Sovereign Network Group (202417316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417316

Sovereign Network Homes

29 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including discrimination and the request to be allocated a different neighbourhood officer.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord’s system shows the resident has a mental health illness and is vulnerable. The resident has told us that she has bipolar disorder.
There has been a history of disputes between the resident and her neighbour, including allegations of ASB by the neighbour and counter-allegations about the resident.
On 16 November 2022 the resident was arrested for affray following an incident at her property involving a knife. She was taken to hospital for a mental health assessment.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord applied for an injunction against the resident. An interim injunction was granted by the court on 23 December 2022. A further hearing was ordered to take place after 3 February 2023.
On 15 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. She had been discriminated against as her disability had not been considered. She felt her side of the neighbour dispute had not been heard.
2. Officers were not responsive to her. When they did respond, they were rude and dismissive. An officer had upset her daughter.
3. She had been refused a new housing officer.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 June 2024. It said:
1. It completed a proportionality assessment and referral to social care. It said the resident’s mental health had been considered before taking legal action.
2. The neighbourhood officers were impartial, relying on evidence they had.
3. There had been many reports of ASB against the resident. Legal action was taken due to the incident on 16 November 2022. It took proportionate action. It had a duty to deal with ASB and safeguard residents.
4. It had referred her to the landlord’s internal mental health liaison officer.
5. It could not identify any gaps in contact with the resident. It asked the resident for more information.
6. The conversation with her daughter was over a year and a half ago. Her daughter did not seem distressed, and it was not the officer’s intentions.
7. The neighbourhood officer could not be changed as it would not be convenient operationally. Neighbourhood officers and team leaders had designated areas assigned to them.
8. It could not find any service failure or discrimination. Officers had responded appropriately, proportionately and in line with its ASB policy and procedure
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 7 June 2024. She said:
1. It was her human right to feel safe and be treated equally. She felt unheard. She wanted a new housing officer as she felt unsafe and unheard. The landlord had been biased and rude to her.
2. The landlord took her to court when she was unwell.
3. The officer investigating her complaint spoke to other parties before her.
4. The landlord had tried to prevent the resident from returning home.
5. There were at least 2 officers supporting her neighbour at court.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 July 2024. It said:
1. It was not in its interests to change neighbourhood officers. Officers had been impartial and responsive to the resident. It could not find any service failure or discriminatory behaviour from officers who managed her case.
2. There was no evidence officers had been rude to the resident or her family.
3. It completed a proportionality assessment. The resident’s legal team and/or mental health team could have advised if further considerations were needed regarding her mental health.
4. There was no legal reason to prevent the resident from returning home. A mental health diagnosis would not stop the landlord taking enforcement actions where necessary.
5. The complaints officer could speak to people about the complaint in any order.
6. Apart from changing officers, it asked if there was any reasonable adjustment the resident needed.
On 30 July 2024 the resident confirmed she would like us to investigate her complaint. In summary she said the landlord had been rude and unresponsive to her. She said she had not received any support for her disability.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We acknowledge that there is a long history of dispute between the resident and her neighbour. We may not consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now.
The focus of this investigation will be from 16 November 2023 when an ASB incident took place, leading to the landlord applying for an injunction against the resident. This is because the resident raised concerns relating to this period during her formal complaint to the landlord. We have therefore also focused on this incident and the issues arising after it.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord has provided its records for the property to show its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is noted that there had been a significant amount of communication between the resident and the landlord regarding ASB and the legal case. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is noted, this report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather we have carefully considered all the available evidence, and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.
The landlord received a report of ASB about an incident that took place on 16 November 2022. It was alleged that the resident had been abusive towards her neighbour, threatened to and attempted to stab her own daughter. Police arrested the resident, and she was sectioned.
We acknowledge that the resident’s mental health deteriorated during November 2022 and this situation was distressing for the resident. When assessing these types of complaints, our role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures. We consider whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances
Court proceedings were ongoing throughout the period we have investigated. We are aware that the injunction proceedings were dismissed on 11 August 2025.
The landlord completed a proportionality assessment before applying to the court for an injunction. The landlord also spoke to the mental health team on 21 November 2022.The landlord said in its witness statement that they had not had any further updates from the mental health team despite repeatedly contacting them. The landlord showed it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when making its decision to apply to the court for an injunction.
Between 2 February 2023 and 15 June 2024 the resident was in contact with the landlord about ASB from her neighbour. This included noise nuisance and incidents where the resident felt the neighbour was harassing and trying to provoke her. During this period, the landlord also received ASB reports from the resident’s neighbour about the resident’s behaviour.
The resident felt the landlord was not doing anything about her ASB reports. The evidence shows the landlord provided the resident with incident diary sheets. It also requested noise recordings. It told the resident it needed evidence of allegations. This was in line with its policy which states “it may not be possible to take any formal enforcement action if there is a lack of sufficient and appropriate evidence.”
The resident reported incidents such as her neighbour looking through her bin and talking about her. The landlord told the resident the incidents were not classed as ASB. It provided its “ASB toolkit” to the resident for guidance. This showed the landlord appropriately set the resident’s expectations of actions it could take. The landlord also signposted the resident to the police and discussed mediation.
We asked the landlord to provide evidence of conversations with the resident’s neighbour in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. We did not receive this information. However, the evidence indicates the landlord did speak to the neighbour about some incidents the resident reported as it provided an update to the resident, detailing its conversation with the neighbour. The landlord should keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail and support the actions it takes.
The resident felt it took a long time for the landlord to respond to her. The landlord’s position in its stage 1 response was that it had not been able to identify any “gaps in contact” by the housing officer.
The evidence shows the landlord was not always responsive when the resident reported ASB incidents. On several occasions, the landlord provided a delayed response. An example of this is when the resident reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 8 March 2023. She did not receive a response and emailed the landlord on a further 2 occasions. She told the landlord she felt unheard and was not being supported. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its email response on 24 April 2023. This was over 6 weeks from the resident’s initial contact. The delay made the resident feel her concerns were not being taken seriously.
On 17 June 2024 the landlord asked for the resident’s support workers details so it could work jointly. The resident told the landlord that the offer of support “feels too little too late”. While it was positive for the landlord to recognise a joint working approach may have been beneficial, it is unclear why it did not consider this before. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and she had repeatedly told the landlord that she did not feel supported. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not ask what support the resident felt she needed sooner. This would have been in line with its ASB policy that says it supports witnesses and perpetrators of ASB. By not doing so, the resident would have felt her needs were being ignored.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it had referred the resident to its internal mental health team. We asked the landlord to confirm what support its internal mental health team provided. It said that a formal referral was not made to the team. It is not clear why this did not happen. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not follow through on its offer of support for the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated it provided adequate support to the resident.

