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 (202329702)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329702

Sovereign Network Group

22 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Defects.
    2. Noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint leaseholder with the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 27 May 2021.
  2. The developer is the freeholder for the block. The head lease refers to the developer as the landlord and the landlord as the tenant. The resident holds a lease directly with the housing association, referred to as the landlord for the purposes of this determination.
  3. The certificate of insurance for the property sets out the defects insurance period as 29 October 2020 to 29 October 2021.
  4. On 12 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response as follows:
    1. Its contractor rejected the unlevel floor as a defect.
    2. Having inspected the kitchen drawings it advised the developer that the design for the corner wall unit had not been followed. It was using a third party to rectify the problem.
    3. The developer carried out major works to dampen noise. When further noise was reported it offered to install sound monitoring equipment to the resident’s property however this was declined. It therefore considered the matter to be closed. Should the resident wish to reraise the issue he would need to provide “expert evidence” showing the noise was excessive.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2023. It said:
    1. The developer rejected the resident’s report of an unlevel floor which it felt was within tolerance. However its warranty provider would still come out within 13 to 24 months to investigate internal issues.
    2. It was in the process of trying to source a kitchen cabinet which it would install. It apologised for the delay.
    3. It asked the resident to report any ongoing noise issues.
  6. On 18 May 2023 the resident provided a log of noise incidents.
  7. On 22 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that he had not been given any new information “for some time now.”
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023 which:
    1. Repeated its response regarding the unlevel floor.
    2. Said the blind corner kitchen unit it felt should have been installed was not in fact part of the installation specification. It explained why.
    3. Confirmed it passed the resident’s reports of noise to the developer. They were reluctant to investigate without evidence that the noise was excessive. It said the resident would need to provide his own report from a noise company. It also said in the meantime it would liaise with the developer if he was able to provide videos and/or recordings next time it happened.
    4. Acknowledged a lack of communication regarding the kitchen unit. It apologised and offered £160 compensation.
  9. On 11 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the work carried out by the developer “looked terrible and was inadequate.” Therefore it was not a warranty issue. He disputed the landlord’s reasons for not being able to install a corner unit. He was also unhappy that he was asked to provide a report should the noise reoccur.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2023, the main points being:
    1. Its position regarding the unlevel floor was unchanged.
    2. It was “largely in agreement” that the resident should not have to incur the cost of a noise report because it was the same noise. If it happened again it would arrange a visit.
    3. It had been trying to source and install a ‘blank’ kitchen unit. However, it would not add further storage as this would cause a disproportionate amount of disruption. Therefore, it had decided not to proceed.
    4. It acknowledged its communication could’ve been “significantly better” and its inaction had caused him to chase. It said his frustration was “entirely understandable” for which it apologised.
    5. It increased its stage 1 offer of £160 compensation by £322 to a total of £598 in line with compensation policy comprised of:
      1. £360 for a 36 week delay at medium impact.
      2. £108 for 36 weeks of time and trouble at medium impact.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the resident’s email to us of 15 December 2023 he asked us to investigate his complaint about the landlord’s response to the defects with a window and radiator. These issues were addressed by the landlord in the complaints process which ended with its final response of 7 March 2023.
  2. The complaint that was duly made by us for this investigation was the landlord’s final response of 15 November 2023. Neither the window nor radiator were raised again as part of that complaints process therefore we cannot assess the landlord’s response. This is because they were not part of the complaint which was accepted by us for this investigation.
  3. On 3 November 2023 we previously determined the resident’s complaint about noise (case reference 202222058). The final response considered by our assessment was dated 17 December 2021. Works were subsequently carried out to dampen down noise from the plant room in June 2022. Therefore, this assessment has only considered the resident’s complaint about noise after that time.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects

Floor

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 7 March 2023 signposted the resident to make a claim under warranty if he was dissatisfied with the developer’s response.
  2. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 11 October 2023 he said the issue was about the quality of the work undertaken by the developer. Therefore he was unable to raise it as a warranty issue.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 November 2023 said it would not comment further because the matter was with us for investigation. This was inappropriate because it should’ve continued to try to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity.
  4. It is acknowledged that the quality of the work carried out by the developer was a matter between it and the resident. However, in the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have supported and/or signposted the resident as to how he could raise his dissatisfaction with an appropriate organisation.

Kitchen unit

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 7 March 2023 confirmed its intention to source and install a kitchen unit following an error at the build stage.
  2. By the time of its stage 1 complaint response of 12 September 2023 its position had changed. It advised that the unit had not been included in the kitchen specification because of the location of the soil vent pipe.
  3. It failed to provide an explanation as to why it initially thought the unit had been included in the drawings but later changed its mind. This would have been appropriate to ensure the resident’s confidence in its decision making.
  4. In his reply to the landlord of 11 October 2023 the resident disputed there was a pipe in that location and that therefore its response did not make sense.
  5. An internal email dated 3 November 2023 set out that other units would likely be smaller to give a uniform finish should a corner unit be installed.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 15 November 2023 the landlord said it had investigated the possibility of installing a ‘blank unit’. However, it would not provide additional storage and the work required to the existing kitchen to accommodate it would be “disproportionate.” On that basis it would not proceed with works.
  7. The landlord’s response was contradictory and raised the resident’s expectations that it would install a new unit. Its stage 2 complaint response also failed to respond to the resident’s point about the pipe.

Summary

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 response offered compensation for its failures. It’s unclear exactly how much compensation it offered which is inappropriate. This is because the figures it provided do not match the total amount set out in its response.
  2. Considering the information provided we have concluded that the compensation offered was in between £450 to £600. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was maladministration.
  3. While it was positive that the landlord tried to put things right by offering compensation it did not go far enough to resolve the complaint. This is because it failed to provide an evidence based response in relation to the kitchen unit. Therefore while its offer of compensation was reasonable it does not prevent an adverse finding. This is reflected in the orders below.
  4. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 7 March 2023 confirmed it had visited on 14 February 2023 to investigate the noise. It said that although the original noise had stopped there was a secondary noise. It invited the resident to report further issues accordingly.
  2. On 18 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out the dates and times of incidents of noise. Its response of 23 May 2023 said it would advise the developer that the noise had returned.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 September 2023 said it had passed the resident’s report to the developer. They were reluctant to attend without evidence that the noise was excessive.
  4. It put the onus on the resident to provide evidence from a “noise disturbance company.” It was not reasonable that he should have to incur the cost and inconvenience of arranging such a report. However, it’s noted that it also offered to assist him if he was able to provide videos and/or recordings should the noise reoccur.
  5. While it was positive that it offered to assist its response lacked clarity in terms of its proposed plan of action. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence of its discussions with the developer which is a record keeping failure.
  6. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 11 October 2023 he said the noise was “super faint” and could not be heard at that time. He was unhappy that he had been asked to cover the cost of providing evidence of the noise given it was established there was already a noise issue.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 November 2023 did not dispute the resident’s position. It said it would offer to visit to assess the noise should it reoccur. While it was positive that it proposed a reasonable resolution its approach was contradictory causing distress to the resident.
  8. There was service failure in the landlord’s response because the failures set out above may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay him £25 to recognise the distress caused by the lack of clarity in its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1.  Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
      2. Provide an evidence based response in relation to the kitchen unit. This should include but is not limited to the soil vent pipe which prevents the installation of the blind corner unit.
      3. Advise how he can raise his dissatisfaction about the quality of work carried out on the uneven floor by the developer.
      4. Clarify its plan of action should the noise issue reoccur.
    2. Confirm and re offer the compensation set out in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. Pay the resident £25 for the distress caused by its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.