Sovereign Network Group (202431078)

Decision
Case ID	202431078
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 May 2026

Background

In July 2024 the resident reported faults with the intercom system. This included the video feature, which the resident told us she relied on to allow access to her home as she is hard of hearing. In March 2025 the resident reported that the communal door was faulty. She said there had been occasions when the door had jammed, leaving her and other residents unable to leave the building. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of both issues. The resident’s son is acting as her representative in this case. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the resident and her representative as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to:
1. The intercom system.
2. The communal front door.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom system.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom system

The landlord failed to proactively manage its investigations into the cause of the issue, which caused delays. It also failed to keep the resident updated. While it acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right during its internal complaints process, the next steps it set out were unclear and lacked timescales.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door

The landlord managed the repair to the communal front door in line with its repair policy timescales. It demonstrated a resolution-focused approach by acknowledging the impact of interim issues with the door jamming.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord responded to the complaints at both stages within, or close to, its policy timescales. However, its stage 1 responses did not reflect the then current position of the repairs. It also unreasonably rejected the resident’s complaint about its handling of the intercom repairs after its stage 2 response.

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 in relation to its handling of repairs to the intercom system and its handling of the associated complaints. 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 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs to the intercom system. £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the associated complaints. 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 10 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report in relation to its handling of repairs to the intercom system and its handling of the associated complaints. 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

10 June 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows:

£300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs to the intercom system.
£100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the associated complaints.

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

10 June 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the decorative works following the installation of the new intercom handset, and any ongoing concerns about the communal front door.
We recommend that the landlord ask the resident whether there are any vulnerabilities or additional support needs in the household and update its records accordingly.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £125 it offered in the final complaint response in relation to its handling of repairs to the communal front door.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the intercom had stopped working again despite multiple repair visits.
28 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had responded in line with its repair policy.
11 September 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said that the landlord had failed to acknowledge how long the repair had taken. She confirmed the video feature was still not working and said she had reported this weekly.
4 October 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It upheld the complaint and apologised for delays in investigating the intercom issues. It said this was caused by delays in sourcing a key to access a riser cupboard and it had requested this be treated as urgent. It offered the resident £120 compensation for the impact of delays and time and trouble from 8 August 2024 to 4 October 2024.
13 November 2024	The resident requested to re-raise the complaint about the intercom. She said the issues remained the same and she had been contacting the landlord weekly to progress the repair.
14 November 2024	The landlord said it would not re-raise the complaint as it had already issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated the resident’s escalation rights to us.
10 March 2025	The resident complained about issues with the main door to the building. She said it had not been working for the past couple of weeks, and the landlord was aware of this.
27 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the disruption caused by the main door issues but said there had been no service failure as it acted within its repair policy timescales.
27 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint and said that the fault was still present. She said that she and other residents had been trapped inside the building as a result of the door jamming.
6 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said any delays were due to the need for specialist parts. It confirmed it had since replaced the door entry system and the handset in the resident’s property. It offered the resident £25 for time and trouble between 17 March 2025 and 24 April 2024 and £100 as a discretionary award for distress caused as a result of being trapped in the building.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as she was dissatisfied with the time the landlord had taken to address both issues. She said that: she relies on the intercom video feature due to being hard of hearing and that faults with it caused her distress the handset did not work correctly after its replacement in May 2025 while the landlord had replaced the handset again recently, it had left decorative works outstanding inside her property the main front door was not functioning as it should, which she had reported to the landlord, but it had not resolved her concerns To put things right, the resident wants the landlord to resolve her outstanding concerns and pay additional compensation.