The resident’s request for a new neighbourhood officer

We have seen evidence the resident requested a new housing officer on multiple occasions between March 2023 and October 2023. She said she wanted a different housing officer as she felt vulnerable, alone and unheard.
It is not possible for us to instruct the landlord to change how it allocates its staff. There is no obligation for the landlord to change neighbourhood officers at a resident’s request. It should however show it had considered the reasons for the request and provide the resident with a response.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request until October 2023. The evidence shows the landlord communicated with the resident during that time but failed to acknowledge her request for a different housing officer. This was an unreasonable delay in responding. The resident spent time chasing the landlord for a response. When asking for a response to her request in October 2023 she told the landlord the issue was affecting her mental health.
In October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and told her that her housing officer was still the same. It did not tell her if it was considering her request. It missed an opportunity to provide the resident with a response. It also failed to acknowledge the resident said her mental health was affected.
The resident continued to request a different housing officer. In the landlord’s complaint responses, its position was that officers had designated areas and so it was not “convenient operationally” to change officer. It said it could not justify a change of officer as the housing officer was carrying out “neighbourhood functions”. It was positive for the landlord to provide an explanation, so the resident felt her request had been fully considered. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated this to the resident much sooner.

Discrimination

The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to give due regard to its duties under the Equality Act. 24.
We expect landlords to take a resident’s concerns about being treated differently seriously, investigate and provide a response.
In this case, the resident said that she had been treated differently because the landlord had been biased and she did not get an equal say in the neighbour dispute. She also felt the landlord had not acknowledged her and her family’s disabilities.
The landlord’s position was that it had treated the resident fairly and found no evidence of discrimination. It showed it had listened to, investigated and provided the resident with a response to her concerns. The landlord took the following actions:
1. It contacted the resident to discuss her complaint.
2. It reviewed the resident’s case file.
3. It provided the resident with a detailed response to each of her concerns. It provided rationale to support its position that it did not discriminate against the resident.
4. Provided the resident with an example where it felt it had shown it was impartial. It detailed an allegation that was made where the neighbour accused the resident of breaking a plant pot. The landlord said it remained impartial and without evidence, it did not assume the resident broke it.
5. It asked the resident, if she or her daughter required a reasonable adjustment, other than changing housing officers.
We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and how distressing the situation was for her. However, throughout our investigation, we have seen no evidence that the resident was treated differently.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including discrimination and the request to be allocated a different neighbourhood officer. This is because:
1. The landlord has not demonstrated it provided support to the resident. It did not refer the resident to its internal mental health team as it said it had.
2. The landlord’s communication was at times poor. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The resident did not receive a timely response to some of her ASB complaints. She did not receive an acknowledgement to her request for a change of neighbourhood officer for 7 months.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 in compensation. This amount reflects the distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty caused to the resident. This amount is in line with our Remedies Guidance, where service failures have resulted in ongoing adverse impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including discrimination and the request to be allocated a different neighbourhood officer.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
  1. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
3. Provide evidence to us that it has complied with the above order.