Sovereign Network Group (202348551)

Background

1. The property is a flat within a block. The landlord uses a Managing Agent (MA) for day-to-day management of the block, including some repairs. The resident has reported water ingress from the roof above a communal walkway since 2020. She believes it has damaged her front door and belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water ingress.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water ingress.
   2. Associated complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We understand major work is needed to resolve the water ingress. However, the landlord took too long to progress investigations and repairs and it did not regularly update the resident.
6. The landlord did not progress the complaint appropriately and responded outside the timeframes detailed in our complaint handling code (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.

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.

7. Repair records and emails show the resident reported damaged boarding panels outside the property on 21 January 2020. She said the issue affected the ceiling of the communal walkway and believed it was due to a drainage problem. The landlord accepts responsibility for resolving this issue. This is in line with the lease which says it is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating, renewing and improving the main structure of the building and common parts that the resident is not responsible for.
8. Limited records remain from this time. However, we do know the landlord agreed to inspect on 27 January 2020. There is no record of the inspection but the resident asked for an update on 8 February 2020.
9. The lack of records means we cannot properly assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports at that time. While we would usually only consider events that took place 12 months prior to the complaint, the landlord has acknowledged failures from 2020. Therefore, we have taken this timeframe into account of our overall determination.
10. The next significant event was the resident chasing the issue on 19 January 2023. She said the communal walkway ceiling was badly water damaged, some communal boarding panels had fallen and the issues were damaging her front door.
11. It is positive the landlord fixed the panels as an emergency repair. This was in line with its repair policy which says it will treat incidents such as a ceiling fall as an emergency repair and attend within 24 hours. It goes on to say it will make the issue safe and return to complete any follow-on work at an agreed time.
12. After the resident provided photographs of the communal ceiling the landlord raised a further emergency repair and noted one of the segments was hanging off and the resident believed this was due to water ingress. Records show a neighbour also reported water ingress on 19 May 2023 and the landlord raised work for the communal walkway roof.
13. Records do not show what the landlord did to address these reports at that time. Communications from the resident in August 2023 say the landlord inspected the site and carried out repairs but the issue remained unresolved. She said both the inside and outside of the property were damaged as a result.
14. Shortly after, the landlord told the resident she was responsible for repairs within her property. This was in line with the lease which says the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition.
15. That being said, the resident had told the landlord that issues within her property were due to water ingress in communal areas which the landlord was responsible for. It is positive the landlord signposted her to the group building insurance policy shortly after. This was appropriate. This type of insurance covered the structure of the property and leaseholders can also claim for damage affecting their property.
16. The landlord scheduled work for 21 August 2023, although we do not know what this was. It told the resident on 30 August 2023 it was rescheduled to 2 November 2023 as it was waiting to hear from the MA as to who was responsible for the repair. This was more than 3 years since the resident reported the issue. This was an unreasonable amount of time and the landlord should have established responsibility sooner.
17. The resident went on to claim on the group building insurance and it was logged on 15 September 2023. However, she told the landlord on 21 September 2023 that the insurance company would not settle her claim until the water ingress was resolved.
18. An Environmental Health Team (EHT) officer complained on the same day as the resident. They said:
    1. The condition of the communal walkway canopy outside the resident’s front door and all along the walkway was very poor. There were multiple leaks, water stains, damaged ceiling tiles and some had fallen and been patched with chicken wire.
    2. The resident told them water enters through her front door and pools in the entrance during periods of heavy rain. She was concerned the ongoing issues would cause further damage to her property and that the ceiling panels would fall on someone.
    3. They wanted the landlord to repair the ceiling and prevent the reoccurrence of flooding and damage to the resident’s door. They asked the landlord to provide the resident with a reasonable timeframe for repairs and said she was upset and frustrated about the lack of progress.
19. The landlord was unable to provide the information requested by the EHT officer in its stage 1 response. Again, it attributed this to enquiries relating to repair responsibility. As we have already explained, the landlord should have established this sooner. We have not seen it was proactive in trying to resolve the issue, despite the resident’s reports of the impact on her property. Progress was generally prompted by the resident’s contacts.
20. The resident continued to chase the issue and ask for updates. She said it was getting worse, and detailed the specific repairs issues she was experiencing within her property. While the landlord agreed to contact her when it had an update, we have not seen that it did so. She chased again on 23 January and 13 March 2024. On 18 March 2024, the landlord told her it had arranged a site visit with the MA on 27 March 2024. It later confirmed this was re-scheduled to 4 April 2024 after the resident requested an update.
21. It appears the landlord accepted responsibility for the repair (as opposed to the MA) soon after. It met with contractors to discuss plans to repair the communal ceiling on 23 May 2024. Records show it intended to carry out work that included clearing all drains to ensure they were running freely, sealing joints on the down pipes and checking outlets for leaks. This work was completed on 21 June 2024.
22. Meanwhile, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. Its reason for not providing a date for work was that contractors have their own scheduling system and because it was a communal repair. We understand why landlords would not routinely advise residents of communal repair dates. However, as the resident had spent significant time and trouble progressing issues that affected her property, the landlord could have done more to provide a repair date.
23. While the landlord recognised its repair delays, it only did so from 2022. It is positive it revisited this after the resident highlighted it had been ongoing since 2020. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation may have been appropriate redress up to that point, if repairs had been effective, but the resident told us the issue remains unresolved.
24. The resident says she was expecting the landlord to carry out a dye test to find the source of the leak. However, the landlord told us on 5 May 2026 that it completed an electronic leak detection survey and found leaks at the front and rear of the building. It said it has rectified the leak at the front but the one at the rear is very complex and repairs could cost more than £100,000. It said it would be a ‘long and complex road ahead’.
25. We understand the complex nature makes it hard to predict when work to remedy the issue will start. However, the landlord’s repair policy says it will agree and communicate specific completion targets for major work with affected residents. We have not seen it has done so in this case. Nor that it has been proactive in telling the resident what it has done to progress repairs or provided any expected timeframe of when they will start. It is now more than 6 years since the resident reported the issue that affects her property.
26. The landlord has not acknowledged its communication failures since its stage 2 response or that the issue is unresolved. We order the landlord to apologise for this. We also order it to pay the resident £925 compensation (inclusive of the £675 already awarded) for the distress, inconvenience time and trouble caused by its failures. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when maladministration has had a significant impact on the resident and, while the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, it has not addressed the full detriment.
27. Further, the landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation to return the customer back to where they were before the problem happened. Its complaint policy says it will consider paying it when there has been a failure in service resulting in loss of personal property or damage. While the resident can claim for damages through the group insurance, she has reported on many occasions that her claim cannot be settled while the issue is unresolved. As it is likely to be some time before this happens, we order the landlord to consider awarding compensation for the damages reported by the resident within her property, in line with its complaint policy.
28. We also order the landlord to update the resident on its plans to remedy water ingress and commit to updating her going forward.

29. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action. The resident says she complained about water ingress several times before her complaint was logged. We do not dispute this, but have not seen evidence to support that she asked the landlord to raise a complaint. However, she did express dissatisfaction with how the landlord was progressing repairs in the 3 years leading up to the stage 1 complaint.
30. We have not seen that the landlord asked the resident if she would like to raise her dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. The Code says that, whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint. Further, it did not address this aspect of her complaint in its stage 1 response.
31. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to reply at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The Code says these timeframes apply from when landlords acknowledge complaints, and that they have 5 working days to do so.
32. The landlord took 14 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While this was outside the timeframes specified in the Code, it is positive it apologised for this and attributed it to a backlog of complaints. It told the resident to expect a reply within 10 working days and it replied within this timeframe.
33. However, the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it had paused her complaint and would update her on outstanding actions. The Code says landlords must provide complaint responses to residents when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it completes the outstanding actions needed to address the issues. While the landlord also told the resident how she could escalate her complaint, its decision to pause the complaint caused confusion as to how she could progress her dissatisfaction.
34. Records show the resident continued to report dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair progress. Again, we have not seen the landlord asked whether she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The Code says that if landlords cannot resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2.
35. This did not happen until 11 June 2024, after the resident sought our help and we asked the landlord to progress her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 7 working days later.
36. The landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failures which, when considered together, amount to maladministration. Therefore, it has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
37. We order the landlord to apologise for these failings. We also order it to pay the resident £150 compensation for the significant time and trouble caused progressing her complaint, in addition to the distress and inconvenience caused by her inability to progress matters to resolve the substantive issue. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when there is significant impact to the resident caused when complaint responses are delayed by weeks or months affecting timely resolution of the dispute.

Learning

Knowledge information management (KIM – record keeping)

38. The landlord provided enough information for us to provide a robust determination. However, it has not always provided supporting evidence of key repair inspections and any actions following these. Our spotlight report on KIM says records should tell the full story of what happened. Our centre for learning has further resources to help landlord’s keep accurate records, make clear decisions, and provide a safer, more reliable service for residents.

Communication

39. We have not seen the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that landlords can avoid failures when they let residents know what to expect about repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. Our centre for learning has resources to help landlord’s create stronger, more positive relationships and a safer, more supportive housing experience for everyone.