Sovereign Network Group (202421437)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202421437 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Sovereign Network Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
8 December 2025 |
Background
- The resident has experienced damp and mould throughout his property since around June 2023. The landlord’s initial attempts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful. Although a schedule of works was agreed in May 2025, these works have not yet been completed. The damp and mould problems remain unresolved at the time of this investigation.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Damp and mould.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found the landlord responsible for:
- Maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould.
- No maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
- The landlord accepted failings in its handling of damp and mould and awarded an appropriate remedy during its complaints procedure and through a settlement in May 2025. However, its subsequent communication, lack of consideration for the resident’s request for temporary accommodation, and failure to demonstrate learning was unreasonable and likely contributed to the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.
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 |
Communication order The landlord must clearly communicate with the resident in writing about what works it intends to complete as part of the previously determined schedule of works and the expected timescale for completing them. |
No later than 15 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Communication order The landlord must consider the resident’s request for a temporary move while the damp and mould works are completed. It should provide the resident and us with a written outcome that explains its decision and the reasons for it. |
No later than 15 January 2026 |
|
3 |
Communication order The landlord must either provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details so he can make a claim for damaged possessions or confirm what information it requires to assess a claim internally. |
No later than 15 January 2026
|
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should review its approach to maintaining oversight of property inspections when it becomes aware of potential disrepair. It should ensure that inspections are logged, tracked, and escalated promptly if delays occur, with clear accountability for completion. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
21 May 2024 |
The resident complained that he continued to experience damp and mould. He said the conditions were affecting his health and wellbeing and asked the landlord to resolve the matter urgently. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and confirmed it would respond by 5 June 2024. |
|
5 June 2024 |
The landlord upheld the complaint. It confirmed that works had been completed in 2023 to address damp and mould. Following the resident’s complaint, it raised an order for a mould wash and booked a surveyor inspection for 24 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged that its handling of the issue did not meet service standards. It awarded £440 for distress caused by the damp and mould and £132 for the time and trouble caused by pursuing a resolution. |
|
10 June 2024 |
The resident escalated the complaint because he did not feel that the landlord had offered a long-term solution to the damp and mould. He said the conditions were affecting his health and that it felt unsafe to remain in the property. |
|
17 June 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and committed to providing a response by 15 July 2024. |
|
15 July 2024 |
The landlord upheld the complaint because its service did not meet expected standards. It apologised for the ongoing damp and mould. It said the surveyor attended on 24 June 2024 as scheduled, but no access was gained. It asked the resident to confirm his availability so the appointment could be rescheduled. The landlord awarded £989, consisting of:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as he felt that the landlord had not offered a lasting resolution to resolve the damp and mould. |
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 |
The handling of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- On 6 June 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in his flat. At the time of this investigation in December 2025, the issue remains unresolved. Therefore, we have considered it reasonable to assess the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from June 2023 to December 2025.
- The resident has told both the landlord and us that the damp and mould has impacted his health. We are not medical experts, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact on health or not. The resident could seek independent legal advice regarding this and consider a claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). While we cannot determine the impact on health, we have considered the overall impact of any failings by the landlord throughout this investigation.
- The landlord accepted failings in its handling of the issue, as shown by its complaint responses, compensation awards, and a settlement agreed in May 2025. Our role is to assess whether the landlord did enough to put things right, using our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
- By October 2023, the landlord had completed extensive works to resolve the damp and mould. These works included replacing blown glazing, installing humidity-controlled extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, and completing a mould wash treatment. While appropriate, they were not completed until more than 110 days after the resident reported the damp and mould.
- We recognise that some repairs take longer when specialist contractors or materials, such as replacement glazing, are required. Extended timeframes do not always indicate a failure, provided the landlord takes reasonable steps to complete the works promptly. In this case, a repair order was raised on 25 July 2023, but quotes were not approved until around 1 September 2023. The landlord’s records do not explain the reason for this delay, which is a shortcoming in its record-keeping. Good record-keeping is essential for transparency, accountability, and assessing whether actions were reasonable.
- Effective communication is essential for transparency and reducing avoidable distress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with updates on the actions it was taking to resolve the damp and mould during this period. The landlord did not do so, which was a shortcoming in its communication.
- On 10 November 2023, the resident reported that the damp and mould had returned. Issues of this nature can require multiple repair attempts, so the recurrence was not a failure in itself. However, the landlord should have inspected the property and agreed an appropriate plan to address the problem. It did not do so, which was a failure to meet its repair obligations. While the landlord replied to the resident’s initial email requesting more information, it should have continued to pursue the matter even when the resident did not respond. The lack of a response did not change the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the property was in good condition and free from hazards. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had no record of the report, indicating shortcomings in its record-keeping and its ability to resolve the complaint effectively.
