Sovereign Network Group (202427549)

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to install a radiator in the toilet (WC) in November 2023 and throughout 2024, as she said the low temperature was significantly affecting her young daughter’s health. The landlord declined as it said the room was too small. The resident complained as she said it had given conflicting information and failed to communicate properly. She referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy at the landlord’s decision.

The complaint

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request to install a radiator in the WC.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a radiator in the WC.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Radiator in the WC

4. The landlord did not address the resident’s key concerns about incorrect information and poor communication, and it did not keep appropriate records to show its actions.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord did not respond within its timescales at either stage of its process, however this did not impact its management of the case overall and its offer of compensation was reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

Investigation scope

6. The resident told us that her daughter regularly needs to spend longer in the WC for essential medical reasons, however she is avoiding using the room which is making her condition worse. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can consider how a landlord has responded to a resident’s concerns and decide whether it should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident also told us that she raised a further complaint which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in July 2025. We will not consider this here as it did not form part of this complaint and the landlord must have the opportunity to provide its own evidence before we investigate. However, we will open a new case as the resident has asked us to consider a further investigation.

Radiator in the WC

8. The landlord inspected the WC in November 2023. It decided there was not enough space to fit a radiator safely as someone could burn themselves. In an internal email, the landlord said the resident had declined an offer to install a radiator immediately outside the WC instead. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider other health and safety risks, and its alternative offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
9. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord visited in February 2024 and agreed to fit a radiator after all. However, when she called for an update roughly 5 months later, it said it had no record of this and still considered the room was too small. There is no evidence of the visit or any follow-up, and the landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response. In the absence of such evidence or an explanation from the landlord, it not possible to conclude that it acted reasonably.
10. The landlord did re-inspect the WC promptly after receiving the resident’s complaint. It wrote to her on 16 August 2024 to confirm its decision that the room was too small. In her escalation request, the resident said a private engineer had told her it was possible to fit a radiator She also said the landlord had ignored her comments about the visit in February.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s disappointment and repeated the reasons for its decision. It was reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors and contractors. It was also appropriate to suggest the OT assessment, and to confirm she could request permission to install a radiator herself. However, the landlord did not fully resolve the complaint as it failed to address the misunderstanding in February 2024, despite this being a key reason for the resident’s frustration. This leads us to a finding of service failure, and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation.

12. Under its 2-stage complaints procedure, the landlord aims respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
13. The landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 responses outside these timescales, and it did not advise the resident of an extension in either case. However, it was in touch with her and there is no evidence the delays had any effect on its overall handling of the case. The landlord offered £50 in compensation which was reasonable, as this was in line with our remedies guidance for this type of failure.

Learning

14. Shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident arranged an OT assessment and a hazard inspection with the local authority. If the landlord had suggested these options earlier, it could have considered additional expert opinions when making its decision. This may have helped to keep its records and communications clear, avoiding the delays and frustration that led to the resident’s complaint.