From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sovereign Network Group (202327877)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327877

Sovereign Network Homes

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. This complaint is about:
    1. The time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to the resident’s wet room shower.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint assured tenant, with her husband, of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2005. The resident’s daughter acted as her representative in this complaint. For ease of reference, unless necessary to specify for context, this report refers to “the resident” when her daughter has made representations on her behalf.
  2. The landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident’s household. The landlord also told us the resident’s daughter had referred to her parents and her brother, all of whom live at the property, being disabled and that ‘someone had a skin condition’ in her correspondence with it.
  3. On 11 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say they had been trying since 7 July 2023 to report that their electric shower had broken. The landlord was advised the resident and her husband were elderly with health issues and the resident required ‘constant washing due to a medical problem’. The landlord was advised the resident and her husband had no other way to take a shower.
  4. On 19 July 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about its response to their report of the repair to their shower. The landlord was advised that both the resident and her husband had disabilities and their son was a wheelchair user. The resident said:
    1. they had reported the shower on 8 July 2023 but were told it was not urgent
    2. someone attended on 11 July 2023 and said they would come back the following day
    3. they called the landlord on 18 July 2023 and were told someone would call them back but no one called
    4. the shower not working was effecting their medical condition and their son had ‘not been able to wash even though he needed cleaning and washing every day’
  5. The landlord responded on 21 July 2023. The landlord said it raised a job on 11 July 2023 and its contractor had booked an appointment for 27 July 2023. The resident was asked to let the landlord know if the repair was not completed on that date. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023, in which it:
    1. confirmed it received the resident’s initial report on 8 July 2023. The landlord said the repair was considered non-urgent as the sink had hot water that could be used for washing
    2. confirmed the resident had been advised to contact its customer services team on 10 July 2023
    3. said the resident then reported the repair to its customer services team on 11 July 2023. At this point it was reported the wet room was flooding as the shower pump was not working, an emergency repair was raised and an operative attended the same day
    4. said the operative that attended on 11 July 2023 reported the electric shower needed replacing. This was completed on 27 July 2023 but the water was not draining away when the shower was switched off
    5. said it made a further appointment for 2 August 2023. The electrician that attended noted the transformer for the pump needed to be replaced and it booked an appointment for 4 August 2023
    6. apologised and offered £135 compensation for the delay in having the shower pump repaired, saying the resident had had no showering facilities for 4 days
  7. The resident escalated their complaint on 4 August 2023, in which they said:
    1. the landlord had failed to acknowledge that an appointment on 1 August was missed, the operative did attend on 2 August but then cancelled the appointment on 4 August 2023, stating it was not an emergency
    2. the job had still not been finished after nearly 3 weeks, they were elderly and disabled, had to wash every day due to a skin condition and their son was a wheelchair user with no mobility. The resident questioned whether hot water in the sink counted as having washing facilities available.
    3. their household had to be transported to their daughters flat for a wash every 2 days, changing an electric shower and pump was a 1-day and not a 3-week job and they wanted this matter sorted as quickly as possible.
  8. On 24 August 2023, the resident escalated their complaint again stating they had now been left with no shower for more than 7 weeks and it had still not been fixed. The resident said, despite their age and disabilities, the landlord had provided no support, there had been ‘unnecessary repetitive appointments’ and the issue had still not been fixed. The resident said this had caused ‘so much stress’ as well as the cost of transporting their family so they could get washed.
  9. On 25 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident escalation request of 24 August 2023 saying it had decided not to escalate the complaint but to issue a further stage 1.
