Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sovereign Network Group (202419189)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419189

Sovereign Network Group

30 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of rising damp and associated repairs.
    2. Concerns regarding asbestos in the property.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease beginning in April 2000. The property is a ground floor maisonette.
  2. On 6 December 2023 the resident reported that the rear guttering was blocked by weeds. The landlord attended and cleared the guttering on 16 January 2024. Following a report of water ingress into the resident’s property, the landlord carried out an inspection on 30 January 2024. The inspection identified issues including “poor pointing”, a leaking toilet, and “possible” wet cavity wall insulation.
  3. The resident later raised a formal complaint on 2 September 2024. She said that 2 insurance companies had said there was “terrible damp” in the property, and claimed asbestos in the property was affecting her health. Additionally, she said that although the landlord had carried out an inspection of the property, it had refused to provide her with a copy of the report. Furthermore, she said the landlord did not check the condition of the soakaway.
  4. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 November 2024. It said that:
    1. Following its inspection the surveyor confirmed there was no damp present in the property, noting that the floors felt “quite cold” due to the absence of carpet and underlay.
    2. The surveyor also identified a leaking toilet and recommended the resident have it repaired, as internal repairs were the leaseholder’s responsibility.
    3. A further inspection was carried out on 17 October 2024 as the resident had reported that there was rising damp in the property. It confirmed that there was no rising damp identified at that time.
    4. The property did not have an asbestos report on file, as it was leasehold. It clarified that the landlord was responsible for the fabric of the building.
    5. It had been unable to confirm with the resident which specific report she was requesting a copy of. Usually such reports were not provided to “third parties”.
    6. It had spoken with the surveyor and planned on completing the repointing works in spring 2025. A section 20 agreement may be required for the works.
    7. The soakaway was replaced in 2017 and was only addressed if it became blocked, therefore the landlord did not carry out regular maintenance on it. The landlord also said that it had raised a works order for the soakaway to be tested.
    8. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  5. The resident contacted this Service requesting assistance to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she said that there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s response. We contacted the landlord on 29 November 2024, advising it of the resident’s escalation request.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 December 2024 and provided its stage 2response on 17 December 2024. It explained that, according to the terms of the lease, the resident was responsible for internal repairs, including obtaining asbestos information for the internal areas of the property. It also stated that inspections had been carried out confirming no rising damp within the property, and that the repairs for which the landlord was responsible under the lease had been completed. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  7. In recent communication with the landlord, it confirmed that a drainage survey had been carried out which identified that a gully needed sealing and that there was mud build up between the rear of the building and the patio. It said the necessary works had now been completed. Additionally, it said repointing work was required, which would be addressed through its planned maintenance. However, as the resident was a leaseholder, a section 20 notice must first be issued before the works could proceed.
  8. The resident told us that she disputes there is no rising damp in the property and has insurance documentation to confirm its presence. This information has not been seen by this Service, and we are therefore unable to provide further comment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
  2. The resident had previously reported rising damp in 2017 and 2019. The repair log shows that the landlord renewed the soakaway and unblocked 2 communal drains during this time, which was consistent with its responsibilities under the lease. This information is useful to provide contextual background to the complaint. However, our assessment will focus on the more recent issues surrounding the resident’s reports of disrepair from December 2023 and the events leading up to her formal complaint.

