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

Take part in the consultation

Sovereign Network Group (202428352)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428352

Sovereign Network Group

3 October 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:
    1. Handling of a leak causing damp at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow.
  2. On 27 February 2024 the resident reported there was a 2ft by 3ft damp patch on the carpet of her second bedroom. The landlord’s operative inspected the damp patch on 19 March 2024 and suspected that it could be from a leak from a radiator. However, a gas engineer at the property that day confirmed that the radiator was not the source of the leak. The landlord’s plumbing operative attended to investigate the source of the leak on 20 March 2024. However, he did not provide the landlord with feedback from the inspection.
  3. The resident called the landlord for an update on 3 April 2024 and the landlord booked an inspection for 9 April 2024. The operative reported a suspected leak from a mains pipe under the floor. The resident raised a complaint on 7 May 2024 as she was unhappy with the delays in resolving the leak. A water mains contractor who attended on 9 May 2024 reported that there was no leak from the external cold water mains supply. On 16 May 2024 the landlord requested that a surveyor inspect the property.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 17 May 2024 the landlord apologised for its lack of communication. It confirmed that it had failed to find the source of the leak and said it was arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property.
  5. The resident rang for further updates on 7 and 11 June 2024 and the landlord raised another stage 1 complaint on 11 June 2024. In its response on 28 June 2024, it confirmed again that a surveyor would be in touch with the resident. The resident rang for an update on 28 August 2024 as the surveyor had not been in touch. She escalated her complaint and asked the landlord to find the source of the leak and replace the carpet which had been damaged by it.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024 the landlord said the surveyor would contact her directly to arrange an inspection. It also said that its Insurance Team had agreed that a claim could be made via its insurance for the damage to the carpet. It apologised for the complaint handling failing including the 2 complaints being raised for the same issue. It awarded a total of £250 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the timeframe of the ongoing issues.
    2. £75 for the lack of communication since May 2024 on the next steps to resolve the issue.
    3. £75 for complaint handling failures.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and that the leak had still not been resolved. She confirmed to us in September 2025 that despite further visits including two from surveyors the leak has still not been resolved and work is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised us that she is unhappy with the actions the landlord has taken since it issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024 as despite further visits, including inspections from two surveyors the leak is still ongoing. We have mentioned this in order to add context to the complaint. However, this report will not be investigating the landlord’s more recent actions. This is because they took place after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) and no further complaint has been made to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate these additional concerns through its internal complaints process.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme which states ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
  1. The resident is able to make a further complaint to the landlord about its actions since 23 September 2024.