  10. The landlord issued its new stage 1 response on 10 October 2023, in which it:
    1. apologised for the delay in the repair to the resident’s shower pump, which it said was due to a delay in its contractor ordering the transformer. The landlord said this was due to ‘poor planning and the follow-on notes not being addressed and actioned’
    2. noted there was a further delay when the appointment was not attended on 4 August 2023. The landlord said that the operative was at an emergency job and was unable to attend the resident’s repair. It also noted a delay in the job raised on 23 August 2023 that was not attended until 5 October 2023
    3. said it was aware the resident had said that the delay in the shower pump had affected them and their ‘household disability’. The landlord apologised for the stress caused and then went on to say ‘however we feel this has been your choice as although not convenient, you were still able to use you facilities’
    4. offered £375 compensation which covered both the delay to the shower repair and a separate issue regarding ventilation in the resident’s kitchen
  11. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 October 2023, in which it
    1. acknowledged there had been ‘signficant delays’ to the repair due to the original contractor ‘taking time to figure out the issue’ and then a further delay due to the waiting for specialist parts
    2. said the parts had arrived on 4 October 2023 and an appointment booked the following day for the transformer to be replaced. However, the shower was not moved higher, as requested, and so its contractor would need to attend to complete the remaining work.
    3. increased its offer of £135 at stage 1 to £470. This was made up of:
      1. £200 for the ‘high impact’ delay (made up of £20 per week for 10 weeks)
      2. £200 for the ‘high impact’ impact (made up of £20 per week for 10 weeks)
      3. £70 for ‘high impact’ time and trouble (made up of £5 per week for 10 weeks)
  12. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to chase the landlord.
  13. The repair was completed on or around 13 December 2023. On completion of the works the landlord emailed the resident to say it had increased its offer of compensation to £930.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged there were failings in its handling of this matter. The crux of the resident’s position is that the landlord failed to acknowledge the extent of the impact on her and her family.
  4. It is disputed whether the resident first reported that her shower was not working on 7 or 8 July 2023. Regardless, the landlord was advised that the resident and her husband were elderly with health issues and the resident required ‘constant washing due to a medical problem’. As such it should have responded to the repair as a matter of urgency. Instead, it told the resident it was not and to call back 3 days later.
  5. It was only when the resident reported on 11 July 2023 that the wet room was flooding that the landlord responded appropriately by sending an operative to attend the same day. At this point the operative that attended advised the shower needed replacing.
  6. Again, the landlord demonstrated no urgency in completing the repair, not arranging for the shower to be replaced until 27 July 2023, over 2 weeks later. At this point, it was identified that a new transformer would be needed for the pump and so a further appointment was made for 4 August 2023. The landlord has acknowledged that it had no record that this appointment took place. Following this:
    1. the landlord said its contractor attended on 7 August but was not given access
    2. its contractor attended on 8 August 2024 and advised of a faulty transformer. However, this was already known by the landlord and it should have already ordered the parts ready to be fitted
    3. no further action was taken and it appointed a new contractor on 23 August 2023. They attended on 30 August and advised they needed to order further parts
    4. the parts arrived 4 October 2023 and it replaced the transformer on 5 October 2023 ‘so that the shower could work’. However, the ongoing works were not fully completed by the landlord until, on or around, 13 December 2023
  7. That it took the landlord over 5 months to repair the shower in the resident’s wet room would be a serious failing in any circumstance. However, in this case, the seriousness of the landlord’s failings were exacerbated by the resident’s and her household’s vulnerabilities – of which the landlord was evidently made aware throughout the period covered by this report. This includes, but was not limited to emails of:
    1. 11, 19 and 21 July 2023 in which the landlord was repeatedly advised the resident and her husband were elderly with health issues and the resident required constant washing due to medical problem. The landlord was also repeatedly advised that their son was a wheelchair user and needed cleaning and washing every day
    2. 4 and 16 August 2023, in which the landlord was repeatedly advised the resident, her husband and their son had to be transported to their daughters home for a wash every 2 days due to the lack of showering facilities
    3. 24 August 2023, in which the landlord was advised this issue was ‘causing so much stress’ and that despite their disabilities no support had been offered
    4. 28 September 2023, in which the landlord was advised the lack of a shower was affecting the household’s health and the landlord ‘couldn’t imagine’ what they were going through
    5. 13 October 2023, in which the landlord was advised that its ‘lack of care and management was causing health issues’
    6. 18 October 2023, in which the landlord was advised the ‘situation and the amount of stressed caused’ was affecting the resident and her husband’s health. The landlord was advised the resident and her husband were ‘elderly with disability’ and ‘could not afford to travel to take shower anymore’
    7. 7 November 2023 in which the resident’s daughter told the landlord she ‘had had to remove (her) elderly parents who have disability and health issues to temporary accommodation’. The resident’s daughter said it was the landlord responsibility to provide safe accommodation which it had clearly failed to do
  8. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident. It would also have been expected to demonstrate it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her.
