Sovereign Network Group (202436875)

Decision
Case ID	202436875
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 January 2026

Background

The resident moved into the property in October 2023 through a mutual exchange. They then applied to move again in October 2024 to be closer to family. The resident and their child both have disabilities. They complained that the landlord had unfairly declined consent for a mutual exchange. The resident ended their tenancy in February 2025 and moved into private rented accommodation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Mutual exchange

The landlord’s notice of refusal for a mutual exchange did not comply with the requirements of the Housing Act 1985 (the Act). The landlord failed to demonstrate it had correctly applied the correct grounds of the Act when refusing the mutual exchange application, or that it offered the resident any alternatives. Furthermore, the landlord failed to follow its mutual exchange policy by not offering the resident an opportunity to appeal its decision at the outset.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which did not comply with the Code or its complaints policy. However, it offered reasonable redress for this.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 02 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 02 March 2026
3	Specific Action The landlord must review how it handled the mutual exchange application and write to the resident to set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report. It must set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. A copy of this letter must be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 02 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £25 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the poor complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid or reoffered to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 October 2024	The resident applied to the landlord to move from their property via mutual exchange.
5 November 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had refused their request. It said this was due to ASB action it had taken against a member of their household.
5 November 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord to raise a complaint about its decision to refuse consent for a mutual exchange. They said that the police, local authority and their GP had all written letters of support for a move. The resident added that they needed to move closer to family for support, and that its decision to prevent this was in nobody’s best interests.
27 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response which said it had not upheld the complaint. It told the resident their case had been reviewed at Director level. It said it had made the decision to refuse a mutual exchange in accordance with ground 2A and ground 6. It added that their ASB officer had sent the resident a letter on 3 October 2024 reminding them of the terms of their tenancy.
16 December 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint because: they wanted it to quote the relevant legislation under which it was refusing the mutual exchange it had not explained its decision in writing within 41 days they had written to their housing officer on 15 October 2024 about the mutual exchange but received no answer they had received “overwhelming support” for a move from the police, social services and their GP.
20 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: the grounds for refusal of a mutual exchange were set out in Schedule 3 of Housing Act 1985 ground 2A was due to the ongoing ASB case and legal action taken against the resident’s former partner following an assault ground 6 concerned the family the resident was hoping to swap with, whom the landlord considered unsuitable to become its tenants it was sorry it hadn’t specified the grounds it had applied, and that it hadn’t given the resident specific details of why they were being used it acknowledged and apologised for its delay acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and offered £25 compensation for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us because they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. They wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience of having to move into private rented accommodation because the landlord had refused consent for a mutual exchange.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord responded to the resident’s mutual exchange application within the 42 day requirement set out in the Housing Act 1985 (the Act).
The landlord said it had refused the application because there was antisocial behaviour (ASB) by “the tenant or any member of the household”, and that formal action, including an injunction, had been taken. However, the notice did not meet the requirements of the Act. The Act requires landlords to specify the grounds for refusal and to give clear particulars.
Schedule 3 of the Act sets out the grounds on which a landlord may refuse a mutual exchange. The landlord did not link its decision to any of these grounds or explain how they applied. It also failed to describe the alleged ASB, explain what evidence it had considered, or identify the records it relied on. This lack of clarity was a failing and would reasonably have caused the resident confusion. Furthermore, the notice did not explain how the resident could challenge the decision or request a review. This was not in line with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, which allows residents to ask for a review if they believed the landlord had not followed its policy.
The landlord only explained its grounds for refusal after the resident made a complaint. The resident should not have had to spend unnecessary time and effort to obtain this information. Although the stage 1 response quoted the relevant statutory grounds, it still did not explain which Act they were linked to, or how or why they had applied them.
The stage 1 response also introduced ground 6, stating that the proposed new tenants “would conflict with the objects of the charity”. This ground was not included in the original refusal notice, and the landlord gave no explanation of how it applied. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of transparency.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it had refused the exchange due to ongoing ASB and legal action against the resident’s former partner. It confirmed it had obtained an injunction with the power of arrest. Ground 2A of Schedule 3 allows refusal where such an injunction applies to the tenant or a person living with them.
The evidence shows that the former partner did not live at the property as their main residence. Although they visited and sometimes stayed overnight, this was temporary and intermittent. The landlord did not show whether it had considered them a member of the household under the Act. By treating a visitor as a household member, the landlord failed to evidence that it correctly applied ground 2A.
It is noted that the landlord provided no evidence it sought legal advice before applying the grounds for refusal. Obtaining advice may have shown it had taken reasonable steps to ensure it correctly understood and applied the law.
At stage 2, the landlord said it considered the proposed exchange household unsuitable. While it was appropriate not to share further details because of confidentiality reasons, the landlord could and should have explained its reasons for refusal to us. It was the landlord’s responsibility to establish whether it is a charity and to show how the proposed assignee’s occupation would conflict with its charitable objectives. As it failed to do so, we cannot assess whether it applied ground 6 in line with the Act. The landlord also did not offer the resident any alternatives or give them an opportunity to exchange with a different prospective tenant.
The landlord should have made proper checks to establish whether ground 2A applied. Had it done so, it could have allowed the resident to pursue an exchange with another tenant where ground 6 may not have applied. By failing to do this, the landlord unreasonably denied the resident the opportunity to move to a property where they could receive the support they said they needed. The resident said the refusal of the mutual exchange had a serious impact on them, particularly given the household’s vulnerabilities, and that several agencies, including the police and social services, had recommended a move.
The landlord also gave conflicting information in response to an enquiry from the resident’s Member of Parliament. On 20 December 2024 it said it was working with the police and council so the mutual exchange could progress. This suggested the application was on hold. It did not disclose that the application had already been refused under grounds 2A and 6, meaning the exchange could not proceed. This demonstrated poor communication and further lack of transparency.
Considering the impact to the resident, we have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance. This recommends awards of £600 to £1,000 where maladministration has had a significant impact on a resident. Given the seriousness of the failings, and the reported distress and inconvenience caused, redress at the higher end of this range is appropriate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how landlords should handle complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy (2024) meets the Code’s timescale requirements.
The landlord took 11 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint. This was not in line with the Code’s requirement to do so within 5 working days. However, it then issued a stage 1 response within 5 working days and a stage 2 response within 19 working days. This was compliant with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £25 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This was appropriate and consistent with the redress we would order for a similar failing. The landlord therefore offered redress that satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Learning

When considering whether it should refuse a mutual exchange application, the landlord should ensure it refers closely to the requirements of the Housing Act 1985 as well as its mutual exchange policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord provided us with records of the resident’s previous mutual exchange rather than the records of the application that was relevant to the complaint. We therefore had limited details of the resident’s most recent application. The landlord could consider how it records, retains and makes this information available with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

The resident told us the landlord’s communication was poor and that it would not respond to any of their queries after 8 August 2024. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had made contact with the resident after this date apart from when it responded to their complaint. The landlord should ensure it responds to all queries it receives from residents in a timely manner.