Sovereign Network Group (202426955)

Decision
Case ID	202426955
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. On 24 September 2024 the resident discovered smoke and a burning smell in the communal hallway. She set off the alarm in her flat, alerting her neighbours and calling both the fire service and the landlord. The Fire Service attended and ensured the building was safe for the residents to return to. The resident says they advised her that the alarms in the communal areas were not correct and fitted some temporary alarms instead.
2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord the same day about how it handled the incident and her concerns about the safety of the building.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of faulty smoke alarms in the resident’s building.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of faulty smoke alarms in the resident’s building.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Fire alarms

6. Parts of the landlord’s response was reasonable. However it failed to fully explain its actions and decisions to the resident in its complaint responses and there is no evidence showing it then installed a fire alarm in each flat as it had promised.

Complaint Handling

7. The landlord took the correct approach in issuing a stage 1 response to the residents complaint, despite her already requesting an escalation to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in handling her complaint, but apologised for this and offered as reasonable level of compensation for the failing.

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	Inspection Order   Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to either: –          Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that is has already checked the resident’s flat to ensure she has a mains powered fire alarm, and it has installed one if she did not. or –          Inspect the resident’s flat to check she has mains powered fire alarm and install one if she does not. The landlord must provide evidence of these checks and works to the Ombudsman.	No later than 13 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She was concerned that the fire alarms did not work when needed and wanted reassurance that the system was fit for purpose. She also felt it had not checked on her wellbeing following the incident.
21 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said its own investigations had not found any evidence of smoke, fire or faulty electrics. It also said it had liaised with the fire service regarding the fire system in the building and the policies it had in place.
21 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She felt the landlord had not completed a thorough investigation to find the source of the incident and to reassure her, that the building was safe.
5 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It maintained it had sufficiently investigated the incident and could not find the exact cause. It said it would be removing the current communal fire alarm system and replacing it with mains powered alarms in each flat. It apologised for complaint handling delays and offered £75 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had failed to investigate the incident thoroughly, find the exact cause or reassure her that the property was safe. She wanted it to complete necessary checks and provide reassurance about the fire safety for her flat and the building.

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	Smoke alarm concerns
Finding	Service failure

9. The landlord’s Fire Safety Strategy says it has an agreement with the local fire service to work jointly on any fire safety issues relating to its properties. It says the local fire service agreed to share any information or concerns about any of its fire safety procedures.
10. The resident’s flat is one of six in a purpose built block of flats.
11. The government’s guidance on fire safety in purpose built blocks of flats advises that in general needs blocks with a ‘stay put’ policy in place it is “undesirable” for a fire alarm system to be in place. It acknowledges there are some exceptions to this, however these exceptions should be identified by a qualified professional in a fire risk assessment.
12. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint.
13. The resident complained that the landlord did not respond appropriately to a potential fire incident in September 2024. She said it had not thoroughly investigated the source of the smoke and was concerned that none of the alarms activated. She was worried about the building’s fire safety especially as the fire service told her the building’s alarm system was not suitable, and had fitted temporary alarms.
14. She also felt it had not done enough to check on her following the incident and that its communication had been poor regarding what it was doing to ensure the building was safe. She wanted it to investigate the incident further and provide reassurance that the alarm system was adequate.
15. The landlord responded saying it had carried out its own checks after the incident and had worked with the fire service, who suspected the smoke originated from the outside bin area. It explained the fire service advised it that alarms should only be inside the flats, not in communal areas. It therefore planned to remove the communal alarms and install mains powered alarms in each flat. It also confirmed that the building’s stay put policy remained appropriate.
16. On the whole the landlord’s response was reasonable. Following the resident’s report of the incident on 24 September 2024, it arranged for an independent contractor to complete a fire risk assessment of the building 6 working days later on 1 October 2024. This was appropriate to do to ensure the fire safety of the building was sufficiently checked.
17. Furthermore, the landlord spoke with the fire service the first working day after the incident to try and ascertain the cause and to understand the service’s concerns about the current alarm system. When both the risk assessment and the fire service told it there were currently alarms in the communal area which should not be in place, it used this information to inform its response. It told the resident it planned to remove the communal alarms and ensure each flat had a mains powered detector if it did not already. This was reasonable given the information it had been given and an appropriate step to take to ensure the fire safety of the building. This approach was also in line with the Government’s guidance.
18. There were, however, parts of the landlord’s response that were not reasonable. It did not explain why its plan to remove the communal fire alarms conflicted with the fire service’s earlier decision to install temporary alarms in those areas. This understandably worried the resident, as the fire service had originally told her the building had never had adequate fire detection in the communal spaces. The landlord’s intention to remove all communal alarms therefore appeared to contradict the fire service’s actions and caused the resident further concern.
19. Additionally, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that the communal area alarms had not sounded during the incident.. Given that the communal alarms were not required to be there (as per the risk assessment) the actual impact of them not activating was presumably minimal. Nonetheless, not clearly responding to this was not appropriate as it did not comply with the Code requirement to address all elements of a complaint and was a missed opportunity to alleviate her concerns.
20. The landlord removed the communal fire alarms as it said it would in its response. However, there is no evidence to show it went on to either install a main powered fire alarm in each flat, or check to see if each flat already had one. This was not appropriate, as it promised to do so in its response and its fire risk assessment also said it should do so.
21. Overall, part of the landlords response was reasonable. It organised a fire risk assessment of the building shortly after the incident and liaised with the local fire service to try and ascertain the cause and ensure the building had appropriate fire protections in place. It used the information it received from the service and the assessment to inform its decision to remove the communal fire alarms. However, it failed to adequately explain its reasons for doing so to the resident. There is also no evidence to show it went on to either install a mains powered fire alarm in each of the flats, or to check to see if they already had one.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it can extend either deadline by a further 10 working days providing it notifies the resident of this.
23. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of and timescales for a complaint in the Code (April 2022)..
24. The landlord took 42 working days to respond to the residents stage 1 complaint. It did not notify her of any delays or agree a deadline extension with her. This far exceeded the 10 working day deadline from its policy.
25. Due to the landlord’s lack of communication, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2024, which was prior to the landlord issuing its stage 1 response. While it complied with both its policy, and the Code, by issuing its stage 1 response first, it failed to explain why it had done that rather than escalating the complaint. That led to confusion for the resident.
26. However, the landlord acknowledged the complaint handling delays in its stage 1 response, apologised and explained how it planned to improve its service going forward. This was appropriate given the delay and complied with the Code in acknowledging the failing and how it had learned from it. It also went on to offer £75 compensation for this delay in its stage 2 response, which was reasonable given level of failing found.
27. The landlord took 10 working days to provide its stage 2 response from the date the resident escalated her complaint after receiving its stage 1 response. This was in line with its policy, and the Code, and was therefore reasonable.
28. Overall there were failings in how the landlord handled stage 1 of the resident’s complaint. Nevertheless, it apologised, explained how it planned to improve and offered an appropriate level of compensation for the failing. It went on to handle stage 2 of the complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Overall the landlord had robust records regarding this case, including inspection reports and both internal and external communications.

Communication

30. The landlord is reminded to ensure it responds to all parts of a complaint in compliance with the Code and basic good practice.