  9. The emails above confirm the landlord had from the first report been alerted to the fact that the resident and her household would have found the loss of their shower particularly distressing and challenging to deal with. As such it should have taken steps to prioritise the matter and communicate effectively with the resident, taking into account her and her household’s individual vulnerabilities. That the landlord did not make any substantive additional effort to take into account and respond to the resident’s individual circumstances was a significant failure on its part.
  10. Further, some of the responses by the landlord lacked empathy for the resident’s situation which would have understandably added to the already distressing situation for the resident. These responses included, but were not limited to:
    1. its second stage 1 response of 10 October 2023 in which, whilst it apologised for the distress caused, it said that not using the sink to wash was the resident’s ‘choice as although not convenient, (they) were still able to use (their) facilities’. It was not for the landlord to make assumptions about what the resident’s needs were. This response shows not only a lack of empathy for the resident, but also a failure to recognise the seriousness of the impact the loss of their shower was having on them.
    2. a number of responses to the resident’s emails in October 2023, in which they had been asking for help, ending with ‘have a lovely day’. Whilst it is reasonable to assume the writer of the emails was well meaning, to write this when the resident was expressing significant upset and distress about having to wait 3 months for their shower to be repaired, at best lacked empathy.
  11. These were serious failings over an excessive period that had a significant detrimental effect. These failures were compounded by the fact that at least as early as 11 July 2023, it was aware of the resident’s, her husband’s and her son’s vulnerabilities. However, it failed to take reasonable account of these when prioritising the works needed.
  12. Taking into account the length of the delay in the landlord completing the repair, the number of opportunities the landlord had to address the issue and its failure to respond to the serious impact on a vulnerable resident, were it not for the landlord’s increased offer of compensation to £930, we would have found severe maladministration in this case.
  13. Whilst the landlord’s offer of £930 compensation is welcome, given the extent of the landlord’s failures in this case, we are not satisfied this provides the resident with reasonable redress. As such a finding of maladministration has been made.
  14. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and most especially its failure to take into account their vulnerabilities when prioritising for the works, and for the lack of empathy shown in much of its correspondence.
  15. The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident a further £570, bringing the total compensation payable to £1,500. This figure being in line with amounts suggested in our remedies guidance in situations where there were serious failures by the landlord and its response to those failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  16. It is of concern that, despite the extensive correspondence it received from the resident and her daughter during the period covered by this report, the landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident. This is a situation that needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. The landlord has therefore been ordered to contact the resident, or a representative of her choice, within 1 week of the date of this report to ensure its records include accurate details of her household’s vulnerability. The landlord is also to discuss with the resident, or her representative, how their vulnerabilities affect them and how best for it to provide its services to them.
  17. The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case to identify any additional learning and improvement, specifically in relation to how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents and has due regard to its obligations to ensure similar situations do not occur going forward.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will aim to acknowledge new complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will then aim to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. Where the landlord is unable to meet the target timescales set out above, its policy confirms it will contact the resident and explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date. It will also keep residents informed throughout the complaint process until the complaint is fully resolved.
  3. The resident logged her formal complaint with the landlord on 19 July 2023.
  4. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. This it did by acknowledging the complaint on 21 July 2023, within the 5 working days and providing its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023, within a further 10 working days.
