Sovereign Network Group (202449924)

Decision
Case ID	202449924
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives with 2 adult children and a grandchild. She reported damp and mould in 2 bedrooms and the bathroom, inadequate heating and insulation, and a rodent infestation. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she referred the matter to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of repairs, the underlying causes of damp and mould and rodent infestation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs and the underlying causes of damp and mould and rodent infestation.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints management.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s approach to repairs showed significant failings. There were long delays, including 78 days to complete a mould wash and further delays after surveys. No interim measures were offered to reduce damp, and communication was poor, with unclear timescales and weak oversight of contractors. A 2nd mould wash within 4 months indicated the root cause remained unresolved. Reports of cold conditions were not investigated, and health concerns linked to a rodent infestation were addressed only after 60 days. The compensation of £740 offered did not reflect the loss of enjoyment of the property.
7. In complaint handling, the landlord breached its own policy by refusing to raise a complaint while a legal disrepair claim was active, despite the policy allowing complaints until a court date is set. Even after the resident withdrew her claim, the landlord maintained its incorrect position at both stages, causing delay and frustration. Although it later apologised, it did not acknowledge its earlier error. Compensation of £261 was offered. However, the landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to learning from outcomes in its complaint responses.

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 14 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £1001 it had previously offered to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs and complaints handling failures, if it has not already done so. 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 14 January 2026
3	Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £514.52. This is based on a 10% proportion of rent between 15 July 2024 and 4 April 2025 at a rent of £139.06 for 37 weeks. This is to recognise the partial loss of enjoyment of the bedrooms and bathroom of the property. 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 14 January 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the entire property for any concerns with the walls, flooring, brickwork, damp, mould, necessary repairs, and produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any damp and mould. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 17 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord offers the resident compensation for any period beyond 4 April 2025 where it had not yet completed the remedial roof works and improvement works set out in its stage 2 response. Additional compensation should follow the same formula applied by the landlord for delays in completing works and for time and trouble and by this Service for loss of full enjoyment of the property.
It is recommended that the landlord delivers refresher training to all complaint handling staff on complaint exclusions.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 September 2024	The resident issued the landlord with a Pre Action Protocol letter for disrepair.
6 January 2025	The resident emailed the landlord. She complained: She had experienced 30+ years of severe housing disrepair despite repeated reports and surveys. There was a persistent rodent infestation in bedrooms and the kitchen which posed health risks to her grandchildren. There was severe dampness and mould especially in the bathroom and 2 bedrooms. The flat had inadequate heating and insulation, leaving it extremely cold during winter, and the family often wore jackets indoors to stay warm. She asked the landlord for: Proper treatment of the dampness and mould to prevent recurrence. Effective insulation and heating solutions. A permanent solution to the pest infestation.
8 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 January and wrote to the resident on 8 January. It said it would not raise a formal complaint while the resident had an open legal disrepair case. She would have to stop her legal disrepair case in order to progress her complaint.
14 January 2025	The resident emailed the landlord and told it she had stopped her legal disrepair case. She confirmed she wished to pursue her complaint.
27 January 2025	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said the legal disrepair claim was ongoing and it would not raise a formal complaint. The resident should speak with her solicitor.
30 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She repeated her complaints about disrepair. She additionally complained that she had notified the central complaints team that she had discontinued her legal disrepair case. She asked for: Immediate repairs with no further delays. Identification and resolution of the source of the dampness. Completion of all necessary plastering and other works identified in surveys. Compensation for damages related to the ongoing disrepair.
7 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It said: A stage 2 escalation response would provide only a timeline of events since the stage 1 response and set out an action plan based on feedback from the Legal Disrepair team. The investigation would identify any service failures, acknowledge them, and consider compensation where appropriate. Any compensation awarded under the complaint process may affect the settlement of an ongoing legal disrepair claim. The landlord requested confirmation on two points: Whether the resident wished to proceed with stage 2. Whether the Legal Disrepair claim has been paused and confirmed by the resident’s solicitor.
8 February 2025	The resident confirmed to the landlord that the legal disrepair claim had been stopped and she wished to escalate her complaint.
10 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would respond by 6 March 2025.
6 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did not uphold the complaint about inadequate heating or insulation or the rodent infestation. It partially upheld the complaint about damp & mould. It upheld the complaint about the complaints process. It offered compensation of £1001, comprising: £370 for repairs delays. £370 for time and trouble (repairs). £111 time and trouble (complaint handling). £150 complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She wanted the landlord to address the underlying causes of the damp & mould, make the property warm or to be rehoused.

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.

