We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sovereign Network Group (202430258)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430258

Sovereign Network Group

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to doors.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat and has physical and mental health vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
  2. On 11 January 2023 the resident raised concerns about the front door following a leak. The landlord attended on 28 February 2023 and said it did not believe anything to be wrong with the door. On 9 March 2023 the resident reported issues with the back door.
  3. On 21 July 2023 the landlord inspected the front and back doors as the resident reported that she was unable to open the back door. On 10 August 2023 the resident said to the landlord that its contractors while removing scaffolding had damaged the back door and she was unable to secure it.
  4. On 11 October 2023 the landlord attended to the doors but was unable to complete the repairs. The landlord attended again on 31 January 2024 saying it had replaced the seals but a gap in the front door remained. On the same day, the resident raised concerns about the doors over the phone to the landlord. The next day the landlord attended and observed that it had fixed the gap in the front door, but that the other door was bowed causing it to catch. It also measured all the doors for replacement.
  5. The resident complained on 7 March 2024 that the landlord had assessed the doors  in July 2023 but she had not heard since. She said a gap was left in the front door on 31 January 2023, and insects could still get through. She requested clarification about the remaining work and compensation for missed appointments and distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. It acknowledged 2 missed appointments, causing the resident to reschedule a hospital appointment and the time she had spent on the phone. It offered £50 compensation and promised to complete repairs to the doors by 23 May 2024.
  7. On 22 March 2024 the resident sought assistance from her MP as she was dissatisfied the doors would be repaired rather than replaced. The MP contacted the landlord and requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of its complaint process. The resident reported 5 days later that she was stressed and was unable to get out the back door to her garden. She also said she was weak and had lost feeling in her hand.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2024. It offered £400 total compensation, consisting of £380 for the impact to her and £20 for 2 missed appointments. It apologised for the confusion caused at stage 1 that the doors would be repaired and confirmed the doors would be replaced by March 2025. The landlord tried to attend to the back door the same day but was unsuccessful due the resident being at hospital.
  9. On 22 April 2024 the landlord offered the resident a further £150 compensation (total £550) to recognise the distress caused by it showing up unannounced for an emergency appointment on 3 April 2024.
  10. The landlord replaced the front and back doors on 2 August 2024.
  11. The resident’s MP approached us with the complaint on behalf of the resident about the doors as well as other matters.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that it can bring a repair forward in exceptional circumstances. This includes occasions where the repair has deteriorated further and is having an impact on health, safety, security, or the condition of the property.
  3. The landlord went well beyond its 38-day policy time frame to complete non-emergency repairs which the resident initially reported, and it assessed in July 2023. Overall, it took 18 – 20 months from when the resident first reported issues for it to action replacements of the front and back doors. The extent of this delay was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord measured the doors for replacement on 21 February 2024 with the intention of replacing. However, there was confusion created by its stage 1 response, where it said it would undertake ‘repairs’ to the doors. However, it had already given the resident the impression that it would replace the front and back doors in February. It then took the landlord until 3 April 2024 (2 and a half months after the resident raised issues) to clarify with the resident that the doors would be replaced rather than repaired. This further delayed matters and caused frustration to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy allows it to bring a repair forward where the repair is having an impact on health, safety, and security. The circumstances of this case warranted the landlord bringing the repair forward due to the security and safety risks presented by the issues with the front and back doors. However, even where it said it would complete the door repairs or replacements in February 2024 and at stage 1 by 23 May 2024, it did not. While the landlord’s internal correspondence of 26 March 2024 evidences a request to bring the repair forward, nothing amounted from this attempt. The ongoing lack of clarity about the repair meant the resident’s trust in the landlord further degraded.
  6. At stage 1 the landlord attempted to put things right by acknowledging a part it had ordered was delayed and it should have attended previously with a storm guard for the front door. It rescheduled the repair to 23 May 2024. It also acknowledged 2 missed appointments and its poor communication. However, this was not adequate to recognise the full impact caused to the resident, nor the extent of the delays (3 months since the landlord measured and 10 months since her reports). It also did not explain why it would take another 2 months for it to attend again. This was a missed opportunity to fully acknowledge where it had gone wrong, act to prioritise the repair, and to put things right.