  5. On 4 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate their complaint. In their email the resident expressed their continued dissatisfaction, saying, ‘we want to take this complaint further.’ The landlord failed to acknowledge this escalation request.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 and 23 August 2023, saying ‘no one takes responsibility’, they did not understand ‘why no one was trying to get this sorted’, the landlord had still not repaired the shower and there had been ‘many missed appointments’. The resident asked how the landlord offering £135 in its stage 1 response would ‘sort this out’.
  7. Again, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. Instead, it emailed the resident on 25 August 2023 to say it had decided to issue a follow-on stage 1 response. To justify its decision the landlord quoted section 3.4.2 of its complaints policy, which states:
    1. ‘There are also instances where we may consider issuing a follow-on response instead of logging a new complaint or escalating to Stage 2. There are various reasons why we may choose to complete a follow-on response, namely as there would be little merit of starting the process over and/or we consider that we can deal with the matter quickly and to the residents satisfaction’.
  8. We are not satisfied this was a reasonable interpretation of the above. It is also unclear why, if the landlord believed it would be able to complete the repair and provide a response with the 20 working days required at stage 2 that it would not simply escalate the complaint.
  9. Further, with respect to complaints regarding repairs, section 3.8 of the landlord’s complaints policy states it may refuse (or delay) the option to escalate to Stage 2 until it has been out to attempt to resolve the repair within a reasonable timeframe, which it had already not done. Section 3.8 also states this assumes it is ‘highly likely’ that only 1 attendance will be required and the repair/issue will be fully resolved during the agreed attendance, which again was evidently not the case.
  10. The landlord’s decision to not escalate and to issue a follow-on stage 1 was also not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which clearly states:
    1. If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
  11. That this was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take was re-enforced by:
    1. its email to the resident of 31 August 2023 in which it said, ‘the investigation is taking longer than anticipated and therefore we are going to need more time in order to arrive at a decision’
    2. its failure to then provide the follow up stage 1 response until 10 October 2023, some 32 working days after its email of 25 August 2023
    3. the repair not being completed until on or around, 13 December 2023
  12. The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 10 and 13 October 2023.
  13. The landlord then issued its final response on 18 October 2023, some53 working days after the resident had initially emailed to escalate her complaint on 4 August 2023.
  14. In its final response, the landlord made no reference to its complaint handling failures, made no apology, and made no offer to put things right.
  15. In this case the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the substantive issue for the resident and the landlord’s unreasonable interpretation of its policy compounded the detriment caused. Due to the accumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £100 and £600 where a maladministration finding is made the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. Owing to the level of time and trouble to which the resident was placed and the evident distress caused to a vulnerable resident, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident the maximum amount of £600 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to the resident’s wet room shower.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 1 week of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to contact the resident, or a representative of her choice, to ensure its records include accurate details of her household’s vulnerability. The landlord is also to discuss with the resident, or her representative, how their vulnerabilities affect them and how best for it to provide its services to them.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is also ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a written apology to be given to the resident and her household by a member of its senior management team
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2,100 compensation. This being made up of:
      1. £1,500 in respect of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its failures with regards to the repair to her shower. This figure includes the £930 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid. If it has been paid, the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £570 ordered by us
      2. £600 in respect of the detriment to the resident due to the accumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling
  3. Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. carry out a review of this case to identify any additional learning and improvement. The review must include:
      1. the shortfalls in its consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, her household and their vulnerabilities
      2. the complaint handling failures identified in this report and its obligations under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
      3. its staff training and whether steps need to be taken to ensure all relevant officers understand their responsibilities under:

(1)  the Equality Act 2010, and its own repairs policy, with regard to meeting the needs of individual residents when providing a service to them

(2)  the Code

  1. report back to us to confirm what learning it has taken from the above review and what actions it intends to take as a result.