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 repairs to the intercom system.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord supplied a summary of the repair issues, but it did not provide a dated record. This limited our ability to verify the sequence of events. Throughout this investigation, we have relied on the dates and actions set out in its complaint responses.
The landlord said that on 15 July 2024 the resident reported that the video intercom feature had not been working since the previous Friday. It said it attended on 18 July 2024 and confirmed there were no issues with the wiring. Its contractors recommended further investigation which required access to the electrical riser cupboard. The landlord said it would arrange a follow up visit to do so. Its initial response was in line with its 5 working day repair policy timescale, which applied at the time. The landlord’s repairs policy also set out that repairs which require further investigation could take up to 90 days. However, it would provide an estimated completion date in these circumstances.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord arranged a follow up visit or updated the resident with an estimated completion date. However, it said it attended on 3 further occasions in response to reports of faults with the intercom, including a visit by a specialist. It said that on each occasion it left the system operational. However, it did not confirm whether both the audio and video functions were working correctly.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to its last visit on 9 August 2024 and said that it had left the equipment online. It said that its contractors would carry out the previously recommended investigation into the cables next and that it was in the process of arranging a key needed for access. However, its response failed to reflect that the resident reported, as part of her complaint on 12 August 2024, that the fault was still present. An internal email showed the landlord scheduled a visit on 15 August 2024, but we have seen no evidence that it visited on this date or resolved the issue. On 11 September 2024 the resident reported that the video feature was not working.
Despite acknowledging the need for further investigation at stage 1, there is no evidence the landlord took steps to obtain the access it required to complete this. An internal email confirmed it attended on 17 September 2024, but it did not have the correct key. At the time of its stage 2 response on 4 October 2024 the position remained unchanged. This was 78 days after its contractors first recommended further investigation, and the landlord had made no clear progress. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for impact from 8 August 2024. It said it would obtain the key to access the cupboard to carry out the investigation and that it had requested urgency.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, action plan and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging delays and apologising for the impact, including the resident having to chase progress. It attended initial reports in line with its policy and said it had left the system operational on each visit. It therefore reasonably offered compensation from 8 August 2024, particularly as the extent to which the intercom was operational after that point is unclear.
The landlord’s compensation offer of £80 for impact of delays reflected its compensation policy for situations where issues caused significant inconvenience and took multiple attempts to resolve. Its offer for time and trouble of £40 reflected failures in service standards which took a considerable amount of time and effort to resolve. When referring the complaint to us, the resident said she relied on the video feature due to her vulnerabilities. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord held a record of the resident’s vulnerability or that it ought reasonably to have been aware of this additional impact at the time of the complaint.
The landlord’s next steps to resolve the issue were unclear and did not meet the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not explain what actions it would take or when it would take them. It only said it had requested urgency in obtaining the key. It did not provide dates for further visits or confirm when it would update the resident. This added to the uncertainty as to how and when it expected to resolve the issue with the intercom.
It is unclear from the records when the landlord obtained access to the electrical riser cupboard. On 13 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that it had confirmed to her that it had been awaiting approval of a quote for the past 2 to 3 weeks. This suggests the landlord had reached a conclusion on the works required to resolve the issue at some point towards the end of October 2024. However, we have seen no evidence it updated the resident about expected timescales. The landlord replaced the intercom handset on 1 May 2025, following replacement of the door entry system.
While outside the scope of our investigation, the resident confirmed she reported further issues after the handset replacement. She said the landlord had now resolved these, but decorative works remained outstanding at the time of our investigation. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident about this.
Overall, the landlord’s compensation offer for failures up to its stage 2 response was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. However, its action plan lacked clear timescales and did not set out the steps it would take to complete further investigation and resolve the issue. It therefore did not fully put matters right. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failings. This includes its stage 2 offer and is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord confirmed it raised a work order on 21 February 2025 to repair or replace the main door catch. It later cancelled this order and re‑raised it as an emergency. The records do not explain why it changed the priority or what the fault was. The landlord attended on 6 March 2025 and said a new lock was required. It did not have one in stock and arranged a follow up. On 10 March 2025 the resident reported that the door had not worked for the past couple of weeks.
The landlord said it attended on 17 March 2025 to complete the follow up works. It said it had drilled out a snapped screw and left the door operational. A few days later, on 20 March 2025, the landlord became aware that the door was jamming, leaving residents unable to exit the building. According to the evidence, the landlord attended on the day it became aware of this issue, in line with its emergency response timescales. It confirmed it had made the door safe. Internal emails also show it scheduled a full replacement of the door entry system for the week commencing 14 April 2025.
The landlord wrote to all residents 2 weeks in advance to confirm the date of the works, which was reasonable. It replaced the door entry system as scheduled between 14 and 16 April 2025. Overall, the landlord responded to reports of issues with the communal door in line with its repair policy timescales. Although it took longer than its 1-month timescale for routine repairs to fully complete the repair, it explained this resulted from the lead time on specialist parts. Its repairs policy says that repair timescales are subject to situations where such parts are required.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said there have been no service failures. However, it apologised for the disruption caused as a result of the repair taking longer due to need for specialist parts. It awarded £25 compensation for time and trouble. It also made a discretionary award of £100 to recognise distress caused due to resident being locked in the building. Its recognition of the impact and decision to offer compensation for the likely distress this caused demonstrated a resolution-focused approach.
The resident confirmed she has since raised further concerns about the door. These fall outside the scope of our investigation. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss these concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the April 2024 Code. The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaints. However, it responded to both stage 1 complaints within its overall 15–working day timescale. It also issued its stage 2 response to the intercom complaint on time. It issued its stage 2 response to the front door complaint 1 day outside its 25-working day timescale.
Both of its stage 1 responses failed to reflect the up to date position of the issues complained about. Its stage 1 response about the intercom failed to acknowledge the resident had told it the issue was still outstanding. The stage 1 response about the front door incorrectly confirmed it had completed the necessary repairs when it had already scheduled a replacement of the door entry system. This created confusion and likely increased the resident’s time and trouble, as she raised these inconsistencies as part of her escalation requests.
The resident asked the landlord on 13 November 2024 to re-raise the complaint about the intercom as the issue remained unresolved and she said she had been chasing it weekly with no update. The landlord responded on 14 November 2024 rejecting the complaint and advised the resident of her escalation rights to us. It appropriately explained it could not reopen matters it had already considered. However, the resident’s contact referred to ongoing issues and further delays that fell outside the period covered by the earlier complaint. The landlord could reasonably have considered these as a new complaint.
Overall, we have found that the above complaint handling failures have adversely affected the resident. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble likely caused.

Learning

Landlords should have effective processes in place to monitor follow up actions needed to resolve repair issues. Failure to do so can lead to unnecessary delay, escalation and distress and inconvenience for residents.
Landlords should ensure its complaint responses reflect the current position of the issues raised and clearly set out next steps. Where actions are needed to put things right, these should be specific and timebound. The landlord may find it helpful to review the Code sections relating to contents of responses and section 7 on putting things right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide detailed repair records in this case. It is important to maintain accurate records to demonstrate what action it has taken when its handling is reviewed. Effective knowledge and information management supports transparency. The landlord may find it helpful to review our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published in May 2023 and the follow up published in January 2025.

Communication

Landlords should provide regular, proactive updates where delays occur, including when specialist investigation or parts are required. Clear and timely communication can reduce uncertainty and distress as well as prevent unnecessary time and trouble.