- When the resident made his stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2024, he said the damp and mould had worsened. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day but did not raise a works order for a mould wash and surveyor inspection until around 10 days later. While the decision to raise these orders was appropriate, the landlord should have acted sooner given the conditions reported. The lack of urgency may have caused the resident to feel that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
- Under the landlord’s repairs policy, routine repairs should be completed within 1 month. However, the mould wash was scheduled more than 40 days after the works order was raised, exceeding this timescale. The landlord has not explained the reason for this delay which may have contributed to the resident’s distress. It is also unclear what the outcome of this appointment was, which is a further shortcoming in its record-keeping.
- In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the surveyor inspection did not go ahead due to no access and that it had been unable to reschedule, despite attempts to contact the resident. However, we have seen no evidence of any attempt by the surveyor to rearrange the appointment. Without this evidence, we cannot confirm that the landlord acted reasonably. It was appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to confirm his availability in its stage 2 response, but it did not maintain oversight or continue to pursue the inspection when the resident did not respond. The landlord should have continued to engage with the resident, addressed any barriers to progress, and considered all available options as it remained responsible for maintaining the condition of the property.
- In November 2024, the landlord acknowledged that an inspection had still not taken place. It also received emails from the resident and his Member of Parliament about this. Despite confirming it would arrange the inspection, the landlord did not do so, which was a further failure to meet its repair obligations. Given the repeated shortcomings in maintaining oversight of required actions, we have recommended that the landlord review its approach to monitoring the completion of inspections.
- More than 6 months after the landlord’s complaints procedure was exhausted, the damp and mould remained unresolved, and no further progress had been made. In February 2025, the resident told the landlord he intended to take legal action because of the property’s condition. The matter was settled in May 2025, with the landlord agreeing to pay £1,283.14 in compensation and to complete an extensive schedule of works based on a surveyor’s recommendations. The landlord has confirmed that the compensation was a single figure and not split between distress and damage to possessions. We have therefore considered the total amount when assessing whether this put things right.
- Between June and September 2025, the landlord made repeated attempts to arrange access for the works, using phone calls, emails, and letters. These efforts were reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. Despite this, the landlord was unable to arrange an appointment to begin the works, leading to delays beyond its control. The landlord has also since issued formal warning letters for access to be granted. It is not our role to comment on why the resident may not have engaged with the landlord during this period. On 28 November 2025, the landlord told us it was awaiting confirmed dates to progress with the works.
- While its contact attempts were reasonable, the landlord should have communicated its intentions more clearly. It referred to the works as “prestart works” but did not explain what this involved. The resident told us he was dissatisfied that the landlord did not intend to provide a lasting solution and did not want another mould wash. This suggests the landlord failed to appropriately explain its approach to completing the repairs agreed as part of the settlement, which may have contributed to the access issues. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to clearly communicate with the resident about the works it will complete and the timescales for doing so, to ensure the resident has a clear understanding of the planned works.
- On at least 3 occasions across 2025, the resident requested a temporary move to another property because he did not want the works to go ahead while he was living in the flat. The landlord did not respond to these requests, which was a communication failure and a lack of transparency. The absence of consideration and response may have caused the resident distress and left him feeling his concerns were dismissed. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a written response to his request for a temporary move while the works are completed.
- The resident has told us that the ongoing unresolved damp and mould has led to further damage being caused to his possessions since the settlement claim was agreed. We have ordered the landlord to tell the resident how to refer a claim to its liability insurer or internally to the landlord’s insurance department. If the landlord decides to assess the claim itself rather than going through its liability insurer, it should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
- Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. The landlord’s award of £989 made at stage 2 of its complaint procedure aligns with what the guidance says may be suitable for where there has been a serious failure by the landlord that had a significant impact on the resident. However, it did not account for the subsequent failings identified.
- The landlord’s additional award of £1,283.14 increased the total compensation offered to £2,272.14. While this aligns with what the guidance says may be suitable for where there have been serious failings that have had a significant impact on the resident, the lateness of the increased offer affected the extent to which it puts things right. It also does not account for the further shortcomings in the landlord’s communication about the repairs and the resident’s request for a temporary move. These further failings indicate that the landlord did not learn from the outcomes. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
- The landlord has shown that the compensation payments have been made. The resident can contact his solicitor to receive the settlement payment if he has not already done so.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy states that complaints at both stages should be acknowledged within 5 working days. It also requires a formal response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. In this case, the landlord acknowledged and issued a formal response at both stages within reasonable timescales.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We have identified recurring failures in the landlord’s record-keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.
Communication
- The landlord’s records show shortcomings in its communication with the resident. At times, its communication was insufficient and lacked clarity. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can often be avoided when landlords keep residents informed about repair progress and expected timescales. The landlord may wish to review its communication based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.