What we did not look at and why

8. The Ombudsman notes the resident said her reports of damp and mould date back to 1994, with evidence of reports in 2019 and 2021. This Service has not seen evidence that further concerns were raised until June 2024. Complaints should normally be made within 12 months so landlords can address issues while evidence is current. Historic matters are harder to review effectively. This report therefore focuses on events from June 2024 to March 2025, investigated through the landlord’s complaints process.
9. The resident said this situation had a negative effect on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s management of repairs and addressing the underlying causes of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

10. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy requires investigation of the cause and effective remedial action. Its procedure states repairs should be raised immediately if damp or mould is visible on external walls or walls are wet to the touch, with an inspection arranged within 14 days.
11. The Repairs Policy sets timescales of 1 month for routine repairs and 90 days for most complex works.
12. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep the structure and exterior in repair and ensure the property is fit for habitation. Hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) must be addressed within a reasonable period.
13. The Pests Policy states rodent infestations can constitute a statutory nuisance. The landlord will manage infestations and complete works to prevent access where recommended by the Local Authority or its pest control contractor.
14. The landlord’s Compensation Policy categorises service failings as low, medium, or high impact. Low impact means issues were resolved promptly with minimal inconvenience, attracting compensation of £5 per week for delay or distress and £1 per week for time and trouble. Medium impact reflects significant inconvenience and repeated efforts to resolve, with compensation of £10 per week for delay or distress and £3 per week for time and trouble. High impact involves serious failures with major consequences, compensated at £20 per week for delay or distress and £5 per week for time and trouble.
15. The resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom and 2 bedrooms on 28 June 2024. The landlord inspected within 12 working days, in line with policy, and noted a possible roof leak. On 22 July 2024, it wrote to the resident saying it would arrange a mould wash and roof inspection, but stated the issues were due to condensation and provided guidance on managing it. This created an inconsistency between the inspection note (possible roof leak) and the advice given (condensation), which may have caused uncertainty for the resident about the cause and resolution of the problem.
16. On 7 August 2024, the landlord surveyed the roof and carried out works to unblock gutters and repair sealings. Despite this, the resident continued to report wet walls in the bedrooms. The landlord advised that the walls needed time to dry and said the contractor would reattend, but it did not provide interim measures such as dehumidifiers. It was also unable to confirm when the works would be completed or what further action was required. While some steps were taken, the landlord did not manage the ongoing impact effectively. Its failure to offer temporary mitigation or clear timescales shows poor communication and support, contributing to the resident’s continued inconvenience.
17. The landlord completed the mould wash on 13 September 2024, 54 days after raising the works order and 78 days after the resident reported damp and mould. This was well outside its timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord did not act with sufficient urgency, and the resident had to make repeated contact to secure an appointment. This delay and lack of responsiveness meant the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
18. The landlord did not arrange a further survey until October 2024, after the resident issued a Pre-Action Protocol letter for disrepair. That survey identified multiple defects in the living room, bathroom and 2 bedrooms, including underpowered extractor fans, faulty window seals, and external roof works required. This shows a lack of earlier proactive investigation and inadequate diagnosis. The landlord then took 26 days to raise works orders following the survey. This delay meant it failed to meet its own targets of completing routine repairs within 1 month and complex repairs within 90 days.
19. Given the serious implications of damp and mould, and its potential to spread throughout a property if not addressed, this Service expects landlords to adopt a zero tolerance approach to it. As detailed in our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should thoroughly investigate the cause of damp & mould as soon as it is reported. They should book any required repairs in promptly and communicate next steps clearly to residents. They should treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The landlord’s approach demonstrated poor responsiveness and planning. Its failure to investigate promptly and delays in progressing repairs after the survey contributed to prolonged disrepair and inconvenience for the resident.
20. The resident reported issues with heating and hot water on 2 occasions in November 2024. The landlord’s records do not show what action was taken or the timeframes for response. This represents a shortcoming in its record keeping and raises concern about whether the reports were addressed appropriately.
21. On 22 January 2025, the landlord carried out another mould wash. A previous mould wash had been completed in September 2024, indicating the bathroom conditions remained unresolved and required repeat treatment. The need for a 2nd mould wash within 4 months shows the landlord did not address the underlying cause of damp and mould, and its earlier actions were insufficient to provide a lasting resolution. The landlord’s poor record keeping and repeat treatment without resolving the root cause demonstrate inadequate management of repairs and failure to ensure effective outcomes for the resident.
22. After the survey report was issued, there was a delay before remedial works were arranged. The delay occurred because the landlord did not respond to the contractor’s query for 40 days, which prevented the works from progressing. The landlord did not manage the process effectively after receiving the survey report. It failed to monitor progress and address the lack of response to the contractor, which resulted in a significant delay. This indicates shortcomings in oversight and coordination that prolonged the resolution of the reported issues.
23. The job was reallocated to a new contractor on 6 February 2025, with a proposed start date of 27 February 2025 and end date of 4 April 2025. This would represent a period of 40 weeks since the resident reported the damp and mould before projected completion of the works. This was excessive and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timeframes for complex works. This Service has not seen evidence that the works were completed or when.
24. The resident reported an ongoing rodent infestation in her stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2025. The landlord did not raise a works order until 6 March 2025, 60 days later. The landlord did not provide reassurance that it was taking the resident’s concerns about her health and that of her grandchildren seriously. The delay and lack of assessment indicate poor handling of a health-related issue. Failure to act promptly or communicate effectively increased the resident’s distress and reduced confidence in the landlord’s service.
25. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported that the property was unreasonably cold during winter and said the household often wore jackets indoors to stay warm. The Decent Homes Standard requires homes to provide a reasonable level of thermal comfort, including effective insulation and efficient heating systems. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies excess cold as a Category 1 hazard when severe.
26. There is no evidence seen that the landlord investigated or took steps to address the cause of the cold conditions. This was concerning, given its position that condensation caused damp and mould and its survey report advising the resident to adequately heat the property. The omission was unreasonable and inconsistent with its own advice and property standard obligations, leaving the resident without assurance that the property met basic living conditions.
27. After completing its internal complaint process, the landlord arranged a heat loss survey but has not shared the results or confirmed any resulting works with this Service. An internal email dated 6 March 2025 mentions plans for roof insulation and ventilation upgrades, but the evidence does not show when these were scheduled. While these plans were positive, the lack of timescales or outcomes left the resident without assurance of a timely resolution. The resident has told this Service that issues with damp and mould in the bedrooms are continuing as of 17 November 2025 and that insulation to the roof has not yet been installed.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £370 for delays and £370 for time and trouble, assessed at medium impact. While the landlord tried to put things right in terms of financial redress for the resident, we find its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. It did not sufficiently address the loss of enjoyment of the property and inconvenience caused to the resident by the prolonged damp and mould and excessively cold conditions. The landlord failed to take timely steps to resolve the issue, leaving the resident in poor conditions for an extended period, including winter months. It did not demonstrate learning from its shortcomings.
29. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The landlord took little effective or timely action to address the damp and mould which was primarily present in both bedrooms and the bathroom in the property. Although this did not prevent the rooms from being used, it would have had a significant impact on the household’s enjoyment of the property. The Ombudsman considers that a 10% rent reduction is appropriate over a period of 37 weeks to reflect the reduced amenity and the resident’s loss of full enjoyment of her home. The number of weeks has been calculated from 15 July 2024 (when the landlord inspected the property and identified a possible roof leak) to 4 April 2025 (the projected date of completion of repairs works). During this 37 week period, the resident was charged rent of £139.06 per week. Based on 10% of the rent, the total amenity enjoyment loss compensation is calculated at £514.52.
30. In summary, the landlord’s actions fell below its policy obligations and standards. Its cumulative failings amount to maladministration in managing repairs and addressing the underlying causes of damp and mould and rodent infestation.

