From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sovereign Network Group (202449233)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449233

Sovereign Network Homes

2 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 the resident’s report of a leak coming through the kitchen ceiling into the electrics.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 4 July 2011. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident reported a water leak coming through the kitchen ceiling into the electrics in the kitchen to the landlord’s out of hours service on 18 July 2024 and again on 9 August 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day as each report to make safe the light fitting. The contractor returned on 19 August 2024 to reinstate the light. During a further appointment of 22 August 2024, the landlord’s contractor noted that the leak was never resolved. It was felt that it was due to a waste pipe but after checking the flat above, there was no evidence of a leak. The contractor booked an appointment on 29 August 2024, and a further appointment was booked on 13 September 2024.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 29 August 2024. She was unhappy that the landlord had not resolved a leak causing water to come through the kitchen ceiling and into the electrics. She said she wished to claim for damaged appliances.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 September 2024. The landlord said:
    1. Its contractor had called out as an emergency due to the resident’s report of water leaking into the electrics on 18 July 2024. It said that there was no active leak but evidence of a leak. Its contractor attended the property again on 26 July 2024 to reinstate the LED batten light.
    2. Following the resident’s report of a further leak going into the electrics on 9 August 2024, its contractor visited again on the same day and made safe the kitchen light. It’s contracted attended on 22 August 2024 to reinstate the light. The contractor requested a plumber to attend, and an appointment was made for 13 September 2024.
    3. It recognised that its contractor needed to assign a plumber when it initially attended the property on 18 July 2024 to resolve the issues sooner. This would have saved multiple appointments to disconnect and reconnect the light. It had fed this back to its contractor to improve its services.
    4. It advised the resident that she would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance for damaged appliances. It provided its insurance team email if the resident had no contents insurance.
    5. As the repairs had exceeded the 42-day timescale it apologised for the delay. It awarded £46 in compensation covering the period from 29 August 2024, being 42 days after the initial report. This comprised £20 for a 2-week delay, £20 for distress and £6 for time and trouble.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 September 2024. She was unhappy with the compensation award and the fact that she had spent money on new belongings.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 October 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. It also said:
    1. Its contractor had visited the property on 13 September 2024 after the 5.00 pm which was after the allotted time slot. It classed this as a missed appointment. Its contractor attended again on 18 September 2024. It found no leak and noted that the resident suspected that the leak was due to her neighbour in the flat above overfilling the sink. It was arranging for its contractor to attend the flat above to trace any leak as soon as possible.
    2. It acknowledged the delays in fixing the issue and awarded £145 compensation comprising £50 for the delays, £50 for the impact on the resident, £15 for time and trouble caused to the resident and £30 for one missed appointment.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, and she referred her complaint to us on 5 March 2025. As a remedy the resident wanted the issue to be fixed and for the kitchen to be replaced as it was old.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident advised us that the issue with leaks had been ongoing for 2 years. However, according to the landlord’s records the initial report of a leak through the ceiling was made on 18 July 2024. There is no evidence to support either version of events, so it is not possible to conclude whether there was an earlier repair reported. The resident indicated to the landlord in her email of 22 January 2025 that she had not received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord therefore sent the stage 2 complaint response to the resident at this time. As the resident had not had the opportunity to review this response earlier, the timeframe for the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the period from 18 July 2024 to January 2025.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property coming through the kitchen ceiling into the electrics

  1. According to the landlord’s records the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s initial reports of a leak of 18 July 2024 and 9 August 2024 on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy for emergency repairs. Whilst no leak was found, the landlord’s contractor reported that there was evidence that there had been a leak.
  2. According to the landlord’s records its contractor reinstated the light on 26 July 2024. Following the further leak on 9 August 2024. The landlord’s records state that the light was reinstated between 19 or 22 August 2024. The records are not clear as the note from 19 August states that the job was completed but under the same job number it was completed on 22 August 2024. The second date of 22 August 2024 corresponds with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 11 September 2024.
