Sovereign Network Group (202444532)

Decision
Case ID	202444532
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

The resident has lived in a second floor flat since December 2023. The flat is part of a sheltered scheme managed by the landlord. The resident complained about the misuse of the laundry facilities within the block to the landlord, along with incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB) including verbal abuse, allegations of racial abuse, and noise nuisance which he said was impacting his mental health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. ASB.
2. Misuse of the laundry facilities.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of misuse of the laundry facilities.
There was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:
1. did not complete a risk assessment with the resident. There was also no evidence to support the actions it said it would do or the investigations it said were needed. The landlord failed to set the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take. The resident has said the ASB is ongoing.
2. did not respond in full to the resident’s concerns regarding the laundry, and it did not provide evidence to confirm it had completed the actions it said it would.
3. responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

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 15 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £250 for the distress, inconvenience and likely impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident due to the landlord’s response to misuse of laundry facilities. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 December 2025
3	Work order The landlord must: contact the resident to enquire on any ongoing issues relating to the alleged misuse of the laundry facilities and ASB. if necessary, agree a plan of the actions to be taken with completion dates. The landlord should provide us and the resident with a copy. agree and share a copy of a communication plan with us and the resident as to when it will provide the resident with an update on the actions agreed.	No later than 15 December 2025

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 display a monitoring log within the laundry room to confirm when checks have been made on cleanliness and maintenance.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the options available for alternative housing.
The landlord should provide the resident with its insurance details so he can decide if he wants to make a claim for the damage to his belongings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2024	The landlord logged a neighbour dispute that referred to shouting and screaming from the flat below.
5 November 2024 to 12 November 2024	The resident reported people putting soiled items in the washing machines which left a bad odour on his own items. He said the laundry room was a health hazard. The resident also reported a tenant who had refused other tenants entry to the laundry room and who was verbally abusive to him. He said the landlord was failing in its obligations to manage the scheme and the residents living in it. The landlord said it would put signs up in the laundry and it would work with the agencies who do laundry for residents as part of their care work.
13 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: he had been forced to suffer the issues for too long and it was causing him distress. the landlord had not met its responsibilities. he felt the flat was not suitable for him to live in given the problems and abuse he had faced. He said he was unable to sleep due to fear of persecution, and the problems had destroyed his health and mental wellbeing and ability to work.
28 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed: it had evidence of the verbal altercation he experienced when trying to use the laundry. It said it had spoken to and written to the tenant in question to remind them that the laundry room was for all the residents and outlined the next steps if the behaviour continued. it would write to all the carers as a reminder of the rules. it had taken appropriate action that was in line with procedures. It would continue to inspect the laundry room and deal with ASB on a case-by-case basis.
3 December 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: the response did not resolve the issues he raised. the landlord had focussed on 1 incident of ASB with the tenant in the laundry room, but he had reported other incidents. He said there had been 2 incidents with the same tenant since the manager spoke to them, therefore the action did not change their behaviour. the issues in the laundry had been ongoing for a year, and he did not believe they were cleaned regularly due to the smell which left them unusable and a health hazard.
9 January 2025	The landlord provided its final complaint response. It confirmed: it had inspected the laundry and there was no odour. However, it did not dispute there had been instances of odours in the past. it would check the laundry twice a week and write to all the carers regarding the appropriate use of the laundry facilities. there was an ongoing complaint about a number of tenants at the scheme, and the management team were considering the appropriate measures to tackle any ASB that is evidenced. the resident should document any ASB through recordings and diary sheets so they could be investigated. it partially upheld the complaint. It said it understood the issues with the laundry room and ASB were ongoing and were impacting his mental health. It offered the resident support.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said it did not address the ongoing ASB and harassment he had reported.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The resident stated the ASB has been ongoing since he moved into the property. This is not disputed; however, we have recently determined a case (reference 202424745) that related to the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB. To avoid a re-investigation of the matters already determined, this case will focus on events that occurred from 11 September 2024 to 9 January 2025, the date of the final complaint response.
The resident referred to the impact the situation has had on his health. We can consider the distress and inconvenience the situation has caused the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he should seek legal advice.
The resident referred to several tenants being the cause of ASB; however, it is predominantly 2 tenants. We will refer to these as Flat A (the tenant on the ground floor) and Flat B (the tenant above him).
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will complete a risk assessment with the resident and its response to ASB will be proportionate to the extent of the harm caused. It will use a range of approaches including early intervention and if necessary enforcement action, and it will explain why and give advice on what action it can and cannot take. The policy states it will take a customer focussed approach to tackling ASB and aims to reach agreed actions, timescales and closures.
The landlord logged an ASB case for a neighbour noise dispute involving Flat A on 22 October 2024. The landlord noted the noise was growing in intensity and was impacting the resident’s day to day quality of life as he was unable to sleep or relax due to the screaming coming from the property. The notes stated further investigations were needed but there is no evidence to confirm this happened. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to provide an update or the potential action it could take. This was not reasonable. The landlord did not follow its policy and did not provide the resident with an update on what it had done.
The landlord’s records confirm no more ASB incidents were reported or logged. However, on 5 November 2024, the resident reported verbal abuse from Flat B when he was trying to use the laundry. The landlord said it would speak to Flat B to try and prevent it happening again. This was appropriate and in line with the policy as approach to early intervention.
The resident complained to the landlord and said the behaviour of other tenants was causing him distress. He said the flat was not suitable for him to live in or enjoy. He referred to the “constant frantic screaming day and night” and the abuse he got when trying to use the laundry. The landlord advised it had spoken to Flat B and had sent a letter confirming the conversation and the action it could take if the behaviour continued. This was reasonable; however, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s response. This was a record keeping failure.
The resident escalated his complaint. He referred to the landlord speaking to Flat B but said there had been 2 further instances where he had received verbal abuse from Flat B. He said he did not believe the landlord’s efforts would prevent the behaviour. While the landlord encouraged the resident to keep diary sheets and report further issues, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident regarding the repeated behaviour or what action it could take after the initial letter sent. This was not reasonable as the landlord failed to acknowledge the behaviour of Flat B continued.
The landlord met the resident sometime in December 2024. There is no evidence to confirm what was discussed or agreed during the meeting. This was a record keeping failure. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 19 December 2024. He said the landlord had not completed or dealt with a single aspect of the issues raised during the meeting. Due to the lack of evidence, we are unable to conclude what was agreed and if these actions were completed.. He referred again to the constant screaming from Flat A and individuals prowling and stalking the flats. The landlord did not provide a response to these issues. This was not reasonable as the landlord did not demonstrate it was acting on the reports made.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it confirmed there was an ongoing complaint relating to 1 or more tenants in the scheme. It confirmed it would speak to Flat A regarding his reports and would consider the action it could take. It did not, however, state what action it would take regarding the ongoing behaviour of Flat B. This was not in line with policy.
The resident stated the landlord had not taken any action, it would have therefore been reasonable to provide him with an update on what its intensions were for both tenants, including any timescales, what its actions may involve, and the type of feedback it was able to provide him. There is no evidence it did this. This was not reasonable and failed to set the resident’s expectations.
Throughout the resident’s contact with the landlord, he referred to the impact the issues were having on his mental health and wellbeing. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident at any time. This was not appropriate and not in line with the ASB policy.
Considering the above, we find maladministration. The landlord failed to provide evidence to support the action it had taken with the alleged perpetrators, nor did it explain what the next steps could look like to seek a customer focussed resolution. This did not help set the resident’s expectations and left him feeling the landlord had not acted on his reports. The landlord missed several opportunities to complete a risk assessment with the resident, therefore it did not assess the full impact on him. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as the issues were ongoing but did not highlight any service failures identified in this report or offer any redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.
As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has not acknowledged its failures or addressed the detriment to the resident, nor made any attempt to put things right.
The resident has told us the behaviour from Flat A and Flat B is ongoing. He referred to video footage and reports made to the landlord but states the landlord has not taken any action. He advised us the landlord had said it would transfer him to another property, but then said it was not moving him. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to enquire on any ongoing ASB and for an action plan to be agreed if necessary.

