Sovereign Network Group (202541699)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202541699 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Sovereign Network Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
4 June 2026 |
Background
1. The resident has lived in the property since May 2024. Household vulnerabilities include asthma and a history of depression. The resident reported multiple repair issues not long after moving in. The landlord surveyed the property on 6 September 2024, using moisture tests and thermal imaging. The Environmental Health Team (EHT) inspected the property for hazards on 2 April 2025. The resident believes issues are unresolved.
What the complaint is about
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of damp and mould.
- Requests for drainage and associated ventilation repairs.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Requests for drainage and associated ventilation repairs.
- Associated complaint.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was generally appropriate and in line with its policies. However, there were minor delays completing external work, which the landlord has not remedied.
7. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of drainage and ventilation issues and proactive in trying to address the root cause of problems. However, not all repairs were adequate and it took too long to address some of them.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (the Code). However, its stage 1 response was delayed and it did not address all the resident’s complaint issues.
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. It must ensure the apology is meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance. |
No later than 02 July 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £500 made up of:
|
No later than 02 July 2026 |
|
3 |
Inspection order The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect and assess the resident’s report of a chemical smell, if it has not already done so. It must provide both us and the resident with a copy of the survey report that sets out:
If it is unable to do so, it must provide evidence of its attempts and a revised timescale no later than the due date. |
No later than 02 July 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should consider the merits of instructing a 3rd party surveyor to assess any outstanding reports of defects. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
15 August 2025 |
The resident complained that:
|
|
24 September 2025 |
The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referenced earlier inspections, surveys and repairs. It said it would investigate further on 6 October 2025, but it had not found any service failures. |
|
24 to 26 September 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord did not address her complaint of black sludge. |
|
7 November 2025 |
The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident believes issues are unresolved and continue to affect her health. She wants the landlord to arrange an external survey. |
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 damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
9. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, we will only look at issues raised at both stages of the complaint process. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues before our involvement. The resident has also reported issues after the complaints process ended. She can raise a new complaint with the landlord and refer to our service if she is dissatisfied with its final response.
10. Further, the resident told us issues affected the family’s health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something impacted health or not. The resident could seek independent advice about this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts.
11. The resident reported a suspected leak behind the bath on 30 July 2024. The landlord attended the next day and found no sign of water damage. This was in line with its emergency repair policy, which aims to respond to repairs such as leaks within 24 hours. It arranged follow on work to inspect the shower valve connections.
12. The resident reported mould on 8 August 2024 and the landlord inspected on 14 August 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which aims to respond to reports of damp and mould within 10 days, where possible. The inspector noted the resident believed 2 lines on her carpet were mould. However, they found no mould on the back of the carpet, underlay or floorboards. They noted the lines may be due to moving furniture.
13. The landlord surveyed the property shortly after on 6 September 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will assess the entire property following reports of damp and mould. The surveyor documented:
- There was no mould in the property.
- Swelling and distress in hall flooring was likely due to over cleaning.
- Low moisture levels behind tiled areas around the bath showed no structural issues or leaks.
- External brickwork showed no signs of water ingress or internal leaks.
- High humidity in the kitchen and understairs cupboard which housed a tumble dryer.
- The extractor fan was working in the kitchen but the resident had removed the internal door to the hall.
- The positioning of the tumble dryer could encourage mould growth
14. The surveyor concluded the property was generally in a very good state of repair. He believed high humidity may be due to external weather conditions. He recommended the resident only used the tumble dryer in well ventilated areas and re-hang the kitchen door.
15. The survey was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. This aims to assess underlying causes of damp and mould. It says it will work with and support customers on how to ventilate their home and provide practical advice. As a result of the survey the landlord decided not to investigate the suspected leak from the shower valve.
16. The EHT inspection in April 2025 supported the surveyor’s conclusion. It noted the property was in good order and free from category 1 Housing Health and Safety Rating System hazards. However, it noted the kitchen extractor fan may not have been working correctly and recommended the landlord inspect it. The landlord then inspected and replaced the fan that day, well within its repair policy timeframe of 38 days for non-emergency repairs.
17. Between 11 and 13 August 2025 the resident asked the landlord to assess moisture levels in the cloak room floor. She said her hallway flooring was lifting and there was black sludge behind the skirting board where the water pipe was. She believed this was mould. She also said there was a blister on the ceiling.
18. The resident reiterated this in her complaint shortly after. She said she had researched the results of previous moisture readings (of the September 2024 survey) and disagreed with the surveyor’s interpretation of them. She believed they supported the presence of damp in the bathroom and raised moisture in ground floor areas.
19. We would not expect the landlord to revisit the findings of its suitably qualified surveyor based only on the resident’s belief he had misinterpreted results. However, it is positive it reassessed moisture levels during the survey on 9 September 2025. As the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend, its short delay outside the 10-day response time was reasonable.
20. The surveyor found:
- No excess moisture in the flooring areas of concern. They attributed lifted laminate flooring in the hallway to an adhesive issue.