Reports of rising damp and associated repairs

  1. Schedule 8 of the lease agreement say the landlord must keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition. It says that the landlord is responsible for:
    1. The main structure of the property, which includes cisterns, tanks, sewers, drains and gutters.
    2. Other services for the purpose of draining away water.
    3. Repointing all loose or fault joints in the brickwork.
    4. Clearing out gutters and repairing and replacing them as required.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that it gives all responsive repairs a priority based on urgency and risk. It will always consider a resident’s vulnerability and information given at the time of reporting a repair when deciding how quickly to respond. Additionally, it will offer residents the first available appointment or an appointment ‘slot’ to suit them.
  3. On 6 December 2023 the resident reported that the guttering was blocked at the rear of the property. The repair log shows this was completed on 16 January 2024. This was 26 working days later. In the absence of a target timescale for routine repairs within the landlord’s repair policy, we consider this to be a reasonable timescale.
  4. Internal communications dated 14 December 2023 indicate that the landlord liaised regarding arranging an inspection of the property following the resident’s reports of water ingress. According to the case notes, the resident stated that the issue had been ongoing since 2021. However, we have seen no evidence to support that the resident reported any water ingress problems in 2021. As previously outlined, there is evidence that issues were reported in 2017 and 2019, and that these were appropriately addressed by the landlord.
  5. The case notes show that the resident cancelled the inspection regarding the water ingress as she was waiting on some information from the insurance company. The landlord offered to re-arrange the inspection, but the resident declined. It was appropriate for the landlord to be flexible regarding the time of the inspection and to accommodate the resident’s request.
  6. Subsequently, on 30 January 2024, an inspection of the property was carried out by the landlord. This noted issues with the pointing, a leaking toilet, and possible settling of the cavity wall insulation. According to the lease, the resident was responsible for internal repairs such as fixing the toilet. The landlord’s repair obligations cover the exterior of the property, and therefore it was responsible for the identified repointing works. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord took any further action in relation to the pointing. Given that the property was leasehold, the landlord would have been aware of the potential need to issue a section 20 notice. Legally, leaseholders who pay variable service charges must be consulted before landlords undertake qualifying works or enters into a long-term agreements, in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  7. The landlord’s failure to proactively investigate the necessity of issuing a section 20 notice was unfair to the resident. Its lack of action effectively delayed the initiation of any necessary repair works, potentially exacerbating the issue and causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. By not taking prompt steps to identify the legal requirements surrounding section 20, the landlord did not fulfil its responsibility to ensure timely and transparent communication with the resident, potentially delaying essential repairs that could have mitigated any damage or deterioration.
  8. On 2 September 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint saying that she had 2 letters from her insurance company stating that the property had “terrible damp”. She further explained that by October 2024, it would have been one year since she first attempted to obtain a response from the landlord. Additionally, she noted that the landlord had “never checked the soakaway” and only carried out an inspection after she informed it of her insurance company’s involvement. This highlights the importance of the landlord effectively managing the resident’s expectations and clearly communicating her repair responsibilities in accordance with the lease. In this instance, the case notes lacked sufficient detail regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident, making it unclear whether the resident was fully informed of her repair obligations. It’s important to note that as stipulated in the lease, the resident is responsible for any internal repairs.
  9. In October 2024, the landlord’s internal records indicate that a visit was carried out around this time, during which it was noted that there was no evidence of rising damp. The visit was not specifically arranged to address the damp concerns, as the case notes said it was “mainly to discuss the garden conditions”. The evidence shows that a works order was raised on 6 November 2024 for the soakaway to be inspected. This was carried out on 15 November 2024 with no issues noted in the repair log. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the soakaway, as this falls within its responsibilities under the terms of the lease.
  10. However, the resident had first raised concerns about the soakaway on 2 September 2024. While the landlord’s repair policy states that repairs will be prioritised based on urgency and risk, we consider a 2-month response time to be unreasonable for investigating the resident’s concerns. We acknowledge that an inspection was carried out around October and that no rising damp was observed. Nevertheless, the inspection notes did not mention an examination of the soakaway, which was one of the concerns raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint. For this reason, we have determined that the 2-month timeframe for inspecting the soakaway was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it did not have any record of reports of water ingress from 2021. This is consistent with the evidence we have seen. It explained that it had carried out visits in January and October 2024 and did not identify the presence of rising damp. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its trained staff. This approach aligns with standard practice and assisted the landlord in making an informed decision based on the information provided, which in this case included the absence of rising damp.
  12. The response went on to address the resident’s concerns regarding the maintenance of the soakaway. The landlord confirmed the soakaway was replaced in 2017 and generally did not require routine maintenance. If, for any reason, it became damaged, the landlord said it would attend to the issue and ensure it was restored to proper working order. However, to facilitate this, any issue must be reported to the landlord so that the suitable work could be arranged. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it aligns with the resident’s obligation to promptly report any disrepair issue for which the landlord is responsible.
  13. The landlord further explained that following its visit in November 2024, its contractors confirmed that the soakaway was flowing freely and that no further work was needed. Additionally, the landlord had obtained quotes for the required repointing work and was aiming to start these in spring 2025. The landlord said it was also investigating if a section 20 notice was required before proceeding with the works.
  14. The landlord identified that repointing works were required as early as January 2024. Despite this, there was a significant delay in investigating whether a section 20 notice was necessary to proceed with the repairs. The landlord only obtained quotes for the works on 12 November and 12 December 2024. The delay in formally assessing the need for a section 20 notice – which is an essential process for leasehold properties – was unreasonable given the timeline of events.
  15. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately when it attended to the blocked guttering in January 2024, completing the repair in line with its policy. It also demonstrated a reasonable approach by liaising with the resident regarding water ingress issues and attempting to arrange inspections. The inspection carried out in January 2024 identified issues with pointing, a leaking toilet, and potential settling of cavity wall insulation. Given that internal repairs, such as fixing the toilet, were the resident’s responsibility, the landlord’s obligation was limited to external repairs, such as repointing.
  16. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failure to proactively investigate whether a section 20 notice was required before proceeding with the repointing works represents a failing. While the landlord identified the need for repointing as early as January 2024, it delayed in investigating the legal requirements for leasehold works, only obtaining quotes 10-11 months later in November and December 2024. This delay was unreasonable, particularly given that, despite the absence of rising damp, a defect had been identified which the landlord was responsible for repairing in a timely manner. Such a delay was unfair to the resident, especially considering her concerns about damp in the property.
  17. The landlord’s reliance on information from its trained staff regarding the absence of rising damp was appropriate and aligned with standard practice. It demonstrated a reasonable approach based on the available evidence. Nonetheless, the overall handling of repairs and legal compliance demonstrated a need for a more proactive approach by the landlord. Taking such steps would have better ensured that the landlord fulfilled its obligations regarding the repairs it was responsible for in accordance with the terms of the lease.
  18. Due to the failure identified, and the lack of acknowledgement or redress for this, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rising damp and associated repairs. As a result, £300 compensation has been awarded to her. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a finding of maladministration has been made, and also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy based an “unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation”. Appropriate actions taken by the landlord have been taken into account and prevented a more adverse finding.

