Sovereign Network Group (202339192)

Decision
Case ID	202339192
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident was unhappy how the landlord handled her repair reports. She said the windows were draughty and had not been properly repaired previously, causing the property to lose heat. She also said her washing machine was using all the hot water and that the intercom was working intermittently.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about repairs to the windows.
   2. Concerns about the washing machine using all the hot water.
   3. Reports of repairs to the intercom.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the washing machine using all the hot water.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the windows

4. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered proportionate compensation. It also completed the repairs within the complaint period.

Concerns about the washing machine using all the hot water

5. The landlord acknowledged its error, apologised and repaired the issue. It also offered to review the financial impact.

Repairs to the intercom

6. The landlord did not evidence that it completed promised actions and repaired the issue.

The associated complaint

7. The landlord responded within its policy timeframes and offered appropriate redress.

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. The landlord must ensure: 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 23 February 2026
2	Repair order The landlord must reinspect the intercom and repair as necessary. The landlord must contact the resident to provide an update and a likely timescale for the repair. It must also provide regular updates until completion of the repair.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,375 offered in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs and concerns about the washing machine using all the hot water is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should consider reinspecting the windows to assure the resident the repairs are complete and remain in working order.
The landlord should consider completing a heat loss calculation and review the heating in the property to ensure it is efficient and not contributing to any heat loss.
The landlord should consider the residents claim of increased electricity costs and reoffer to review the bills from the relevant period and previous year.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 December 2023	The resident complained that the landlord failed to complete window repairs correctly. She had previously reported condensation and mould, which was attended to in March 2023. She believed the issue was resolved. In November 2023, she reported a broken window handle. She said its contractor said the window was in poor condition and would not be in that state if the earlier repair had been carried out properly. She believed the windows had only been painted over and questioned why the landlord had not repaired them.   In November 2023, the resident reported that her washing machine was using up all her hot water. She said this damaged her clothes and caused her stress. She said she had to boil a kettle to bathe her son, which contributed to increased electricity costs. When the contractor attended, they found the washing machine was correctly installed but the pipe valves had been incorrectly connected. She said her sons were becoming sick due to cold, draughts, and limited hot water. She wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the errors.
15 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed it understood the resident’s concerns to be about ongoing window issues and the lack of hot water. It said the initial visit involved a mould wash, new sealant, and repainting, which it considered appropriate at the time. It noted the windows had since deteriorated. The landlord reported a further visit on 29 November 2023 led the contractor to advise that all windows required replacement. It arranged a survey for 18 December 2023. It acknowledged that the washing machine’s supply pipes had been connected incorrectly. It confirmed the issue had been resolved and apologised for the distress caused.
22 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said her concerns were not just about ongoing window issues but that the original work had been insufficient. She said this resulted in worse condensation, mould, and cold air. She also clarified that her complaint was not about a lack of hot water. It was about the landlord’s incorrect installation of the washing machine, leading to increased electricity costs. She said the stage 1 response failed to consider the stress, financial impact, and effects on her family’s health. She also reported that the intercom had stopped working, preventing her children from accessing the building, causing them stress. She had to leave work to let them in.
1 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It repeated that the work carried out in March 2023 was appropriate at the time. It said the windows had since deteriorated, confirmed further work was needed, and advised it would arrange this. It acknowledged the error with the washing machine’s supply pipes. It confirmed the issue had since been resolved and apologised for the distress caused. It asked the resident to provide an electricity bill for the same period the previous year to consider her claim for increased electricity costs. The landlord said a window survey had been completed on 31 January 2024, and its repairs team was reviewing the findings. It referred to a recall job for the intercom and confirmed the resident would be contacted to arrange an appointment. It offered £792 compensation for the delay, distress, and time and trouble experienced.
2 April 2024	On 2 April 2024, the landlord issued a follow‑on response to its stage 2 decision. It set out the timeline of appointments and communications, confirmed the specific works required, and provided a scheduled completion date of 4 April 2024. It apologised for the ongoing issues and increased its compensation offer to £1,375.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said the window repair was inadequate, as the property continued to lose heat. She also said the intercom and washing machine were still faulty. She wants all repairs completed, increased compensation, and accountability from the landlord for its service failures.

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	Repairs to the windows
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

8. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her family’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.