Handling of a leak causing damp at the property

  1. When the resident originally reported the damp patch on 27 February 2024, the cause of the damp was not clear. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to initially deal with it as a damp and mould report rather than a leak was reasonable. Once it inspected the property on 19 March 2024 and identified a leak it took appropriate steps to try to identify the source of the leak. This included asking the gas engineer who was already scheduled to do a service check that day to check whether it was a leak from the radiator. Once he determined there was no radiator leak, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for a plumbing operative to try to locate the source of the leak the following day.
  2. However, although the operative inspected the property, it was his last day at work and he did not submit a report to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord failed to arrange any follow on work or to update the resident. This resulted in the resident calling for an update on 3 April 2024 and the landlord arranging another inspection for 9 April 2024. As that inspection recorded a suspected  mains leak it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged prompt follow on work to investigate the suspected mains leak. However, it failed to do so. This resulted in the resident calling for an update on 16 April 2024 and again on 3 May 2024, at which point a job was raised to investigate whether it was a suspected mains water leak.
  3. The inspection on 9 May 2024 found no leak from the water mains. Therefore, it was appropriate that on 16 May 2024 the landlord requested that a surveyor conduct a detailed inspection of the property to establish the source of the leak on 16 May 2024. As the damp patch on the carpet was getting bigger and it had now been 3 months since the resident had reported it, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured the surveyor’s inspection was conducted promptly. However, the landlord failed to do so and the surveyor had still not carried out an inspection by the time the stage 2 response was issued on 23 September 2024.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the continued delays and failings. It also took appropriate steps to refer the resident to its insurer to make a claim for the damaged carpet. (However, the resident did not put in a claim at that time as she mistakenly thought the landlord was referring to her contents insurance).In addition to this it also offered compensation totalling £175 for this aspect of the complaint.
  5. However, it failed to fully appreciate the impact these failings were having on the resident. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the repeated delays. She also became increasingly frustrated at having to chase the landlord for updates. The resident’s family life was also affected as the damp patch was in the second bedroom which was the bedroom used by the resident’s grandchildren when they came to visit. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation amount of £175 to be reasonable or proportionate.
  6. In light of the failings identified above and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration for this aspect of the complaint. We will be ordering the landlord to pay an additional £425 compensation to the resident. This is in addition to the £175 it has already offered and will bring the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £600. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  7. We will also be ordering the landlord to apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report and for it to send another insurance claim form to the resident if she has not yet made a claim for the damage to the carpet.
  8. As the source of the leak has still not been located we will also be ordering the landlord to provide a timebound action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman detailing the further steps it intends to take to identify the cause of the leak, the remedial action required and when it will take this action.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to agree a solution with a resident within 10 working days at stage 1. The resident has a year to escalate to stage 2 and it aims to have a decision within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages it may take an extra 10 working days if needed, but would explain the reason to the resident,
  2. When the resident raised her complaint on 7 May 2024, the landlord responded via post on 17 May 2024, which was within the timeframe in its policy. The resident rang on 21 May 2024,as she had not yet received the response and requested a callback from the complaints handler. The complaints handler responded by email to say the complaint had been posted on 17 May and a surveyor would be attending. However, it also said the complaints team were “currently not contactable via telephone due to the number of complaints”. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that this was not the case, therefore this response was inappropriate.
  3. On 7 June 2024 the resident called the landlord for an update and requested a callback from the complaints team as she felt the stage 1 response had not resolved her complaint. The landlord failed to call her back, which resulted in her calling again on 11 June 2024. At this stage the landlord should have escalated her original complaint to stage 2. However, it failed to do so and instead opened a new stage 1 complaint about the same issue. It issued its new stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. This was 13 working days later and therefore outside the 10 working day timeframe in its policy. It also essentially just repeated the information that the previous stage 1 response had stated, which was that a surveyor would be attending the property. This was frustrating and confusing for the resident.
  4. When the resident called again on 28 August 2024, the landlord took appropriate steps to escalate the complaint. An admin error then meant that the case was not allocated until 10 September 2024. However, despite this, the landlord did provide its response on 23 September 2024, which was within the 20 working day timeframe in its complaints policy. However, this was 11 weeks after the landlord had missed the opportunity to escalate the complaint on 11 June 2024.
  5. In light of the above complaint handling failings, the Ombudsman’s finding for this aspect of the complaint is one of maladministration. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged there had been complaint handling failings, apologised and offered £75 compensation for them. However, the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation of £75 to be reasonable or proportional. The failings caused additional distress, inconvenience and frustration for the resident. Therefore, we will be ordering the landlord to pay further compensation of £125 for this aspect of the complaint. This will bring the total compensation amount for this aspect of the complaint to £200. This amount  is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak causing damp at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. .Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay an additional £425 compensation for the impact on the resident of its failings in the handling of the leak causing damp at the property. This is an addition to the £175 it has already offered for this aspect of the complaint (which it should also pay if it had not already done so).
    3. Pay an additional £125 compensation for the impact on the resident of its complaint handling failings. This is in addition to the £75 it has already offered for this aspect of the complaint (which it should also pay if it has not already done so).
    4. Provide a timebound action plan to the resident and the Ombudsman detailing the further steps it intends to take to identify the cause of the leak, the proposed remedial work to remedy the leak and when it will take this action.
    5. Provide the resident with details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer for her damaged carpet if no claim has yet been made.