Sovereign Network Group (202440105)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202440105 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Sovereign Network Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
27 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the condition of his flat as there was damp and mould throughout. He said 2 surveyors had attended on separate occasions but the repairs were still outstanding. He said the condition of his flat was affecting his health. The resident has a learning disability, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, depression, and anxiety. His mother is acting as a representative on his behalf in this case. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and the representative as ‘the resident’.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property
- Although the landlord recognised the delays, lack of oversight of the work, and poor communication with its contractors, and it offered compensation, it did not consider the effect of the delays and poor living conditions on the resident. It did not acknowledge that it had failed to consider whether the property was habitable, or that it had failed to consider whether the resident needed a temporary move while it completed the work. There was also no meaningful resolution offered by the landlord as the repairs remained outstanding with no plan of action in place.
Complaint handling
- The landlord responded to the resident at both stages of the complaints process in line with its complaints policy.
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:
|
No later than 06 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident:
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 06 January 2026 |
|
3 |
Order
The landlord must assess the resident’s housing requirements so it can source a suitable property for the resident to move into, either on a temporary basis while the work is carried out, or on a permanent basis if possible. It must evaluate and offer the resident the options available for a move by the due date.
|
No later than 06 January 2026 |
|
4 |
Works order
The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works specified in the most recent survey, dated 24 September 2025, in relation to the exterior of the property, the hallway, kitchen, and bathroom are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: • Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or • The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. |
No later than 22 January 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
10 April 2024 |
The resident raised a formal complaint about outstanding repairs and damp and mould throughout his flat. He said the condition of his flat had caused issues with his breathing and he had a cough. He said, although 2 surveyors had been out, he had not received an update from the landlord about the outstanding repairs. He said he did not know when the landlord planned to do the work. The resident also asked the landlord for copies of the surveys. |
|
24 April 2024 |
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised and said:
|
|
15 October 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 as the issues were still outstanding. The resident also raised concerns with the floorboards in his bedroom, lounge, and hallway. |
|
19 November 2024 |
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said he wanted the landlord to apologise and complete the repairs. He has since told us that he wants the landlord to move him to a different property with a different landlord. We have explained that we cannot facilitate a move to another landlord. |
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 response to reports of damp and mould in the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- The resident raised concerns in his stage 2 escalation request about issues with the floorboards in his bedroom, lounge, and hallway. These concerns were not part of the original complaint. The landlord did refer to the floorboards in the stage 2 response. However, as the resident has not escalated these concerns to us, we have not included them in the investigation.
- The resident told us that the effects of the damp and mould has affected both his physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have investigated
- The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in several rooms on 13 September 2023. The landlord carried out an inspection on 20 September 2023 in line with its repairs policy, which says it will attend to routine repairs within 2 weeks. It found damp and mould in the hallway, kitchen, and bathroom. The inspector confirmed that the landlord needed to raise emergency repairs. There is no evidence to show that the landlord raised any repairs following the inspection. This is not in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp or mould and deliver effective remedial solutions.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2024 as he was still waiting for the landlord to carry out the work. The landlord raised a job for a further inspection to take place on 8 February 2024. However, it did not attend as it had not booked the job on the system. This meant the resident had been waiting over 3 months for the repairs to be carried out. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it will complete routine repairs within 1 calendar month.
- A damp specialist completed the survey on 28 February 2024. The report dated 15 March 2024 said it had found surface mould and elevated moisture readings in the kitchen. It also found an issue with the party wall/parapet, failed render, damp staining, damaged decorations to the kitchen and bathroom partition wall, and a large damp patch on the floor in the hallway. It found that the rainwater goods at the rear of the property were held together with duct tape, there was a leaking downpipe or gutter, a leaking soil pipe, and a blocked drain. The landlord said it thought the damp staining and damaged decorations were due to a leak in the bathroom. It recommended a plumber urgently inspect the concealed pipe work within the bathroom.
- The landlord raised the works with its contractor on 4 April 2024 as an urgent case. It informed the contractor of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The contractor inspected the resident’s property on 18 April 2024 and submitted a quote for the works. The landlord approved the quote on 7 June 2024. However, it had been over 3 months at this point since the second survey and over 8 months since the resident’s original report, and the landlord had not carried out any repairs, even though they were considered urgent. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 1 calendar month for routine repairs.
