and concluded this was insufficient. This approach reflects a fair and proportionate response as per its policy. Offering tools such as the noise app and scheduling regular meetings with the resident also demonstrated a willingness to proactively manage her case and attempts to resolve issues collaboratively.
32. The evidence shows that the resident and the landlord liaised throughout April 2024. The resident expressed frustration over her perceived lack of response from the landlord. The landlord reminded her that she had a single point of contact and encouraged her to continue using the noise app. Overall, the landlord responded promptly to her emails, despite several messages being sent on the same day during the complaint process. Appointing a single point of contact was a reasonable measure to prevent miscommunication and ensure consistent handling.
33. On 7 May 2024, repairs were carried out to the neighbour’s front door in an attempt to minimise the slamming noise. On 16 May 2024 the resident advised the landlord that this had not worked and “the noise was as bad as before”. It was a positive step by the landlord to inspect the neighbour’s door for any repair issues. Nevertheless, this was a step the landlord should have considered sooner for an early resolution in line with its ASB policy.
34. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint on 23 May 2024. It said that it had reviewed the case history, consulted with staff members, and examined the peer review, all of which confirmed that there was no evidence of ASB requiring further investigation. It went on to say that there was no service failure on its part, and the complaint was not upheld. The response was reasonable and demonstrated a thorough approach to investigating the resident’s complaint, providing clear reasoning.
35. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 June 2024.She reported receiving conflicting information and feeling that no appropriate action had been taken, with communication issues causing her stress and impacting her mental health. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 July 2024. It said that the case had been referred to the local authority for an independent review, which also found insufficient evidence to pursue further action. The landlord confirmed there was no consistent evidence of noise nuisance, and the resident’s recent noise app evidence did not indicate persistent issues. It accepted that staff changes and absences had delayed clarity on prior communications and legal escalation, which caused some confusion.
36. In its response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about conflicting information and communication issues that impacted her mental health. This was a positive step by the landlord. At this point it provided a clear account of the case’s status, including the independent review by the local authority. It acknowledged that staff changes and absences had contributed to delays and confusion over what action could be taken. The offer of compensation and mediation was solution focused. Nevertheless, the resident was led to believe that the case was progressing to formal action for 4 months. It was only after staff changes that the legal issues with the warning letters were identified. This was unfair to the resident and caused her uncertainty.

Summary and conclusions

37. The initial stages of the landlord’s investigation were carried out effectively, with timely responses to the resident in line with policy and the development of an early action plan. The landlord also demonstrated good practice by referring the resident to environmental health. However, warning letters were issued to the neighbour nearly 4 months before their legality was formally reviewed. These letters were sent without proper approval, and there was a lack of adequate management oversight. This contributed to delays in resolving the issue one way or another. Additionally, internal management failures such as staff changes, missed appointments, and inconsistent communication again indicated a lack of due diligence and oversight. These failures led to delays, confusion, and a lack of clarity for the resident, causing her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
38. For these reasons, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB. A finding of maladministration has been avoided only because of the positive action taken at various points, including a recognition of mistakes and a willingness to take learning. While the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was solution focused, in our opinion, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact on the resident. Therefore £100 compensation has been awarded to her. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation will be paid where its actions have resulted in failure to follow policy and unreasonable time take to resolve a situation. These criteria do not provide guidance around award levels. Consequently, we have used our remedies guidance in relation to the level of award for service failure.

Complaint handling

39. The landlord’s complaints policy states that responses to stage 1 complaints should be provided within 10 working days of receipt. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint can be escalated to stage 2 for further review, with a response provided within 20 working days. The policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 10 days, if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to residents.
40. Evidence shows that the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 September 2023. However, we were unable to establish when the resident first submitted her complaint, so we cannot fully assess the response timescale. The landlord was asked to supply records related to this, but did not do so, indicating a possible failure in record keeping.
41. The resident submitted a further complaint on 21 February 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 May 2024. This was 64 working days later, significantly exceeding the policy’s timescale. There was no evidence that the landlord communicated an amended timescale to the resident, which was not appropriate or in line with its policy.
42. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request after 22 working days, and while it appropriately apologised for the delay, the acknowledgment was issued after the 20-working-day deadline had passed. This was unsatisfactory.
43. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 July 2024, which was 29 working days after the escalation request – again outside the policy’s 20 working days. However, it was within the additional 10 working daytime period specified in its policy.

Summary and conclusion

44. In conclusion, the landlord’s management of the complaint consistently did not meet its stated policy timescales. There were notable delays in providing responses at both stages, along with a lack of communication regarding any revised timescales to the resident. These delays likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaints process and potentially impacted the overall tenant-landlord relationship. The landlord also missed opportunities to put this right by offering compensation for its complaint handling.
45. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint, and £150 compensation has been awarded to her. This is in line with our remedies guidance in relation to the level of award for maladministration.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £250, made up of:
       1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its response to her reports of noise and ASB. This can be reduced by the landlord’s offer of £50 if already paid.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Review its relevant staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, having regard for the importance of regular monitoring, audits, and supervision of cases.
    4. Arrange for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.
    5. Contact the resident to discuss any concerns the resident may wish to raise about outstanding ASB issues. Should it be appropriate, an ASB case should be opened and any actions taken in line with its ASB policy.

Recommendations

49. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against this report, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.
50. Reoffer the resident an opportunity for a referral to victim support.