Sovereign Network Group (202411323)

Decision
Case ID	202411323
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 June 2026

Background

1. In August 2022, the landlord recorded damage to the resident’s kitchen flooring after a leak. In August 2023, the resident said the repair was still outstanding and the flooring was dangerous. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Flooring repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of flooring repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed raising the flooring repair. Several appointments failed, which prolonged the issue. It did not communicate clearly or fully investigate the resident’s concerns about its contractor or her reported injuries. Although it was apologetic, its compensation offer did not reflect the full period of the delay.
5. The landlord did not keep clear complaint records. It missed earlier opportunities to formally record the resident’s dissatisfaction. It did not show it had acknowledged her complaint and failed to promptly escalate. It also missed opportunities to clarify and respond to other issues she raised.

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 21 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,530 made up as follows: £780 that it offered during its complaint process for its handling of the repair £650 for additional distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of flooring repairs £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. It must provide us with documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 21 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident complained. She said she had reported damaged kitchen flooring on 17 August 2023, although the issue had been present for longer. She said the flooring was unsafe and had caused injury. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor.
6 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had carried out repairs on 6 February 2024 and acknowledged earlier missed appointments. It apologised for a misunderstanding between the resident and its contractor and said it would progress the repairs. It arranged an inspection for 15 March 2024. The landlord also apologised for not completing a health and safety investigation after the resident had reported injuries. It accepted it had not met its service standards for repair times or communication. It offered £330 compensation, made up of £240 for inconvenience and £90 for missed appointments.
27 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She reported a further missed appointment and continued delays. She raised additional concerns about the contractor.
3 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had scheduled works for 13 June 2024. It accepted its contractor had not acted promptly and offered a further £450 compensation. This included £200 for delays, £200 for distress, and £50 for time and trouble. This brought the total compensation offer to £780. The landlord said it would consider more compensation if delays continued.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She raised concerns about the contractor’s conduct and repeat missed appointments. She said she had fallen twice due to the flooring. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and increase its compensation.

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	Flooring repairs
Finding	Maladministration

6. On 31 August 2022 the landlord recorded several issues following a leak, including water damage to the kitchen flooring. There is no evidence it raised any follow-up work for the flooring or monitored the repair.
7. On 17 August 2023 the resident reported several outstanding repairs, including the damaged kitchen flooring which she said was a trip hazard. The landlord responded 5 days later. Its repair policy says residents should not report emergencies online. The resident did so on this occasion, so a short delay in reviewing the request was reasonable. However, the resident had raised safety concerns. On receipt of the report, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the matter as an emergency and arrange a prompt visit.
8. Instead, the landlord asked the resident to provide photographs, which she sent the next day. On 25 August 2023 it said it had passed her photos to its contractor, and they would make contact in 2 to 3 days. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 September 2023 as she had not heard from its contractor. This was 26 days after she had reported the repairs. The landlord did not attend within the 2-week routine repair timescale set out in its repair policy.
9. In September 2023, the resident told the landlord the flooring had caused her to have another fall. We have not seen records relating to the first reported fall or injury. The evidence does not show the landlord recorded this report in line with its health, safety, and environment policy. There is also no evidence it investigated or responded to it. The resident reported a further injury in February 2024. Landlords must ensure homes are safe and free from hazards. Where a resident reports an incident, the landlord should assess what happened and take steps to reduce further risk. The landlord did not do so here.
10. The resident told us she had chased the outstanding repairs several times before her report in August 2023. She also mentioned appointments and actions taken by the landlord which are not reflected in the evidence provided. While we have not seen evidence of these events, this may indicate a record-keeping failure. Accurate records are necessary to show actions, decisions, and communication.
11. A contractor attended on 18 September 2023 but the records do not refer to the flooring issue. On 27 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update and said the floor was dangerous. It is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the flooring or raise follow-on work during the visit on 18 September 2023, as it did with other repairs. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue sooner.
12. The landlord did not raise a repair until 29 September 2023 when it recorded a raised section that posed a trip hazard and required levelling. This was 394 days after it first recorded flooring damage in August 2022, and 43 days after the resident’s August 2023 report. This exceeded its repair policy timescales of 2 weeks for attendance and one month for completion.
13. Between 29 September 2023 and 9 January 2024, the contractor cancelled 3 appointments on the day due to staff sickness. It missed 1 appointment and arrived late to another, where it could not complete the repair. The resident said she removed kitchen appliances and took time off work for each appointment. As the landlord knew the work required and had attended before, these repeated failed appointments suggest poor planning. The resident said the missed appointments caused distress and inconvenience. They also meant she spent more time chasing the repair and lived with damaged flooring for longer.
14. The landlord’s complaint policy allows a compensation payment of £30 for missed appointments. There is no evidence it considered this before issuing its complaint response. This would have been reasonable, as the missed appointments caused inconvenience and the resident had expressed dissatisfaction.
15. The records show ongoing communication failures between the resident, the landlord, and its contractor. The resident reported that the contractor did not respond or provide updates, and the landlord could not always contact its contractor to respond to the resident’s queries. The communication failures added to the resident’s distress and led her to spend additional time chasing updates.
16. The landlord scheduled repairs for 6 and 7 February 2024. By then, 524 days had passed since it first recorded the damaged flooring. It was also 173 days after the resident requested an update. This exceeded the timeframes set out in its repair policy.
17. After the appointment on 6 February 2024, the resident raised several concerns about the operative’s behaviour and standard of work. The contractor asked the same operative to return, rather than arrange an impartial assessment. The evidence does not show the landlord or its contractor investigated the resident’s concerns further. It also does not show they gathered evidence before reaching a view. On 9 February 2024, the contractor said it would not return and alleged the resident had damaged the flooring. The landlord did not tell the resident until 19 February 2024. This shows ineffective communication, weak repair oversight, and a failure to investigate the concerns fairly.
18. In its stage 1 response, the landlord arranged a flooring inspection for 15 March 2024. It apologised for its delays and for not investigating the health and safety concerns raised. It said it had taken learning from this. It accepted it had not completed the repair within its target timescales and offered £330 compensation. These actions were fair and its compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy. However, the landlord could have taken steps to investigate the concerns the resident raised about its contractor. Its decision not to may have caused her further distress and affected the landlord and resident relationship.
19. In its complaint response, the landlord said flooring was usually the resident’s responsibility. However, while its repair policy said floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility, its tenancy agreement said the landlord was responsible for keeping the floor in good repair. By this point it had already accepted responsibility for the flooring damage and completed a repair, so this point was not relevant. The complaint was also about the standard of the repair it had carried out and the contractor’s actions. If the landlord was referring to the allegation that the resident had caused damage to its completed repair, this was unfair as it had not investigated this.
20. After the inspection on 15 March 2024 the landlord told the resident its contractor had accepted liability for poor workmanship. It agreed to carry out further work and said it would monitor the situation. It said it might review the level of compensation offered. This showed transparency and an intention to put things right. However, there is no evidence the landlord reviewed its compensation, despite ongoing delays.
21. On 27 March 2024, the contractor did not attend a scheduled appointment. Records show it had identified it could not attend on 25 March 2024 but did not inform the resident. It arranged another appointment for 23 April 2024 but when it arrived, it was unable to complete the repair. This showed continued poor planning and communication. It caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. It also meant she spent more time and trouble pursuing the repair. The landlord took additional steps after the stage 1 response to improve its appointment management. However, the evidence shows these actions did not lead to a meaningful improvement in service delivery.
22. During the complaint, the resident asked for a different contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to allow its original contractor the opportunity to complete the work. However, continued failures led to prolonged delays and inconvenience for the resident. The contractor later appointed a sub-contractor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take control of this decision sooner.
23. The resident reported further communication issues and missed appointments before the landlord completed the repairs on 11 July 2024. This was 329 days after the resident had chased it in August 2023, and 680 days after the landlord first recorded the issue.
24. Our compensation guidance gives recommended ranges for compensation. The amount depends on the impact caused by the maladministration. These ranges are guidance, not fixed amounts. We also consider the overall impact of the landlord’s maladministration. In this case, our compensation order reflects the period of the delay and aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy.
25. The landlord clearly explained how it calculated its compensation. However, its offer did not fully reflect the delay experienced by the resident. We calculated our compensation order by using the average weekly amount from the landlord’s complaint responses. This was £32.50 a week. We considered additional periods not included in its calculations. Including:
    1. 17 September 2023 to 13 November 2023.
    2. 5 February 2024 to 6 March 2024.
    3. 13 May 2024 to 11 July 2024.

