Sovereign Network Group (202422680)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422680

Sovereign Network Homes

9 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s operative.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
The landlord’s contractor installed a key safe outside the door of the vacant property next door to the resident (Flat b).
The contractor’s operative attended the vacant property next door on 31 March 2023 and had tried the keys from the key safe, but they did not work. The operative knocked on the door and window of the resident’s property to try and gain access to the main entrance door through the resident.
On 31 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of its contractor’s operative, the key points were as follows:
1. She was partially dressed when she saw an operative looking through her window with a torch. She shouted ‘go away’ from the window and the operative shouted back to open the door. As this happened, she took 4 pictures.
2. The operative could see she was partially dressed but he was persistent and determined to get in and was not listening to her response.
3. She was shocked and angry.
4. The operative approached her by the window and explained that he could not get into flat b. She rang the contractor during the process.
5. The operative was very unprofessional in his approach.
6. Her belief was that ‘if you attend a tenant’s home and are unable to gain access, the first thing you should do is contact your office to inform them of the situation and they can make contact with the tenant’.
7. The operative explained that the barrel in the lock was not turning. She checked and realised she was locked in and could not get out.
8. The operative needed customer care training.
9. She contacted her landlord to inform them, and it arranged for a contractor who attended, changed the inner lock, and sorted the lower lock.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It was sorry to hear she was unhappy with the services provided.
2. It is expected to be able to conclude the investigation and would write to the resident with its decision by 19 April 2023.
3. If the investigation were likely to take longer, it would let the resident know.
Between 12 April 2023 and 21 April 2023, there were 5 email exchanges between the resident and the landlord.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord emailed its contractor with details of the resident’s complaint.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 14 April 2023 to provide its statement.
The landlord posted the stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint and provided a copy of the statement from the contractor. The key points of the contractor’s statement were as follows:
1. Their fitting team attended the void property (no b) on 31 March 2023 to replace the front entrance door. They were given a key safe code to gain access; however, the key found in safe for the main door would not open the main door.
2. The operative then rang the resident for access. When there was no answer, the operative noticed the resident and knocked gently and respectfully on the window of the resident.
3. The resident came to the window and the operative had tried to gesture and explained that he was there to fit the door to the vacant property but could not gain access to main door.
4. He displayed his ID and explained he was working as third party acting for the landlord.
5. Their coordinator and site manager had received a phone call from the operative that the key safe key did not work, and the resident next door was in but would not give access, so they phoned the resident to explain why they were there.
6. While on phone with the resident, they asked if she could open the external door for them. When this call was made to the resident, she said, she had just got out the shower and had to sit on the floor to rest.
7. The resident said that the operative pointed a phone towards her window and she believed he was recording her.
8. They spoke to the operative about her claims.
9. Furthermore, they thoroughly investigated this matter and the operative insisted that he used a small flashlight to illuminate his id so the tenant could see who he was and why he was there.
10. The operative also said that to reassure the resident, they left their phones in the van while they were attempting to gain access.
The landlord concluded the stage 1 response saying:
1. Following its investigation, it could not see any wrongdoing by its contractor.
2. Based on its findings, its decision was that the complaint was acknowledged.
3. It took the opportunity to apologise for the distress this had caused the resident.
On 21 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord chasing a response to her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 April 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It saw there was confusion to the stage 1 response that was posted to the resident on 18 April 2023 and attached a copy to the email.
2. it looked at the resident’s email and it looked as though she had not received the stage 1 response letter.
3. A full investigation was conducted, and the findings were detailed within the stage 1 response it sent to the resident through post.
4. It was aware it did not hold an email address on the resident’s file, so it used the post.
5. It had now used the email the resident the resident used in contacting.
6. It apologised that she had not received the letter that led the resident to take her time to further escalate her complaint.
7. It said it realised in one of the resident’s emails she believed her mirror was taken from her home after she gave access to the key safe and it would escalate the matter and provide the resident with feedback.
On 11 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to request escalation of her complaint, the key points were as follows:
1. The resident said if the landlord had spoken with her or visited her home to see the windows; it would have a better understanding.
2. The operative had no right to peer through her windows with or without a torch. He had 2 phones in his hands, talking with 1 and filming/pictures with the other and she was close enough to see.
3. The behaviour of the operative was not acceptable; it appeared the landlord wanted to close the case and she was not happy with this outcome.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023 to acknowledge the escalation request; the key points were as follows:
1. It was sorry to hear that she was dissatisfied with the outcome from the stage 1 complaint.
2. It would write to her with our decision by 16 June 2023.
3. If the investigation took longer than that, it would let her know.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It noted the resident’s suggestion that if the landlord had visited the resident, it would have understood the make-up of the resident’s home.
2. It explained that visiting the resident was not always possible.
3. It accepted that where there was confusion of the issue complained about that it could have made further enquiries.
4. In respect of the statements which the resident said was incorrect or false, it was placed in an impossible position as, it was not present at the time and the evidence available was limited. It was therefore unable to reach a conclusion over what took place.
5. While it did not doubt the resident’s version of events, the evidence available was limited and it was therefore unable to reach conclusion.
6. It explained its roles was to investigate, which included taking testimonies from the resident and contractors/staff to help form a decision on what took place.
7. It said the resident’s suggestion of the operative’s behaviour being inappropriate and the resident’s suggestion that the landlord was looking to close the complaint were inaccurate.
8. It apologised if the resident felt the operative’s behaviour was inappropriate.
9. It said it was unable to conclude with certainty; however, it had not seen anything suggesting anything untoward took place.
The resident sent her complaint to us on 30 June 2023 to ask us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s operative

