We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sovereign Network Group (202405516)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405516

Sovereign Network Group

26 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the property is a 3-bed ground floor terrace in a low-rise block.
  2. The resident first reported water ingress to both floors of the property on 7 September 2022. The landlord carried out various works at the property to try and resolve the matter. On 12 February 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as the matter remained unresolved, and they were unhappy with the landlord’s management of the problem.  
  3. On 13 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it detailed the works it had completed to try and resolve the ongoing water ingress. It acknowledged that despite identifying concerns with the downpipe in December 2023, it had failed to take action to address them since. The landlord said an inspection would take place and it offered £995 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 March 2024. She said the landlord had not adequately acknowledged the impact and the delays in its management of the repairs. The resident advised that it also failed to provide a schedule of works for the required repairs, as per their request. She asked the landlord to provide a breakdown of the compensation it offered.
  5. On 1 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it acknowledged that it had provided and received inconsistent information during the repair process. It said that an inspection proposed damp proofing works but that, due to “conflicting information”, it would contact the resident to arrange a further inspection. The landlord provided a detailed breakdown of its compensation calculation and offered an increased payment of £1,265.
  6. The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 10 May 2024. She expressed concerns around the landlord’s management of the repairs and its complaint handling. Within their submission, the resident said that they wanted the water ingress problem resolved and the landlord to provide better oversight and communication around the required works.
  7. The resident said that, as of 16 September 2025, the water ingress continued at the property. She advised that the landlord had continued to make attempts to resolve the problem but she remained unhappy with the time taken and its management of the process and associated repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the water ingress continues despite efforts by the landlord to resolve it. We acknowledge that the issue remains ongoing but we may only investigate matters that have been through a landlord’s complaints process. That was May 2024 when the landlord proposed a joint visit to ascertain what repairs were needed to resolve the water ingress and damp.
  2. The resident may wish to make a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of further inspections and repair attempts in the period since the stage 2 response. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of that process, they can bring the new complaint to this Service for further review.  

The resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it should attend routine repairs within 2 weeks and complete them within a calendar month. The policy says that the landlord should complete complex repairs within 90 days.
  2. After the resident reported the water ingress on 7 September 2022, landlord notes show that it first attended on 28 November 2022 to inspect the problem. The time taken for the landlord to carry out an initial inspection (over 11 weeks) was excessive and not in line with the timeframe set out in its policy. 
  3. Following the inspection on 28 November 2022, the landlord arranged for the application of waterproof paint. It initially arranged these works for 19 December 2022, over 3 weeks later. Bad weather led to the landlord cancelling this appointment. It re–arranged the works and completed them on 9 February 2023. This meant that it took over 10 weeks for the landlord to complete the works it proposed following the inspection.
  4. It took the landlord over 21 weeks to carry out the first repair aimed at stopping the water ingress. The overall time taken was unreasonable and outside even the landlord’s repairs policy timescale for a complex repair. Landlord records provide no explanation for the time taken to carry out the initial inspection, booking the initial appointment, or the time between appointments beyond the instance of bad weather. The landlord records also show no evidence of any attempts to limit the water ingress or reduce the impact of ingress during that period. This is a significant service failing by the landlord, showing a lack of urgency to address the problem or to take action to reduce the impact on the resident.
  5. On 6 March 2023, the landlord noted contact from the resident to advise that the repair had not resolved the problem and the water ingress continued. Landlord notes show that it carried out inspections on 9 March and 27 March 2023. In May 2023, it agreed to carry out works to a patio area and to the balcony of the property above. The landlord completed the renewal works to the patio area on 18 September 2023 and to the balcony above on 21 December 2023.
  6. The landlord’s decision to conduct these larger scale external works was reasonable given that inspections diagnosed those areas as possible causes of the water ingress. However, it took over 6 months between the landlord noting that the first repair had not worked and its completion of the works to the resident’s patio area. The time taken was significantly beyond the timeframe set out in its repair policy for complex works. There is no evidence of any works or assistance offered to the resident at this time to prevent or reduce the water ingress and any damage it was causing.
  7. Following the September 2023 external works, the landlord carried out two dye tests which found that water ingress was still a problem. It arranged a survey of the downpipes at the property, noting that it believed these could be a contributing factor along with the balcony above. A contractor cleared the downpipes and did other pipework repairs on 25 October 2023. This was an appropriate course of action by the landlord.
  8. The landlord completed a damp survey on 9 November 2023. This proposed drying out the property with dehumidifiers, carrying out more pipework repairs and then monitoring the property following the completion of a balcony renewal above. The actions taken by the landlord during this period were appropriate in trying to diagnose the cause of the water ingress and treating the related symptoms.
  9. Within the stage 1 complaint in February 2024, the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s management of, and delays with, the repairs. The landlord noted in its later stage 1 response that around Christmas 2023, it had identified other potential faults with downpipes at the property. It acknowledged that it had failed to act on these findings since. This was at least 10 weeks afterwards. This lack of adequate oversight of the required works was a service failing on the part of the landlord, leading to unnecessary delays and further detriment to the resident.
  10. It is unclear whether the inspection referenced in the stage 1 response took place. The resident disputed it within their escalation request dated 26 March 2024. Landlord records show a quote for further tests and other decorative works dated 9 April 2024 which it referenced in its stage 2 response. However, within that response, the landlord said that it had received conflicting information and proposed another inspection instead of progressing those works.
  11. A landlord will utilise inspections in diagnosing water ingress and damp. Landlord records show numerous mentions of inspections during the complaint period. However, there is a lack of corresponding notes or reports from these inspections. It is unclear if went ahead or whether the landlord failed to record the findings. This points to a lack of adequate record keeping throughout the repair history. This likely hampered the landlord’s diagnosis attempts and there was a need for repeat inspections due to conflicting information.
  12. Within its complaint responses, the landlord offered compensation for the delays, distress, time and trouble caused between 25 October 2023 and 1 May 2024. The total compensation offered for that period was £1,215 for this element of the complaint. More recent correspondence from the landlord increased this offer to include additional delays up to 8 September 2025. This led to a total payment of £4,410.
  13. The level of compensation offered per week by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate given the impact on the resident. Overall, the level of compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been a series of significant service failures by a landlord that had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident.
  14. However, these awards did not account for the period between September 2022 and October 2023 and the landlord did not explain why it overlooked the impact on the resident at that time. The resident experienced similar delays, distress, time and trouble during this period and therefore the landlord should include it within the offer of redress. The further 59 weeks would amount to an additional £2,655 compensation. This Service will therefore order total compensation of £3,870 for the period 7 September 2022 to 1 May 2024 (inclusive of the £1215 the landlord already offered).
  15. The landlord’s recent ‘final offer’ demonstrates a willingness to continue awarding compensation at the same rate pending resolution of the water ingress. We recommend below that the landlord sets out its position on any ongoing compensation.
  16. In summary, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the water ingress problem and associated works for more than 18 months up to May 2024. Photographs – both provided by the resident and from inspections – show significant damage to the walls in the property. There were concerns about the level of damp near to electrical sockets. During this time, the damage caused to the living room and bedroom in particular seriously affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home.
  17. Although diagnosis and complex repairs can take time, the landlord failed to carry out some of the more straightforward works in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy. Throughout the complaint, the resident asked for a clear schedule of works given the inconsistent information she received about who would be managing the works at the property. Despite those requests, the landlord failed to provide this information.
  18. Having considered the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. The policy says the landlord should provide a stage 1 response in 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
  2. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that it failed to acknowledge the complaint until the resident chased it 2 weeks after it was made. This is a service failing as the landlord failed to meet the timeframes set out in its policy.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 27 working days after receiving the complaint and its stage 2 response was sent 26 working days after the escalation. These were unreasonable delays.
  4. Across both stages of the complaint, the landlord failed to provide an adequate resolution to the resident’s concerns around the scheduling or direction of the required works. The resident referred to insufficient joined up working, being directed to other companies and a lack of any “clear plan” for the repairs.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the challenge of managing works across two companies but offered no solution to these concerns, such as a specific point of contact or a clear schedule of works. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles say that landlords should look to put things right, however, the landlord failed to do so in this instance.
  6. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint. Despite both stage 1 and stage 2 responses being issued outside the timeframe set out in its complaint policy, the landlord offered no further payment. This demonstrated a lack of learning from the delays at stage 1. We have ordered an increased compensation payment of £100 in recognition of the landlord’s failings.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and did not address all key points. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £3,970 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £3,870 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of water ingress and associated repairs for the period 7 September 2022 to 1 May 2024 (this is inclusive of the £1,215 offered in its stage 2 response);
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint (this is inclusive of the £50 offered in its stage 2 response).
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to:
    1. provide its latest diagnosis results and repairs action plan (with timescales and clear explanation of who is overseeing those repairs);
    2. offer a named point of contact who will provide fortnightly updates on progress until the required works are complete.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to the resident and confirm its position on whether it intends to pay compensation – at the same rate detailed in its previous offers – until the water ingress problem is resolved.