Sovereign Network Group (202414162)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414162

Sovereign Network Homes

29 August 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of issues with the intercom system.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. On 17 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the intercom handset in the property was not working.
  2. On 26 January 2024 the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it tested the entry system and it was working without an issue. However, an incorrect telephone number had been uploaded for the resident. The landlord rectified this on the same day.
  3. On 27 February 2024 the resident reported the same issue again but this request was cancelled by the contractor as the repair was to be managed by the manufacturer.
  4. On 5 March 2024 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He stated that the entry system had stopped working and it had not been resolved for 6 weeks despite repeated chasers. The resident explained the urgency of the situation as medical supplies were delivered to the property.
  5. On 6 March 2024 the resident and the manufacturer of the entry system discussed the issue. The resident confirmed the mobile phone application was now working however the audio call was not. The resident was advised to contact his network provider to see if they had blocked his number.
  6. On 1 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that its contractor attended on multiple occasions, however on each visit the system was found to be working correctly. It explored whether other residents in the building were also experiencing this issue but it found that everyone’s call system was working correctly. The manufacturer advised the resident to contact his network provider for further assistance. The landlord did not find any failings in relation to this. However, the complaint response was delayed and therefore it offered £20 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  7. On 2 April 2024 the resident requested escalation of his complaint as he was still unable to receive calls on his phone. For the period April 2024 to June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions for an update and the landlord queried whether the resident wanted his complaint escalated.
  8. On 12 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained the steps it had taken and that it had found no failures in line with its procedures. It acknowledged that it had taken appropriate action to try and resolve this matter. Furthermore, it reiterated previously provided advice that the main system was fully working as it should be and the only other reason could be down to a network provider fault or a faulty handset.
  9. On 8 July 2024, the resident referred the complaint to us as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.

 Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of the intercom system not working.

  1. The repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of door entry systems.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs are carried out within 2 weeks and the repair is completed within 1 month calendar. However, complex issues can take longer to resolve.
  3. The wireless intercom system works by a call going through to either a mobile or a landline instead of a handset within the property. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the resident’s requests were responded to. However, this was disputed by the resident who explains that the contractor has never attended the property and he has had to repeatedly chase the project manager.
  4. The landlord explained that its contractor attended the property to investigate the issue. We were unable to ascertain from the evidence when the contractor attended the property. It is not clear, given this was a telecoms issue, whether or not the contractor had to attend the flat itself to test the intercom. However, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have explained this to the resident.
  5. We sought clarification from the landlord on 2 occasions and it failed to provide this information on request, to allow us to determine an adequate timeline of events. The landlord’s file lacked detail on when the resident’s repair request was responded to and its findings. This made it difficult to determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and effective complaint handling, not only so that evidence can be provided to the us when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and enabling provision of accurate information to residents. It additionally assists the landlord to appropriately and fairly investigate and respond to any complaints.
  6. However, for the period between 17 January to 6 March 2024, we have seen evidence of the landlord working with its contractor and the manufacturer to investigate the resident’s reports. Furthermore, the landlord appropriately referred the matter to the manufacturer to resolve the issue and to provide the resident with technical support. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the manufacturers confirmation that the system was working correctly.
  7. The resident’s further repair request of 27 February 2024 was cancelled by the contractor as there was no issue with the system and this was to be managed in house and by the manufacturer. The resident’s call with the manufacturer on 6 March 2024 took place in 6 working days since the second report. Although the landlord stated in its complaint responses that it made multiple visits to the property, we could not find any further evidence of additional visits. The landlord has confirmed to us that it has provided us with all the evidence it has.
  8. The resident confirmed in a call on 25 March 2024 with the landlord that the system was working. However, on 2 April 2024, the resident reported that his partner was receiving the calls but he was not. The resident informed us that he has spent a consider amount of time liaising with the manufacturer trying to reinstall the application and troubleshoot the issues. While the resident was inconvenienced by the ongoing issues, the landlord appropriately referred the resident for technical support.
  9. The resident explained that his and his partner’s medical supplies were delivered to their property and because of the continued problems, there was a risk that they would miss the deliveries. We found no evidence of the landlord considering this matter or the potential adverse impact on the household. The resident confirmed that this did not materialise as the medical supplies were left near the entrance. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the household’s specific circumstance and any potential adverse impact while the resident’s access issue was being sorted. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a temporary measure or alternative method of receiving the calls was possible.
  10. The landlord did not find any service failure in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response. It concluded that the system was working correctly and issues may be a result of user error or fault with the network provider.
  11. In summary, the manufacturer gave appropriate advice to the resident on 6 March 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the manufacturer and its contractors’ findings. The landlord was also responsive to the resident’s reports and transparent in its communication with the resident. While the resident was inconvenienced by the issue, we have not seen evidence of this being a result of the landlord’s action as it had taken all appropriate and timely steps to investigate and provide relevant advice. We identified minor failings in the landlord’s record keeping and failure to consider the specific circumstances of the household. However, there is no evidence of any adverse impact to the resident. Therefore, we make a finding of no maladministration.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure in force at the time of the events states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. The landlord will try to resolve the issue through a service record request but if the issue cannot be resolved within 2 working days, it investigate stage 1 and a complaint is logged. At stage 1, it will provide a response within 10 working days and at stage 2, it will provide a response within 20 working days. It will consider complaints within 6 months.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 5 March 2024. The stage 1 response was due on 22 March 2024. However, the landlord issued the response on 1 April 2024, in 17 working days since complaint. The resident chased 2 times and was advised a response would be sent on 26 March but it was not. The resident was inconvenienced by chasing for an update and the landlord did not provide a proactive update about the delay. At stage 1, the landlord offered £20 compensation for the delayed complaint response offered. Given the length of delay, this was a proportionate remedy.
  3. The resident requested an escalation on 2 April 2023 and a response was sent on 12 June 2024, in 49 days. During this period, there was substantial correspondence with the resident in relation to the reasons for escalation, missing the escalation, delays in logging and update requests. The delay was not acknowledged in the complaint response. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have addressed its complaint handling failures and offered a proportionate remedy.
  4. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge its complaint handling failures and continued delay was not reasonable and added to the resident’s inconvenience therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the intercom system not working.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report related to its complaint handling.
    2. Pay £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
    3. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.