Sovereign Network Group (202348271)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to a leak from the roof in September 2023. The landlord inspected the roof in October 2023, and did some repairs in March 2024. The resident reported the issue persisted. The landlord replaced the roof in September 2024. The landlord agreed to replace the bathroom as it was left “largely unusable”.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made reasonable offers of redress which resolved the errors in its:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the associated repairs

5. There were unreasonable delays in fully resolving the roof leak, and the internal repairs linked to the leak.  The landlord showed learning and transparency in its final complaint response. It adhered to the timeframe commitments made in its final response. Its offer of compensation was proportionate to the severe long term impact the situation had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint was delayed, and it failed to acknowledge this at the time. The It inappropriately opened a second stage 1 investigation. There was lengthy delay in sending its final complaint response. Its offer of compensation was proportionate to put right the inconvenience caused by the lengthy delays.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. When the resident complained she said the issue was outstanding from 2020. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident made her complaint in September 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of the matter arising in 2020. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the leak dating back to 2020. Instead, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the leak in the 12 months leading up to the complaint in September 2023.
8. The evidence shows the landlord did some repairs to the roof/guttering that was claimed to be causing a leak in March 2022. There is no evidence the resident reported concerns about the leak until September 2023. During that period the landlord was reasonably of the opinion the matter was resolved. It is concerning however it did not raise an urgent inspection when the resident reported ongoing issues with a roof leak and loss of use of electrics when she made her complaint in September 2023. We acknowledge it attended to make the electrics safe the same day of the report. It was unreasonable a follow up inspection was not done until 17 October 2023.
9. Following its inspection, the landlord booked a repair for 27 March 2024. This was unreasonable and lacked the appropriate urgency, considering it could not reinstate the bathroom ceiling or lighting until the roof works were done. The booked repairs were outside of the landlord’s repairs policy target of 38 days. The resident was clearly distressed at the conditions in her bathroom. The delay in booking repairs may have increased her distress.
10. The landlord accepted errors in its handling of the matter in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained it could not do the repairs on its initial visit and had booked them for March 2024. It accepted errors in its handling of the matter, and appropriately set out its plan for the repairs. But, it missed an opportunity to put things right by not offering compensation for its accepted errors.
11. The roof repairs did not go ahead in March 2024, as the landlord accepted in its August 2024 complaint response. We have seen no evidence the landlord offered an explanation at the time that it was suspending roofing and scaffolding works. The resident was inconvenienced by not getting an explanation until August 2024. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to complain again in order for the landlord to progress with the repair. The roof repairs were done in September 2024, around a year after the resident’s report the leak was not resolved. This was unacceptable delay, particularly considering the condition of the bathroom during that period and the landlord had placed reinstatement of the ceiling and lighting on hold. Following the replacement of the roof, the landlord did not progress with the bathroom repairs. The resident was the inconvenienced by the need to chase the repairs.
12. The landlord accepted the errors in its handling of the leak and associated repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. It showed transparency and offered a detailed summary of the issues and its own errors. We welcome the fact it also offered compensation for the loss of use of the bathroom. It was also appropriate to set out its plans to replace the bathroom. This went some way to make up for its earlier poor communication. We have extended the scope of our investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response to assess its handling of its commitment to replace the bathroom.
13. The landlord replaced the bathroom within the timeframe set out in its final complaint response. This is evidence it learnt from the outcomes of its handling of the matter up to that point. This may have helped rebuild trust with the resident.
14. The resident has reported concerns about a supporting beam, and an electrical survey due. As these matters were raised after the issue exhausted the landlord’s complaints process we have not investigated them. The landlord’s own repair notes from after the complaints process refer to a concern about “wet joists”. We therefore recommend it inspects the areas of concern.
15. The landlord offered a total of £1,250 in compensation for its handling of the roof leak and associated repairs. Our compensation guidance, available on our website says orders for over £1,000 may be appropriate where a landlord’s errors have a severe, long term, impact on the resident. The above applies in this case, and the landlord’s offer was broadly in line with what we would have ordered had it not made the offer. We consider its offer was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience its handling of the matter caused.

16. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, from December 2023, 2 months after the resident complained. This was outside the timeframe set out in its complaint policy and our complaint handling code. It was an error that it did not acknowledge or offer redress for the delay. It missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right.
17. The resident asked to escalate her complaint in April 2024, and the landlord did not open a stage 2 investigation. This was inappropriate and inconvenienced her. She was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from our service in March and April 2024.
18. The landlord inappropriately sent another stage 1 complaint response in August 2024, despite the resident asking her complaint to go to stage 2. The landlord operated outside our code, which says a complaint must go to stage 2 if the resident expresses unhappiness with a stage 1 response. She was inconvenienced by a protracted complaints process.
19. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in April 2025, a year after the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised and acknowledged the lengthy delay. It showed detailed learning and transparency. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We welcome the fact the landlord offered compensation for the lengthy delay.
20. Our compensation guidance says for complaint handling compensation, over £100 and up to £250 in compensation may be appropriate where a complaint response is delayed by months, and it delays the resident getting a resolution. The above applies in this case. The offer was broadly in line with what we would order in such a situation. We have determined its offer proportionate to put right the inconvenience caused by the errors in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

21. The landlord’s records were adequate to enable us to complete our investigation. Its communication about the repairs was poor, a fact it accepted. Frustration and distress may have been avoided had it been more proactive in its communication with the resident about the repairs.