  3. The resident disputed that the light was repaired in her stage 2 escalation request of 17 September 2024. The resident advised us during this investigation that it took the landlord 2 months to fix the kitchen electrics. The landlord’s record keeping needed to be clearer. As the repair was disputed, the landlord needed to check itself whether the light was reinstated or not. No record has been seen that this happened which was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s contractor noted on 22 August 2024 that the leak was not resolved. According to the landlord’s records the contractor said that the resident had shown a video of water pouring through the light. The contractor felt that this was a waste pipe issue. It was noted that the contractor had visited the property before, but the leak was never resolved.
  5. The landlord’s repairing responsibilities are set out within the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in Section 11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
  6. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case. The landlord’s repairs policy at this time said that it would complete emergency repairs within 4 hours and general repairs within one calendar month. The landlord’s complaint response stated that general repairs are completed within 42 days which was inconsistent with its repairs policy. It is not known why the landlord inappropriately gave a different repair timescale to its policy. However, for the initial leaks, the landlord adhered to its policy timescale for emergency repairs. The follow up reinstatement of the light was recorded as complete within the repairs policy timescale as well, but as mentioned this was in dispute.
  7. The resident phoned the landlord on 29 August 2024 to report damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s records indicate that an inspection was requested. However, there is no evidence from the landlord’s records whether it sent a surveyor to inspect the property which was inappropriate. This again evidencing a lack of appropriate record keeping. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was booked at the time of the resident’s phone call for its contractor to visit on 13 September 2024. However, its contractor arrived late and reported no access. The landlord appropriately awarded £30 compensation for a missed appointment in its stage 2 complaint response of 22 October 2024, which was in line with its compensation policy.
  8. The landlord’s internal email of 3 September 2024 outlining the timeline of events explained that its contractor had visited a flat above the resident’s property and found no leak and that the flat was dry.
  9. There was further delay in the landlord investigating the cause of the intermittent leak. After the leak started again, the resident showed a video to the landlord’s contractor of water pouring out of the light on 18 September 2024. The resident reported to the contractor that the leak happened when her neighbour was using the kitchen sink. The contractor said it was reattending the following week to resolve the issue saying again that this could be an issue with the waste pipe.
  10. The landlord’s internal email of 10 October 2024 also mentioned that the resident thought that the leak was due to the neighbour in the flat above her overfilling their sink. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate this report with the neighbour. The landlord raised a works order on 14 October 2024 to investigate the flat above, but it had some difficulty gaining access as the resident’s neighbour was not available until after 11 November 2024. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  11. According to the landlord’s internal email of 21 October 2024 the neighbour had advised that water leaked after heavy rainfall from the balcony. This indicated another possible cause of water leaking into the resident’s property. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 22 October 2024 that an appointment was being arranged with the neighbour to check the property.
  12. During the landlord’s complaint investigation for its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord emailed the resident on 10 October 2024 to ask if she had a photo and video of the leak and to confirm the number of the flat above. The resident responded the same day and provided a photo showing pooled water on the kitchen floor and a video. She was unable to confirm the flat number, as she said she did not have a good relationship with the neighbour.
  13. The landlord’s internal emails of the same date evidence that the landlord was unaware of the flat number either. It said that one flat had been checked on the floor above, but it felt that the flat above the resident’s property may be a different number. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not have accurate records to identify the flat above itself. This again evidenced a lack of appropriate record keeping.
  14. It is vital for landlords to keep accurate records so that they can appropriately manage repairs and to have proper understanding of their own housing stock. Our Spotlight report on knowledge on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) gives several recommendations. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management to improve its record keeping practices.
  15. There are no records that the landlord followed up with an appointment to the neighbour’s property. It took another chase up from the resident after the end of the internal complaints process on 16 January 2025 for the landlord to act. In an email exchange between the landlord and the resident between 21 to 23 January 2025, the landlord apologised for the delay.  The landlord’s internal email of 27 January 2025 stated that the resident thought that the leak may be coming from a hole in the roof. This was a further possible cause for the leak. It had arranged an appointment for 11 February 2025 to trace and fix the leak.
  16. With different possible causes of the intermittent leak, it would be appropriate for the landlord to use a suitably qualified surveyor using specialist equipment. This would help the landlord to identify if there were any excess damp levels and where these were located to confirm or rule out that there was a leak, or whether the neighbour was overfilling the sink and whether there was an external issue such as with the roof or neighbour’s balcony. No records have been seen that this happened which was inappropriate.