Complaint	The management of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

31. The landlord’s Complaints and Service Recovery Policy meets the Ombudsman’s Code. It requires responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
32. The policy allows complaints to be considered alongside a disrepair claim until a court date is set. Complaints can go through both stages and be referred to the Ombudsman. Once a court date is confirmed, the complaint is outside the policy.
33. The resident sent a disrepair Pre-Action Protocol letter on 22 September 2024. There is no evidence seen that the case reached a court date.
34. The landlord refused to raise a formal complaint unless the resident withdrew her legal claim. This was against its policy and denied fair access to both the complaints process and the courts. Requiring the resident to choose was unacceptable and a serious failure in complaint handling.
35. On 14 January 2025, the resident confirmed she had withdrawn her legal case and wanted to pursue the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 January 2025 kept its previous position and did not address the disrepair because of the legal claim. This shows the landlord did not identify or correct its error.
36. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would not consider the complaint about rodent infestation or inadequate heating because these issues had not been raised recently. This was inaccurate. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported heating and hot water problems in November 2024. Despite this, the landlord failed to link these reports to the complaint. This inconsistency between its records and its response demonstrates poor record keeping and inadequate handling of complaint information.
37. The resident escalated the complaint on 30 January 2025 and confirmed twice more that she had withdrawn her legal claim. The landlord maintained its incorrect position and said its stage 2 response would only cover events after stage 1. This failure to recognise errors likely caused frustration and reduced confidence in the process.
38. The landlord accepted the resident had withdrawn her claim and issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2025, 18 working days after acknowledgement. It apologised for complaint handling failures but did not address that its earlier position was wrong. This was a major shortfall in applying its policy and of systems of oversight.
39. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for complaint handling failures and £111 for time and trouble. This offer was more than this Service would usually award for complaint handling failures. However, while the landlord’s compensation offer has gone some way to put things right for the resident, it has not demonstrated any commitment to learning from the outcomes in this case. Therefore, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s complaints management.

Learning

40. Improve complaint handling
    Escalation reviews should be independent and correct any errors made at stage 1 promptly. Staff must understand and follow the complaints policy. Residents should not be asked to choose between pursuing a complaint and legal action for disrepair.
41. Strengthen communication
    Provide clear, timely updates to residents and ensure internal teams share accurate information to avoid repeated requests for confirmation.
42. Manage repairs proactively
    Investigate root causes of issues like damp and mould promptly. Avoid repeat treatments without addressing underlying problems.