- Medium moisture in the bathroom plasterboard near the bath panel. They noted all pipework had been assessed and no leaks were detected, but recommended further investigation.
- No moisture in areas where paint was bubbling. They believed this could be due to paint reacting to previous decorative works.
- No internal penetrating damp but recommended the cavity wall be inspected.
21. The landlord told us the resident was responsible for remedying the lifted laminate flooring she installed. This is in line with the tenancy agreement, which says residents are responsible for repairing any improvement they have installed themselves. While the resident believes the landlord did not address her complaint about black smudge under the skirting board, she believed this was mould. The landlord had tested the area and found no damp or mould.
22. The resident later complained the landlord should have investigated the suspected leak behind the bath sooner. However, the survey results of September 2024 indicated there was no leak. This was confirmed in the inspection of 6 October 2025 when the landlord inspected the shower valve and pipework and areas behind the bath.
23. The landlord also inspected the external cavity that day. It found minor areas where mortar needed to be replenished below the DPC. It noted the mortar was softer in places but stable and unlikely to be eroded by the weather.
24. The stage 2 response said the resident also complained on 2 October 2025 that the external wall appeared damp, and there was a puddle forming in the back garden. Records show she followed this up on 5 November 2025 and said water was running towards the property. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would continue to carry out repairs until there was a resolution.
25. The landlord improved the outside drainage on 17 and 21 November 2025. It made further improvements by repositioning paving on 11 February 2026, when it also replenished the mortar below the DPC.
26. While the landlord’s response to damp and mould was mostly appropriate, it completed the external repairs outside the 38 day repair timeframe. As it has not acknowledged this, we order it to apologise. We also order it to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay and that excess water in the garden affected her enjoyment of the property, and the time and trouble she spent pursuing the matter.
27. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when a landlord has not acknowledged or put right a minor failure. In deciding this amount, we note that the mortar was stable and a follow up inspection confirmed no signs of water ingress and the wall cavity insulation, brickwork, and blockwork were dry.
28. The resident complained damp and mould had damaged her belongings. The landlord’s investigations do not support the presence of mould. However, its compensation policy says it should refer claims for damaged possessions or personal injury to its insurers to investigate. It was right to signpost the resident to do so.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of drainage and associated ventilation repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
29. As we have previously explained, we will only look at drainage and ventilation issues raised at both stages of the complaint process. The resident can raise a new complaint for any issues that arose after the complaint process ended.
30. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It defines these as, incidents that could seriously damage someone’s health or a property such as a water leak. It aims to make the situation safe and carry out any follow-on work within its standard repair timeframe of 38 days.
31. The resident reported recurring drainage problems from October 2024, including blockages, sewage smells, and waste backing up. The landlord cleared blockages within its repair timeframes. Later CCTV investigations found a blocked outside manhole and a “backfall” issue. Backfall problems occur when drainpipes are not aligned to the manhole. They can result in toilet paper and waste building up, blocked drains and smells. The landlord replaced a manhole and adjoining drainpipes on 28 November 2024. It believed this would prevent further issues.
32. However, the problems continued. In December 2024 the landlord cleared another blockage when CCTV showed a build up of toilet paper in the system. The resident reported more issues in January and February 2025. The landlord responded within repair timeframes and found poor drainage flow, standing water in the pipework, and ventilation problems. It repositioned a manhole in March 2025.
33. The landlord also fitted a valve in the soil stack to improve airflow. However, the resident reported the valve was ineffective. She believed its proximity to loft insulation was releasing irritants in the air that she was allergic to. Again, the landlord responded within repair timeframes. It relocated the valve and moved some of the insulation that was close to it. It also arranged a survey on 22 May 2025 resulting in it replacing the valve with a soil vent pipe (SVP) on 19 June 2025.
34. However, the resident later complained the SVP was ineffective. She felt it did not follow building regulations and that it should be hard plastic and not flexible piping. She believed it was not airtight and said her health declined as a result.
35. Meanwhile the EHT inspector found the ground floor toilet was slow to clear waste. They asked the landlord to rectify this. The landlord arranged a CCTV drainage survey on 2 May 2025. This found no breaks, defects or evidence of flooding. They noted everything was running as normal and gullies were working properly.
36. From July 2025 the resident continued to report drainage problems, including foul smells and toilets backing up, sometimes multiple times a day. Between 15 and 29 July 2025 the landlord inspected the issue and completed several repairs, including sealing the upstairs toilet. It found soil stack smells were present in the downstairs toilet, when drainage outlets upstairs were in use.
37. The landlord inspected the manhole again on 30 July 2025 and found no fault. On 4 August 2025 it adjusted the downstairs toilet pipework to improve flow and stop smells. It also installed a device to prevent vacuums forming and sealed the SVP where it joined the roof vent tile. However, we have not seen it addressed the resident’s concerns about the type of piping used within the installation.