What we have considered

9. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to windows. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) 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
10. The resident reported an issue with the windows in March 2023. The landlord attended and completed repairs as a routine job within 1 month in line with its policy timeframe. She raised another repair request in November 2023, its contractor attended and suggested the windows may require replacement. In its stage 1 complaint response, it said the earlier work had been appropriate but that the windows had since deteriorated and now required further repair.
11. When the landlord spotted further issues, it was reasonable for it to arrange more surveys. However, it aims to complete most repairs within 90 days, which did not happen here, as the works were still outstanding after 7 months.
12. The resident felt the landlord had not addressed the window issues properly from the outset, which caused the condition of the windows to worsen. She also expected replacement based on the contractor’s earlier advice. In its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged it had provided incorrect information and confirmed the windows required overhaul and sealing, not replacement. This showed poor communication between the landlord and its contractor and likely led to avoidable delays and frustration. Clear communication helps residents understand what work is required, prevents unnecessary appointments, and reduces the need for time off work. That said, its £792 compensation offer was reasonable at the time.
13. Following the landlord’s final response, the issue continued. It had not completed the window repairs after the survey. The resident was unhappy when it arranged another survey, as she could not take more time off work. It also miscommunicated, first saying the windows needed replacing and later confirming they only required repair. This was contradictory to the advice previously given to her and likely caused further frustration.
14. While the landlord initially attended within its policy timeframe and completed repairs, the additional works were delayed, required multiple appointments, and surveys. However, it did reattend when needed and carried out the appropriate repairs. It later increased compensation to £1,375 and confirmed the repairs were completed on 10 July 2025.
15. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the further delay, apology and revised compensation offer was reasonable redress to recognise these failings. Its offer is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident. The resident said she does not feel the repairs have been effective, and we have made recommendations on this.

Complaint	Concerns about the washing machine using all the hot water
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The resident said her washing machine was using all the hot water, forcing her to boil the kettle regularly. It is not clear how long this issue had been ongoing as we do not know when the landlord installed the washing machine. She said this increased her electricity costs and caused stress when caring for her children. The evidence does not show when she first reported the issue, but the landlord attended on 16 November 2023. It found the supply pipes had been connected incorrectly and corrected them. In its stage 1 complaint response, it apologised for the error and confirmed the repair was complete.
17. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, saying it had not considered the financial impact or the increased electricity costs caused by the issue. In its stage 2 response, the landlord asked her to provide electricity bills from the relevant period and the previous year so it could assess whether she had incurred extra costs. This was a reasonable step to determine any financial loss. The landlord has since confirmed it has not received the bills. We have made a recommendation about this.

Complaint	Repairs to the intercom
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord provided limited information about repairs to the intercom as evidence. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation has, therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case
19. The resident reported intermittent faults with the intercom in her escalation request. The Complaint Handling Code states that any new issues unrelated to the issues already being investigated must be logged as a new complaint. As the landlord had already issued its stage 1 response, it should have opened a new complaint. That said, it responded to the matter in its stage 2 complaint response, so we have considered it in this investigation. 
20. The evidence does not show when the resident first reported the intercom fault. However, she said the intercom had stopped working and that her children were locked outside the building while she was at work. The landlord raised a repair on 6 December 2023, and repairs were completed but the issue returned in January 2024. Its repair records said the phone number connected with the intercom was incorrect in the system. It confirmed the planned team raised a repair and would be in contact within 5 working days to arrange an appointment. This is in line with its repairs policy timescales that states most repairs will have a visit within 2 weeks.
21. On 6 February 2024, the resident said the contractor told her another job would need to be raised. The records show the planned team was meant to chase the manufacturer to contact her. However, the evidence contains little information after this, and it documents no further action. She has since told us the issue remains unresolved. Remedy offers must clearly set out what will happen and by when, and the landlord must follow through on all agreed actions.
22. In this case, the landlord did not complete the promised actions. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to take ownership of coordinating the works. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise and reinspect the intercom. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. As the revised compensation offer was reasonable, we have not ordered any further.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

23. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. The landlord did not provide evidence that it issued acknowledgements at either stage of the complaint process. However, it issued its stage 1 response within the required policy timeframe. It sent its stage 2 response 1 working day late, so the delay was not significant. The landlord addressed all the points the resident raised at both stages. After the resident said the stage 1 response did not address her points correctly, the landlord amended these in its stage 2 response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s records should have demonstrated consistent tracking and oversight of the outstanding works. It should review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

26. The landlord should consider our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance, which highlights that many failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Clearly set expectations with residents about repairs and provide a clear schedule for visits.
    2. Gather resident feedback and carry out inspections to ensure repairs have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
27. The landlord should proactively keep residents informed about repair timescales and delays, and ensure all repairs are monitored through to completion.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord should assess whether issues raised during escalation should be incorporated into the stage 2 response or formally recorded as a new complaint in line with the Code.