Complaint	Misuse of the laundry facilities
Finding	Maladministration

On 5 November 2024, the resident reported people putting soiled items into the washing machines. He said the odour transferred to his own belongings which he had to throw away. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 8 November 2024. The landlord met the resident on 11 November 2024 and responded to him on 12 November 2024. It said it had put signs up in the laundry room to advise soiled items should be pre-washed first. It also said it would do some work with the necessary agencies. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, but we have not seen any evidence to confirm this happened. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The resident said he should not be forced to use and pay for a facility that was a health hazard. He said the landlord was legally responsible for the damage caused to his belongings because of the misuse of the laundry. He said the landlord’s failure to manage the facilities meant it had failed in its legal obligations to the residents in the building. The landlord did not respond to the resident in relation to these points. It said it was confident the laundry room was being managed as required but said it could not control what happened when staff were not on site. This was a communication failure and a missed opportunity to clarify its responsibilities in terms of management and liability for damages to the resident. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details so he can decide if he wants to make a claim.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that the washing machines had been cleaned. We have not seen evidence of a clean following the resident’s report on 5 November 2024, therefore it is not clear when this happened. It would have been reasonable to provide the resident with a cleaning schedule and confirmation of when it was last done. This would have provided reassurance that the machines were cleaned regularly and that it had acted on his report in a timely manner. The resident disputed the cleaning was being done in his complaint escalation.
In its final complaint response, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s dispute regarding the cleaning of the machines. This was a further failure. It said the laundry room was checked when the scheme manager was on site (usually twice a week) and it would continue to do so. We have not seen evidence to confirm this was being done. We have made a recommendation to display a log within the laundry room to confirm the checks are being completed.
The landlord said in both of its complaint responses that it would write to the carers to remind them of the rules and appropriate use of the laundry facilities. We have not seen evidence of this. We cannot assess if the landlord did what it said it would and if this was done in a timely manner following the complaint responses. This was not reasonable.
In summary, we find maladministration. This is because the landlord did not respond to all the issues raised by the resident, for example the liability for damages or legal responsibilities. It did not evidence the work with the carers, and it failed to provide evidence to support its response regarding the cleaning and monitoring of the laundry. All the above led to the resident believing the landlord had not done anything to improve the issues reported.
As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident, but where the landlord has not acknowledged its failures, has not addressed the detriment to the resident, or made an attempt to put things right.
We have seen evidence to confirm the machines were replaced in August 2025. The resident has however told us in November 2025, that the issues in the laundry continue, and the landlord has not done anything to improve the situation. He advised the scheme manager is never in the building and no other staff are present.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord on 13 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the following day and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2024. This was in line with the complaint policy which states complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and stage 1 complaints responded to within 10 working days.
The resident escalated his complaint on 3 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 10 December 2024 and provided its final complaint response on 9 January 2025. The landlord’s response timescales were appropriate and in line with policy.
Considering the above, we find no maladministration as the landlord communicated and responded appropriately and in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

When a landlord commits to completing an action, it is reasonable to maintain regular communication with the resident. This will help build trust and reassurance with the resident and will ensure regular progress is being made, or explanations given around delays.
We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report.