- The landlord arranged for the external works to begin on 9 July 2024. Its contractor said the resident’s carer refused access, so it rearranged the appointment to 10 August 2024. The resident disputes this and other reports of no access, so we asked the landlord for further information to clarify what happened. However, it was unable to provide any further information. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
- The landlord’s contractor confirmed that it completed various internal works between 11 July 2024 and 31 July 2024. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what works it had completed, and what remained outstanding. This again raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and its general oversight of its contractors.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2024. He said it could not carry out a mould wash to the affected areas as the recently plastered walls were still too wet. He also said the bathroom floor, underneath the flooring, was also very wet. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
- The landlord’s contractor completed external works on 10 August 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what works were completed. An operative attended the resident’s property on 22 August 2024 and cut a small hole in the bathroom flooring and concrete. He found that the cement floor was wet and he recommended cutting into the floor to find the source of the leak. It is unclear from the evidence provided why it had taken the landlord so long to investigate the source of the leak in the bathroom. The survey report dated 15 March 2024 recommended a plumber urgently inspect the concealed pipe work within the bathroom. Had the landlord completed the urgent investigations following the survey report, it would likely have found the source of the leak and been able to rectify the issues within a reasonable timeframe.
- The landlord’s contractor carried out a survey and inspection on 9 September 2024 to assess the progress of the works and investigate the leak. It said it would appoint an expert to find the cause and it could not continue with the internal repairs until it had resolved the leak. It said it needed to remove the new plasterwork in the hall, force dry the sub-surface, and replaster the area. It said the internal hall repairs should not continue until it had resolved all issues. It is unclear from the evidence provided what oversight the landlord had of the works and whether it was fully aware of the significant delays and the condition of the resident’s flat. Had it monitored the situation and its contractors more closely, it may have been able to resolve the issues for the resident. At the very least it could have considered whether it needed to move the resident into temporary accommodation until the work was complete, especially given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the length of time the repairs had been outstanding.
- The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord on 27 September 2024 and raised concerns about his mental state. The social worker said the resident, as a vulnerable autistic person, could not manage the repairs situation, or the damp and mould. She asked the landlord to consider a management move to prevent the risk of potential harm to his health and safety. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered the social worker’s request.
- The social worker raised further concerns on 15 October 2024 about the resident’s deteriorating mental state. She said he had been affected by the state of his flat. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered the social workers email as anything other than a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Had it done so, it may have been able to assist the resident much sooner and reduce the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the ongoing situation.
- An operative attended the resident’s property on 24 October 2024 in relation to a different repair. The operative noted that there could be a mains pipe leak in the bathroom floor screed. He said he thought a supervisor should attend as there was a lot of outstanding work. There is no evidence to show that a supervisor attended.
- The social worker sent pictures of the mould to the landlord on 18 November 2024. She asked it to find the resident an alternative property due to its failure to carry out repairs. The landlord said it had forwarded her concerns and the photographs to its dampness team and it had asked for urgent feedback. There is no evidence to show that the dampness team provided any feedback to the resident. This is not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says it will remain in regular and effective communication with a resident, following a report of damp and mould being made, providing progress updates from beginning to end, especially on occasions where an investigation into a case may be complex.
- The landlord did appropriately acknowledge the significant delays in completing the outstanding repairs within its complaint responses. It acknowledged that it was under the impression that the situation was under control. It also recognised that the issue had likely got worse since it last visited the resident, and accepted that there had been a lack of oversight of the work and poor communication with its contractors.
- It also said, within its stage 2 response, that it had arranged for a technical surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 20 November 2024. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the inspection went ahead, and if it did, what the outcome was.
- The landlord did not consider the effect of the delays and poor living conditions on the resident, particularly given his vulnerabilities. It did not acknowledge that it had failed to consider whether the property was habitable when concerns had been raised, or that it failed to consider whether the resident needed a temporary move while it completed the work. There was also no meaningful resolution offered by the landlord through the complaints process as the repairs remained outstanding with real no plan of action in place to complete the repairs and resolve the issues. The resident has told us that the issues are still ongoing and that he has since issued a letter of claim to the landlord for disrepair, which is currently at the pre-action protocol stage of the process.
- Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. However, we do not consider that the additional failings would lead to an increase in compensation, as the amount offered is proportionate taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint. This is because it is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a severe long-term impact on the resident. However, we have made orders in relation to the outstanding repairs.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complies with the Code.
- The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 10 April 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord acknowledged the complaint. However, it sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 April 2024. This was within the overall timeframe of 15 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy for the acknowledgement and stage 1 response.
- The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 22 October 2024 and sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 November 2024. This was within the overall timeframe of 25 working days set within the landlord’s policy for both the escalation acknowledgement and stage 2 response. Given the observations above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
- The landlord should ensure it has greater oversight over the actions of its repair’s contractors. It should also consider the individual circumstances and vulnerabilities of residents when responding to complex repairs and consider whether the property remains habitable while it carries out the work.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The evidence provided by the landlord was poor and raised concerns over its record keeping practices. The repairs information was limited. When we went back to the landlord for further information, it relied on information provided by its contractor rather than its own systems and records.
Communication
- The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were occasions when the resident contacted the landlord asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.