38. In her stage 1 complaint the resident said the vacuum issue was unresolved, toilets were ineffective at removing waste and a faint sewer smell remained in the shower. She also complained about the flexible pipework within the SVP.
39. On 16 September 2025 the resident reported a leak from the downstairs toilet and waste coming out of the manhole. The landlord attended that day and cleared an external blockage. Records show the operative also confirmed the resident’s belief that the SVP should have been plastic like the rest of the pipe. However, he believed the external blockage was not related to this. The landlord monitored the moisture levels in the floor following the leak and provided a de-humidifier.
40. While the landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed the SVP should be the same as the rest of the soil stack pipework, it did not say when it planned to rectify this. It did confirm it would further investigate the drainage issues in the toilet. The resident escalated her complaint and believed the SVP faults were contributing to the drainage issues.
41. On 6 October 2025 the landlord surveyed the drainage again. It cleared a further blockage and identified potential manhole improvements. However, it needed to attend again on 30 October 2025 to clear a further blockage in the downstairs toilet and adjust the basin waste connection.
42. The landlord completed the manhole improvements on 4 November 2025 when it installed a larger chamber. However, the following day the resident reported the issue had returned. The landlord inspected the manhole on 6 November 2025 and found the replacement was ineffective.
43. The resident instructed her own specialist CCTV survey which took place on 20 November 2025. We understand why she did so, given that drainage problems continued over a prolonged period. However, the landlord had been responsive to her concerns. It had investigated them and arranged for multiple specialist surveys and completed any recommended repairs. Therefore, we would not expect it to reimburse the costs of the survey as the resident could have waited for the outcome of the landlord’s ongoing actions.
44. The resident’s surveyor confirmed the manhole had faults. They also found the downstairs toilet waste pipe was not sealed and observed smoke escaping from the SVP in the loft due to inadequate sealing.
45. The landlord sealed the downstairs toilet on 11 December 2025 and ensured the waste connection was secure and free from leaks. Also that day, it replaced the pipework on the SVP. However, this was 77 days from when the resident reported the SVP was ineffective and the pipework needed replacing. This was significantly outside the timeframe the landlord aims to complete such repairs in. It carried out a post–inspection on 16 January 2026 and noted all sinks and toilets were working correctly.
46. It is clear the resident has experienced multiple drainage and ventilation issues over a prolonged period. We do not dispute they affected her enjoyment of the property and caused the distress and inconvenience she has described. As we have explained, we are unable to assess whether such issues affected the health of the resident or her son.
47. However, our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policies. As we have detailed, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports. It largely responded within repair time frames and was proactive in trying to address the root cause of drainage and ventilation issues. It arranged multiple internal and external investigations and carried out any recommendations. While we understand the resident’s frustration that drainage problems continued as long as they did, the landlord acted appropriately to resolve and prevent issues and could not have reasonably foreseen that problems would continue.
48. That being said, it has not recognised its delay resolving the issues with the SVP pipework, or the ineffective manhole repair of 4 November 2025. Further, we would expect it to have found the unsealed waste pipe sooner, given the number of investigations and that the survey on 29 July 2025 found smells in the downstairs toilet. When combined, these failures amount to maladministration.
49. We order the landlord to apologise for this and pay the resident £250 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. She reported unpleasant smells affecting her enjoyment of the property and these issues contributed to this. Further, she spent time and trouble progressing the matters. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for when a landlord has not acknowledged or put right a failure that adversely affected the resident.
50. We have not seen evidence to justify the resident’s request for an external surveyor to assess the current condition of the property. However, the landlord may wish to consider this to improve relations and reassure both itself and the resident that its response to her reports is appropriate and robust.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
51. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
52. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint that she believed the conclusion of the survey of September 2024 was wrong by carrying out further testing. However, it did not respond to her complaint that the first surveyor misinterpreted results and was not suitably qualified to carry out tests. She has gone on to raise this issue again following further investigations and the landlord has issued a stage 2 response.
53. Further, the landlord issued the stage 1 response 13 working days outside its complaint policy timeframe. We have not seen that it updated the resident on the status of the complaint during this time.
54. While the landlord addressed the resident’s report of a strong chemical smell at stage 1 and said it would investigate further, it did not address this at stage 2. We have also not seen evidence of whether investigations confirmed the smell or found any cause. If the landlord found no chemical smell, and no likely source, it should have said so in its stage 2 response and reassured the resident. As the resident told us the issue persists, we order the landlord to investigate it now, if it has not already done so.
55. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within it’s complaint policy timeframe, allowing for a 10-day extension as allowed within the Code. Records show it updated the resident as to when she could expect a reply.
56. However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge the delays at stage 1 or its failure to address all the complaint points. Therefore, it has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for these failures and pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused progressing the outstanding issues. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when a complaint handling failure has adversely affected a resident.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
57. The landlord provided detailed records that allowed us to investigate and assess the complaint.
Communication
58. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s contacts and regularly updated her as to the status of repairs.