Concerns regarding asbestos in the property

  1. Under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, landlords are required to manage asbestos in the common areas of their properties. This involves identifying any materials containing asbestos, assessing the risk, and developing a plan to manage that risk. There is no legal requirement to maintain or manage an asbestos register for private residential properties.
  2. The landlord’s website provides advice for its tenants and leaseholders that if asbestos is “undisturbed and covered” it generally is not a risk.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 11 November 2024, the landlord advised the resident that as she was a leaseholder, it did not hold asbestos reports for the property and that its responsibility was limited to the fabric of the building. This was appropriate, as the lease agreement specifies that residents are responsible for internal repair or redecoration. Furthermore, this approach aligned with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
  4. On 17 December 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 response, reiterating that as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for any asbestos located within the property. The response also advised the resident to arrange her own asbestos survey if she had any specific concerns or wished to obtain further assurance. This approach was appropriate because it clearly defined the responsibility between the landlord and resident. It also aligned with its legal obligations under the lease and the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, and encouraged the resident to take proactive steps to alleviate her concerns regarding asbestos management within the property.
  5. In summary, the landlord’s actions were reasonable as it provided clear and consistent responses at both stage 1 and stage 2. By reaffirming that the resident, as a leaseholder, was responsible for any potential asbestos within the property and advising her to commission her own survey, the landlord appropriately, clarified responsibilities, and ensured that the resident was well informed.
  6. Therefore, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in the property.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At either stage the landlord may need up to a further 10 days, and will let residents know if this is necessary.
  2. The resident provided us with a copy of her handwritten formal complaint dated 2 September 2024. In October 2024 she contacted us because she had not received a response from the landlord. On 21 October 2024 we contacted the landlord, providing details of the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 November 2024; it said that it had tried to call the resident on 28 October 2024 to discuss her complaint and gather further information. However, it said that the resident had declined to discuss the complaint and preferred to communicate in writing.
  3. We have not seen any documentary evidence that the landlord received the resident’s formal complaint of September 2024. Nevertheless, we notified the landlord on 21 October 2024, and its response was provided to the resident 35 working days later. This was 15 working days beyond its maximum policy timescale and therefore not appropriate.
  4. We contacted the landlord once more on 29 November 2024, as the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 December 2024. It also requested clarification on some matters in order for it to investigate further. This was good practice as it helped the landlord gain a clearer understanding of the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024, which was 11 working days later. This aligned with its policy timescale and was therefore appropriate.
  6. In conclusion, the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 15 working days outside of its policy timescale and did not acknowledge the delay or offer compensation to put things right. Therefore, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and £50 compensation has been awarded to the resident.

Determination

  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 rising damp and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos in the property.
  3. 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 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £350, made up of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience arising from its response to her concerns of rising damp and associated repairs.
      2. £50 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to her complaint.
  2. Write to the resident providing her with an update in relation to the repointing works, the related section 20 requirements, and an estimated timescale for the works to commence. A copy of this communication should also be provided to this Service.