  17. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy (August 2024) that came into place during the internal complaints process says that the landlord will “undertake effective investigations and implement reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to manage damp, mould and condensation”. There is no evidence of an effective investigation or remedial repair solutions in this case which is contrary to the landlord’s policy.
  18. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report (February 2023) gives several recommendations to improve a landlord’s response to damp and mould issues. The landlord should review its self-assessment along with its action plan that it sent to us considering these recommendations. It should pay particular attention to the recommendations relating to good knowledge and information management in managing damp and mould cases across their properties to prevent the failings identified from recurring. It was notable that the action plan that the landlord sent to us contained no target dates for actions which were marked to be confirmed. The landlord should ensure that a future action plan contains appropriate target dates and is monitored to ensure actions are completed.
  19. It was evident that the resident was worried about the safety of the electrics, which was understandable when water was coming through the electric fittings. Whilst the landlord made this safe it needed to properly reassure the resident that the property was safe to live in and that the electric was safe to use. No records have been seen that this appropriate reassurance was given which was a missed opportunity for the landlord to allay the resident’s concerns. This will have likely caused the resident unnecessary distress and worry.
  20. The resident also mentioned to us that her cooker and microwave were damaged due to the leaks and asked the landlord to compensate for this in her complaints. The landlord in its complaint responses said that home contents were the resident’s responsibility and to claim on her contents’ insurance. However, it also provided its insurance team’s email address if the resident had no contents insurance and wished to pursue an insurance claim through its public liability insurance. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the insurance details so that the resident could decide whether she would wish to make a claim for the damaged appliances through the landlord’s insurance policy because of the leaks.
  21. As of the date of this determination, the evidence shows that the leaks could still be outstanding based on the landlord’s internal emails between 2 and 4 July 2025. In these the landlord noted that there was no follow up when it had identified that a full investigation was needed for the flat above. This evidences that the cause of the leaks is still not known. This means that from the date of the initial report of 18 July 2024 to August 2025, over one year later, the issue causing leaks has remained unresolved. This is unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairing obligations and repairs policy.
  22. In terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord responded within its policy and the Code timescales which was reasonable. It acknowledged the delays in completing the repairs and reinstatement of the kitchen light. It awarded compensation of £145 in its final complaint response of 22 October 2024.
  23. The resident indicated that she had not received the landlord’s final response, so the landlord sent this through to her on 27 January 2025. The landlord’s records evidence an email was sent to the resident to accompany its stage 2 complaint response on 22 October 2024. It is unclear whether this reached the resident.
  24. If the landlord had followed up its offer of compensation at an earlier point, it would have been made aware that the resident had not seen its final response. This again evidenced a lack of good record keeping and follow up communication which was inappropriate.
  25. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles of: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  26. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £145 compensation offered by the landlord does not fully reflect the failings identified in this case including the poor record keeping, communication, poor follow up and delays in fixing the root cause of the leaks. We have ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 compensation (inclusive of the £145 previously offered) comprising £700 in respect of the delays in fixing the issue causing the leaks and £300 to reflect the worry and distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the landlord to fix the issue. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies, where maladministration has been found.
  27. To put things right, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the property using appropriate equipment, such as a damp meter to identify the potential source of the leaks. The landlord is to identify any further works required and provide a timescale for completion. The landlord is to provide a copy of its inspection report to the resident and to us. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property above, providing details of any works required and the expected completion date to us and to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property coming through the kitchen ceiling into the electrics.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident from a senior leader. It should send a copy of this to us.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,000 in compensation (inclusive of the £145 previously offered). This comprises £700 in respect of the delays in fixing the leak causing damp and mould issues in the property and £300 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out an inspection of the resident’s property, using appropriate equipment, such as damp meters, to identify any leaks. It must also provide a copy of the inspection report along with written confirmation of any further works required along with the expected completion dates to the resident and to us also within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment on knowledge and information management based upon our Spotlight report on knowledge on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its self-assessment and action plan of its response to damp and mould considering the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report (February 2023), if it has not already done so. It should use this to review its damp and mould action plan to prevent similar failings from occurring.