This was a further 20 weeks without a satisfactory repair. Using the average figure, this equals £650.

26. The landlord did not adequately investigate or address the contractor’s conduct, which affected its relationship with the resident. The delays and poor communication caused ongoing distress and inconvenience. They also meant the resident spent more time pursuing the repair beyond the complaint process. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned from these failings. We order it to apologise and pay a further £650 compensation, as set out above. This is in addition to the £780 already offered, making a total of £1,430 for its handling of the repair.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

27. The landlord’s complaints and service recovery policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes aligned with the Code.
28. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. While the resident did not dispute the formal complaint date, the landlord could reasonably have logged this earlier.
29. The landlord recorded the stage 1 complaint on 19 February 2024. The evidence does not show it acknowledged this in line with its policy or the Code, although it did communicate with the resident during this time. Because of this, we cannot confirm whether the 6 March 2024 response met the required 10 working day timescale after acknowledgement. However, it responded 12 working days after the resident complained, which would have been in line with the overall target.
30. The evidence about the resident’s escalation request is unclear. Records refer to escalation in communications and internal notes on 6 occasions between 11 March 2024 and 13 May 2024. The landlord’s policy allowed it to delay escalation while it tried to resolve a repair. However, this did not comply with the Code which said landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint. Although the 2022 Code was not statutory, it required member landlords to follow it. Therefore, the landlord should have accepted the resident’s direct request to escalate her complaint on 27 March 2024.
31. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request, although it remained in contact with the resident. It sent its response on 3 June 2024. The landlord stated the resident escalated the complaint on 24 April 2024, which would mean it took 26 working days to respond. This was a minor failure against its policy and the Code. However, the resident had clearly requested escalation on 27 March 2024. Based on this date, the response took 45 working days overall. This exceeded the required timeframe.
32. During the complaint process, the resident referred to other repair issues but said she may raise separate complaints and wanted to prioritise the flooring. She did not dispute that the stage 1 response only dealt with the flooring, and the other repairs did not form part of her escalation request. We have not investigated the other repairs because they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
33. However, we found a complaint handling failure as the landlord could have clarified the complaint scope earlier and been more proactive asking the resident about the other issues raised. This may have prevented confusion later and ensured it acted on the other issues sooner. The resident told us that since the complaint process, the landlord appointed a new contractor and completed the other repairs.
34. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate and prevented a clear assessment of its complaint handling timescales. It did not identify any complaint handling failures during the process or consider the impact on the resident. We order it to pay £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance for maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord did not always keep clear records of its actions or the resident’s contact in all instances. It should review its record keeping practices. It may benefit from reviewing our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, available on our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

36. The landlord should ensure it has systems to monitor contractor performance and clear communication routes to prevent delays or service failure.
37. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. Our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance says landlords can reduce complaints by:
    1. setting clear expectations for repairs and providing a schedule of visits
    2. seeking feedback from residents and carrying out inspections to confirm work meets expected standards