Sovereign Network Group (202538775)

Decision
Case ID	202538775
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	25 June 2026

Background

The property is a top floor flat. The landlord owns the freehold of the building. The resident reported repeated leaks through the kitchen ceiling since moving into the property in 2021. He said the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue have been ineffective. He was dissatisfied with the time it was taking to address the most recent July 2025 leak. He also reported mould and said he was particularly concerned about its impact on his young child and on himself as he is immunosuppressed.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
We have also investigated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays and the impact of previous failed repairs. However, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right and it failed to address the detriment to the resident. There is also no evidence it followed through on actions it said it would take in its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s 2024 complaint. It also delayed responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 2025. While it made an offer of compensation, this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

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 provided by a senior member of staff 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 24 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £900 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of his reports of leaks £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the associated complaint 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 24 July 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order for the landlord to investigate the affected area of the resident’s property and the roof to consider any interim temporary measures to mitigate impact of the leaks. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. Within 5 working days of the inspection, the landlord must provide the resident with a written outcome. This must set out any temporary measures identified and the timescales for completing them. The landlord must complete any agreed temporary measures within 10 working days of the inspection, unless it provides a clear reason for any alternative timescale.	No later than 24 July 2026
4	Write to the resident The landlord must write to the resident setting out: the date the permanent roof works will start and the expected completion date a clear schedule of the works, where available the frequency of updates it will provide during the works a named contact and contact details for the resident during this period If the landlord is unable to provide confirmed start dates, it must explain the reasons for this and provide an estimated timeframe, along with the date by which it will next update the resident.	No later than 24 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 April 2024	The resident reported a leak. He said he was dissatisfied that the issue had returned and with the landlord’s response timescales.
May to September 2024	The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions chasing progress of the works. He was dissatisfied it had not set out a plan. On 9 September 2024 he said that he wished to make a formal complaint.
22 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about repeated leaks through the kitchen ceiling since he moved into the property. He said that despite the landlord’s surveyors confirming this was caused by a structural fault with the roof, it had not permanently resolved it. He said that the leaks resulted in structural damage to the ceiling, black mould growth and periods without a smoke alarm. He was concerned about the impact of the mould. He asked the landlord to stop the current leak, complete permanent repairs, repair the ceiling including any contaminated insulation, and provide compensation.
1 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had completed works following each report since 2021 to resolve and prevent further leaks. It was sorry it had since become clear that these were not effective long term. It upheld the complaint and apologised for delays and the impact of repeated failures of previous repairs. It also acknowledged failures in its record keeping, which prevented it from supplying full documentation of the previous works. The landlord said its surveyor attended in late July 2025 and noted minor staining near the smoke detector, but no damp or mould. It said it had identified several issues with the roof which were the likely causes of the recurring leaks. It confirmed it had submitted a quote for approval before it could start the works. It also apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and credited £150 compensation to his service charge account.
16 September 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was dissatisfied because the landlord had not: provided a timeline for the works addressed the active leak since July 2025 set out a plan to remedy the mould and insulation damage offered compensation for the impact in the past 4 years provided documentation of previous repairs
16 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the inconvenience, frustration, and disruption caused by the recurring roof leaks. It said that: it could not provide a repair timescale as it was awaiting the outcome of a latent defect assessment it found no active leak during its visit in July 2025 it had completed temporary repairs following a further report in September 2025 and it was sorry these were not effective it would inspect again on 17 October 2025 to identify any further interim works while awaiting approval for permanent repairs it would carry out internal remedial works after the roof repair as a gesture of compensation it could not share contractor reports with residents The landlord said it would provide written updates and attend promptly should any further deterioration occur. It said it would review compensation once repairs were complete to reflect the full impact.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as he was dissatisfied the landlord had not resolved the leaks permanently or responded to his update requests. He said there had been no progress since its stage 2 response. He said that in the meantime he and his family could not fully enjoy their home, were exposed to hazardous air conditions and incurred increased heating costs due to moisture-damaged insulation. He said his child had spent more than half her life living in these conditions. To resolve the complaint, the resident requested immediate action to stop the leak, permanent structural repairs, full remediation of affected internal areas, compensation reflecting service charges paid during the active leaks, and copies of all repair records.