  7. The resident’s dissatisfaction lay with the landlord’s error about the replacement of the doors and her several unsuccessful attempts at chasing the landlord for action forced her to contact her MP. The MP tried to get the landlord to bring the repair forward and requested clarity as to what date the door repair or replacements would take place. The resident also contacted the fire service who supplied a report which said the doors were a fire risk and recommended they be attended to urgently. The landlord’s communication was unreasonable and prompted her to go to these lengths to get a response. This caused the resident further inconvenience and distress.
  8. The resident was impacted for over a year and a half by the gap in the front door as well as the back door being inoperable. This presented ongoing security and fire risks, as well as health and safety concerns for the resident, particularly with her vulnerabilities, where she did not feel safe in her own home. With resident’s physical and mental vulnerabilities these risks became heightened. The resident also reported that she was unable to enter the garden, and she enjoyed gardening, but was no longer able to take part in this hobby. She said she had lost feeling in her hand in March 2024 and was not able to enjoy the outside space which had become inaccessible and overgrown. The emotional and physical impact on the resident was significant.
  9. The landlord said at stage 2 on 3 April 2024 it that would contact the resident to arrange an emergency repair for the back door. However, it did not get in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment and showed up unannounced. The resident was further distressed by the landlord’s lack of awareness, and she missed the appointment as she said she was at a hospital appointment. Although following the end of its process, and on 22 April 2024, the landlord did act to acknowledge the additional distress caused to the resident by showing up unannounced. It appropriately offered a further £150 compensation (additional to £400 it offered at stage 2).
  10. The landlord at stage 2 appropriately acknowledged where it had gone wrong and recognised the effect of not having use of her back door. It also assigned a replacement time schedule to complete the replacements by, which it did within the agreed timeframes. Furthermore, it appropriately advised of learnings. It offered a considerable level of redress, and £550 total compensation before our intervention. This amount is within the expected range for maladministration within our published remedies guidance, where there is an adverse effect on the resident.
  11. However, it did not fully recognise the extent of the detriment to the resident in in pursuing this matter, her safety concerns, and her inability to use the garden space alongside her vulnerabilities. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to recognise the full extent of this distress and inconvenience, and we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation.
  12. Overall, the landlord did attempt to put things right by acknowledging the delays, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also offered a level of compensation which falls in the realm of maladministration. However, it did not fully recognise the extent of the resulting emotional and physical impact to the resident with her vulnerabilities in mind, especially around the times when she was unable to operate her back door. For this reason, we consider there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the doors.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident initially raised her complaint with the landlord on 31 January 2024. The landlord recognised at stage 2 that a complaint was not raised on its system in January and instead messages were sent to parts of the business. It apologised for this miscommunication. While it was positive of the landlord to apologise, it did not offer any compensation or recognise the delay of about 3 months or the inconvenience this caused the resident for this failing.
  2. The resident had to raise her concerns again on 7 March 2024 and the landlord at this stage recognised this as a formal complaint. Its stage 1 response was issued 4 working days later and was in accordance with its 10-working day complaint response timeframe.
  3. The landlord supplied its stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2024. This was within 8 working days of the resident’s escalation request and in accordance with the landlord’s policy timeframe of 20 working days. This was reasonable and timely.
  4. Overall, the landlord handled the complaint reasonably and within its policy timeframes. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for its failure to record the complaint on 31 January 2024 and to recognise the inconvenience and time and trouble this caused the resident in raising the complaint for a second time. For this reason, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the repairs to the doors and the inconvenience and distress caused.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £750 (including what it offered prior to our investigation if not paid already) comprising:
      1. £650 (this includes its offer of £550) for the distress and inconvenience caused to the vulnerable resident by its repairs failures.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We also note the resident raised concerns with us about grab rails not being installed in her home for an extended period. While this is not directly relevant to this complaint, we recommend the landlord contact its adaptations and/or repairs team to check the status of this work. Once it is aware of the progress status, it is to update the resident on this matter.