We will not form a view on whether the conduct of the contractor’s operative was appropriate. Instead, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
It is unclear how the landlord investigates concerns about its contractor’s operatives and whether there is a policy or internal guidance that is followed in such instances. However, landlords would be expected to carry out an investigation. The landlord would also be expected to explain to the resident what its investigations entailed and what actions, if any, it intended to take as a result.
The resident raised her concerns about the operative’s conduct on 31 March 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the next working day.
The evidence shows that the landlord commenced investigation on 13 April 2023, 8 working days later. It contacted the contractor to request information and had given a deadline to provide their response to the resident’s allegations. This was appropriate and showed the landlord took the matter seriously.
The landlord received the contractor’s statement on 14 April 2023 and included this with its stage 1 response, in which it also apologised to the resident for any distress caused to her by the incident, but stated that it did not uphold the complaint. It stated that the response was posted to the resident on 18 April 2023, 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint and within the landlord’s published timescales.
There was then some confusion when the resident later emailed the landlord on 21 April 2023 chasing a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 28 May 2023 acknowledging the confusion and clarified that it had sent a copy of the stage 1 response in a letter to the resident rather than an email as it did not have her email address recorded. Whilst there was a delay in the landlord’s response it did appropriately apologise for the confusion and confirmed it had attached a copy of the stage 1 response to the email.
The resident had expressed her dissatisfaction towards the landlord’s stage 1 response on 11 May 2023 and the landlord escalated the complaint on 18 May 2023, 5 working days later. The stage 2 response was provided on 16 June 2023, 20 working days from its acknowledgement and within the landlord’s published timescales.
The stage 2 response again demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously by discussing the escalation request further with its contractor. It also appropriately explained to the resident that whilst it did not dispute her assertions, that in the absence of evidence to support her claims it would be unable to reach a conclusion.
Whilst the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses acknowledged the obvious distress caused to the resident by the incident, they failed to demonstrate whether it had taken any learning from the incident to avoid such situations occurring in the future and the landlord is recommended to consider whether there is any learning they can take from this case.
Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it appropriately considered the allegations and took proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the operative’s conduct. While the landlord was unable to form a conclusion based on conflicting evidence, it apologised to the resident for how she felt. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its contractor’s operative.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s operative.