Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sovereign Network Group (202338287)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338287

Sovereign Network Homes

23 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 concerns about the cleaning services it provided, and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a shared ownership property. As part of his service charge the resident pays a contribution towards the cleaning of the communal areas in the property.
  2. On 4 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns about the quality of the communal cleaning services provided. He also raised concerns about marks and scrapes on the walls in the communal hallway. The landlord inspected the property the same day and identified the cleaning was not done to a satisfactory standard and noted the walls needed decorating. It responded to the resident on 15 August 2023 and said it had raised the issue with its cleaning contractor, and would attend to the “minor repairs” to the walls.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 11 September 2023. He said the communal hallway was dirty and he was unhappy with the quality of the cleaning works of its contractor.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2023. It upheld the complaint and said the cleaning was below the standard it expected. It said it had inspected that day and found dust on the staircase. It said the cleaning was due to take place that day, and it would inspect the next day to see if the cleaning was up to standard. It said if the cleaning was not up to standard it would raised “rectification notice” with the contractor. Meaning the cleaning would need to be done again.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 29 September 2023. He asked for a refund of the service charge for cleaning. He said the landlord had not addressed his concerns about damage to the walls.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 6 November 2023. It said it had inspected and found the communal cleaning was not up to a satisfactory standard and would be serving a “rectification notice” to the contractor. It said it did not have an update on whether it would replace the carpet or the repairs to the walls. It asked the resident to provide more information about the locations of the marks and dents. It upheld the complaint.
  7. The resident continued to raise concerns about the standard of the cleaning throughout the remainder of 2023, and in early 2024. The landlord opened another complaint investigation in March 2024, and sent its stage 1 response on 20 March 2024. It said it had inspected in January 2024 and noticed an overall improvement in the cleanliness of the block but there were some cleaning issues that needed attention. It said its contractor had agreed to change cleaning operative and accepted the cleaning was below standard. It offered the resident £50 in compensation. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. He asked us to investigate his complaint around that time also.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 29 April 2024. It said that following the further concerns raised by the resident it had met the contractor’s area manager at the property to discuss the issues. It agreed cobwebs had not been cleaned and it was agreed new equipment would be provided to clean harder to reach areas. It found the overall cleaning standard at the property had improved. It upheld the complaint and said it would continue to monitor its contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1.  The resident’s complaint raised concerns about communal cleaning and the associated service charges for cleaning. As part of his complaint, he requested a refund of his service charge for cleaning. We cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the increase of service charges or rent. This is in line with our Scheme. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
  2. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We advise the resident to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) ( https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.
  3. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s complaint responses up to April 2024. We have seen evidence the resident raised further concerns about cleaning and communal repairs after this matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in April 2024. We have not investigated matters raised after April 2024, as those matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after April 2024 he may wish to make a complaint. We may then investigate if the resident remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning services provided

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states when a property is occupied by leaseholders it is responsible for shared areas inside its building.
  2. The landlord’s estate inspection procedure states it completes 6 monthly inspections of its blocks. It inspects the communal areas including checking the general condition and cleanliness of communal hallways. It also says it will complete an “ad-hoc” inspection when a concern is raised about the condition of a block.
  3. When the resident raised a concern about the quality of cleaning services provided, on 4 August 2023, the landlord inspected the same day. This is evidence it appropriately applied its estate inspection procedure and conducted an ad hoc inspection. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and was reasonable in the circumstances. It emailed the resident on 15 August 2023 outlining the findings of its inspection. It sought to reassure the resident it had raised his concerns with its contractor. This was also appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of September 2023, accepted the cleaning fell below the standard expected. It appropriately set out what actions it had taken and would take to improve the matter. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, that it did not offer compensation for its admitted errors was a shortcoming in its response. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint about its cleaning services. It missed an opportunity to put right the inconvenience he experienced.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of November 2023, also accepted errors in relation to the cleaning. Its response lacked detail about the minor repairs raised to the walls and possible floor replacement. It was inappropriate to state because an officer was on leave it was unable to provide an update. This indicates its records around the repairs raised were poor. The resident was inconvenienced by a lack of meaningful response to the concerns raised.
  6. The landlord inappropriately put the onus on the resident to provide details about the repairs needed. The landlord was responsible for the repairs in the communal hallway and had agreed repairs needed doing. If it was unclear it should have raised an inspection to identify next steps. As at stage 1, the landlord failed to offer compensation for its admitted errors. This further inconvenienced the resident. We recommend the landlord inspects the communal hallway to identify any repairs needed. It should allow the resident to attend the inspection so he can voice his concerns directly.
  7. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position it would not offer a refund of service charges for cleaning. We acknowledge the resident was unhappy with this decision. As set out above it is not within our remit to determine if the service charge was reasonable and/or payable. Our role is to look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. When he asked for a refund the landlord set out its position with clarity.
  8. The resident raised concerns throughout late 2023 and early 2024. The landlord continued to complete ad hoc inspections and raise concerns with its cleaning contractor. (January and March 2024). This resulted in it asking the contractor to send a different cleaner. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  9. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response, of March 2024, to set out its position and explain it had asked the contractor to change cleaner. It was also appropriate to offer the resident compensation for its handling of the cleaning issues. Considering the errors that occurred and the length of time the matter was outstanding, the £50 it offered did not fully put things right.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of April 2024 also accepted the cleaning services had improved, but had still fallen below its desired standard. Again, it missed an opportunity to put things right by offering compensation for its admitted failings. Considering the above errors we have determined the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. There was service failure in its handling of the matter.
  11. Our remedies guidance says up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where there was a minor failure by the landlord. This is when there were errors in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. Considering the errors identified above we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the above issues. It may deduct its offer of £50 in compensation if already paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning services provided, and the associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning. It may deduct its offer of £50 from this total if already paid to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord inspects the communal hallway to identify any repairs needed. It should allow the resident to attend the inspection so he can voice his concerns directly.