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 leaks and associated damage
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported leaks from the kitchen ceiling on 5 occasions since moving into the property, including twice in 2021 and once in April 2023. He raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reports after a further leak occurred in April 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, so that landlords can consider the issues whilst they are still “live” and evidence is available to fairly investigate what happened. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of the leak reports from April 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord to report a new leak on 25 April 2024. The landlord sent an operative to inspect but they could not access the roof. The landlord asked the resident why access was not possible. It is unclear why it directed this query to the resident, given it involved its operative. It later explained the hatch opening to the roof was padlocked and something its estate officers would follow up. Access issues continued through May 2024, with attempts to arrange access unsuccessful. The landlord inspected the roof in early June 2024, over a month after the report. It was unreasonable the landlord took multiple attempts to arrange access to the roof, for which it was responsible under the lease.
The resident contacted the landlord multiple times between June and early September 2024 requesting updates. In July 2024 the landlord said it had referred the matter to a team dealing with latent defects. In August 2024 the resident reported that plaster had started coming off the ceiling and mould was growing. He told the landlord he had a medical condition which meant that he was immunosuppressed and that he had a newborn child in the property. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to these concerns or updated the resident further regarding the works.
The landlord carried out repairs in November 2024. The extent of the roof works is unclear as it has not provided any records of its investigations or repairs. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the works it completed were in line with any expert recommendations. The landlord also completed internal remedial works, including replacement plasterboard and redecoration. The resident raised concerns about insulation levels and possible mould growth within the ceiling structure as part of his later complaint. The landlord responded to this concern reasonably by committing to replace any insulation that may be required after completion of the roof works.
The resident reported a further leak in the same area in July 2025. The landlord said it inspected his property on 29 July 2025. It found minor staining near the smoke detector, but no evidence of an active leak, damp or mould. It said it inspected the roof on 1 August 2025 and found several issues, such as inadequate drainage, which it deemed to be the likely causes of the recurring leaks. The landlord has not provided any reports to support its findings. In its complaint responses, it acknowledged its previous attempts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful.
We have seen no evidence the landlord updated the resident on the outcome of its investigations until a month after the inspection, as part of its stage 1 response. It said it had obtained a quote for the works and referred it for approval. Although it said it had liaised internally regarding the scope of works and costs, it did not update the resident again until after he reported another active leak at the end of September 2025. He sent a video which showed water dripping through a light fitting. The landlord’s initial response was reasonable as it arranged temporary repairs.
However, only a day later the resident told the landlord the temporary works had not improved the situation. On 6 October 2025 he told the landlord the mould area had expanded. There is no evidence the landlord took action to address the water ingress or inspect the reported mould in the kitchen. This was despite the landlord stating in its stage 2 response that it had scheduled an inspection for 17 October 2025. There is no evidence this inspection took place. On 17 November 2025 the resident sent the landlord a further video showing an active leak and an area on the ceiling that appeared to have black mould.
We have seen no evidence the landlord inspected the affected areas again, considered the impact on the resident and his young child, especially considering the resident’s reported medicinal condition, or took any steps to mitigate it. This is despite accepting the leaks originated from the roof and that its previous repair attempts had failed. The resident said the water ingress was unpredictable and required a bucket in the kitchen. He said he had restricted access to it to protect his child as he was concerned the water may be contaminated. He also said managing the mould had become more difficult as the plaster was now so damp, it was at risk of falling off when cleaned.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was awaiting approval for permanent works, and it would provide updates. However, it did not set any expectations as to when it would do so, increasing uncertainty for the resident. The resident sent multiple emails to the landlord between December 2025 and March 2026. The landlord acknowledged some of them but did not provide substantive updates on the repair plans. After not receiving a response from the landlord, the resident escalated the matter to his MP in early April 2026. The landlord arranged a further inspection. We asked it about the outcome of this, however it did not provide any detail. The resident confirmed he remains unaware of any plan to resolve the persistent leaks.
The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the impact of the failed repairs and offering to complete internal remedial works, including insulation if required. However, it provided limited information about next steps and its commitment to providing updates lacked detail. There is no evidence it carried out the promised inspection to assess interim measures. It also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about mould.
In addition to its failure to proactively update the resident, it also failed to respond to his repeated update requests. It took no evident steps to progress repairs until the resident contacted his MP. While it suggested the issue may form part of a wider defect project, there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident or provided any timescales. This left him and his family without clear information while managing ongoing water ingress.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to set out its findings from the most recent inspection and a timebound schedule of works to the roof. We have also ordered it to inspect the resident’s property and consider any interim measures to address water ingress, damp and mould.
The resident requested compensation in the amount of his service charges during the periods of active leaks. We would not consider compensation based on service charges as these may relate to multiple services the landlord provides under the lease. In some circumstances we may consider rent based compensation where a resident is unable to use a room for the intended purpose. However, in this case, there is no evidence the kitchen was unusable, as the impact was confined to part of the room and the resident managed the water ingress with a bucket.
Therefore, we have considered compensation for distress and inconvenience. Having regard to the circumstances and failings identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation. This is in line with our guidance for cases where we identified failures which had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s December 2025 complaints policy complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2024 to report the leak had returned and expressed dissatisfaction with its response timescales. He sent further emails in the following months, where he said he would escalate the matter. We have not seen the landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time. However, the April 2024 Code says a resident does not need to use the term “complaint” for a matter to be treated as such and requires landlords to offer the opportunity to raise a complaint where dissatisfaction is expressed. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact, there is no evidence it considered or offered to treat the matter as a complaint, despite the resident’s clear dissatisfaction with its service.
We have also seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s explicit request to raise a formal complaint on 9 September 2024. The resident confirmed he did not pursue this further at the time due to other commitments. He raised dissatisfaction again following the leak returning in July 2025. This time the landlord acted reasonably by contacting him promptly to clarify that he wished to raise a formal complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was late by 14 working days. It acknowledged this, apologised and offered £150 compensation. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation offer for the stage 1 delay was fair and it credited this into the resident’s service charge account, in line with its compensation policy. However, it did not acknowledge or put right its failure to respond to the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction in 2024. In line with our compensation guidance for such circumstances, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

The landlord did not demonstrate clear ownership of the issue or provide plans to resolve the roof defect. Landlords should take accountability for complex repairs for which they are responsible and set out clear, timebound actions to resolve them, providing regular updates in cases where further approval is required due to cost.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not maintain adequate records of inspections, surveys, or works it completed. This limited its ability to evidence its actions and reduced transparency. It should ensure its findings and works are accurately recorded and accessible.

Communication

The landlord did not provide proactive updates, which contributed to the resident repeatedly chasing for information. Landlords should implement regular, scheduled communication where repairs are delayed.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to expressions of dissatisfaction and a formal complaint request. Landlords should ensure all complaints are recognised, acknowledged, and handled in line with its complaints process and the Code.