Sovereign Network Group (202449999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449999

Sovereign Network Group

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The replacement of window frames at the property.
2. Insulation works at the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives at the property with her children who were aged 11 and 13 at the time of the complaint. The property is a semi-detached house. The landlord completed work at the property between 2022 and 2024 to resolve issues with damp and mould.
On 20 June 2024 the landlord inspected the property and found that:
1. The trickle vents on the windows should be repaired or replaced.
2. Cavity wall insulation had been installed inadequately and needed to be done again. This included an air brick and an air vent that had both been incorrectly blocked by silicone or insulation material. This is described as ‘the insulation works’ throughout this report.
The landlord requested quotes from its contractors on 28 June 2024. On 2 July 2024 the resident explained that she could not accommodate any work during the summer holidays. The landlord agreed to schedule work from September onwards.
On 10 September 2024 the landlord’s window contractor and found that most of the trickle vents at the property had already been replaced and those that had not were working correctly. On 15 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
1. She believed the windows or window frames needed to be replaced and that the inspection of the trickle vents was not enough.
2. She had not been contacted by the contractor responsible for the insulation works.
On 18 October 2024 the landlord asked its window contractor to return to the property to inspect the window frames. On 30 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. The window frames would be replaced.
2. The insulation works were being arranged and that its contractor would contact the resident ‘in due course.’
On 5 December 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that no contact or progress had been made by either contractor. The window contractor attended on 14 January 2025 and sent a quote to the landlord to replace the window frames. The landlord called the resident on 16 January 2025 to acknowledge and discuss her complaint.
On 5 February 2025 the resident emailed the landlord and said that the insulation contractor had called her. She said that the contractor had been rude and that she did not want to deal with that contractor again. The landlord told the resident that the contractor was ‘its only tendered insulation contractor’ and that it would feed her concerns back and ensure the contractor booked in the insulation works.
On 12 February 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. There had been delays and poor communication from its contractors.
2. It had asked the contractor to contact the resident to book in an appointment to complete the insulation works and understood the contractor had since made contact.
3. Quotes to replace the windows were now going through the approval process, but it could not provide a timescale for this.
4. It offered £350 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
On 10 March 2025 the resident approached us. She said she wanted the landlord to complete the works that remained outstanding.
On 16 June 2025 the landlord approved the quote to replace the windows. On 3 September 2025 the resident told us that:
1. She had been contacted by 2 contractors in relation to the insulation works, but that the works remained incomplete.
2. The window replacements were due to be completed on 15 September 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of insulation works at the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of the repair being reported. The landlord’s complaints policy states that in putting things right, its customer commitments are to ‘make it easy, take responsibility, get things done, and keep in touch’.
Although the insulation works were raised on 28 June 2024, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to the resident’s request not to schedule any works over the summer holidays. It was important however that the landlord took steps to arrange the works promptly in September 2024 within its 38 day timescale, however it failed to do so.
The evidence shows that the landlord took steps to arrange the works by contacting its contractor on 24 July 2024 and 27 August 2024, but the contractor did not respond. However, the landlord did not contact the contractor again until 15 October 2024. While the landlord took some steps to arrange the works, it did not follow up diligently enough to give itself the best chance of meeting its 38 day timescale, which was a failing. The landlord had adequate opportunity to organise the insulation works from 2 July 2024 onwards and ensure they were completed by the end of September 2024. It is reasonable to conclude that after the end of September 2024, the works not being completed constitutes a delay that was unreasonable.
Once the landlord made contact with the contractor on 6 November 2024, the evidence suggests that the contractor became solely responsible for the insulation works. We have no records relating to the repair after this time. All parties agree that the resident was not contacted by the contractor until 5 February 2025 and that the insulation works were incomplete at the time of the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord is responsible for the performance of its contractors and was right to acknowledge this delay and poor communication as a failing in its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident later reported to us that in the contractor’s call of 5 February 2025 it ‘refused to complete the insulation works to rectify the issues caused by resulting from its original installation’. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was made aware of this, or that it retained oversight of the repair. The evidence shows that the resident had contacted the landlord and contractor on several occasions throughout 2024 and 2025 about the repair, resulting in significant unnecessary time and trouble.
Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance was published in May 2025. It highlights the importance of a landlord’s ability to effectively manage its relationships with its contractors, to avoid delays and provide adequate services. It also states that ‘effective communication is vital as poor communication leaves residents uninformed, sometimes placing them as intermediaries between landlords and contractors’. This was reflected throughout the landlord’s handling of the insulation works. Had the landlord communicated with the resident more effectively as outlined in its customer commitments, the additional unnecessary time and trouble gone to by the resident may have been avoided.
The landlord offered £350 compensation in respect of both repairs, which was not broken down. As neither was completed at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, it is reasonable to conclude that it was split evenly between them, at a value of £175 each. The evidence shows that between 30 September 2024 and 12 February 2025, the resident experienced extensive delays of over 4 months.
The evidence shows that the resident went to extensive and avoidable time and trouble, and was subject to unnecessary distress and inconvenience, as a result of the communication failings by the landlord and its contractors during this period. The offer of £175 was not reflective of the likely adverse effect experienced by the resident by the time of the stage 2 complaint response. We have considered this as part of our calculation of a further order of compensation made later in this report.
In the landlord’s complaint responses it committed to completing the insulation works at the property. However, there is no evidence that they have been completed at the time of this determination. The resident reported that she continues to go to extensive time and trouble to liaise with multiple contractors but that the work remains outstanding. Therefore the landlord has failed to manage the commitments it made to the resident in its complaint responses and to follow its customer commitments to ‘make it easy, take responsibility, get things done, and keep in touch’. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the insulation works at the property. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence that these works have been completed within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
In failing to manage the commitments made to the resident, the adverse effect described above likely continued between February 2025 and the time of this determination. In total, we have considered that there were delays from 30 September 2024, when it would have been reasonable to have completed the insulation works, until the time of this determination, which is over 11 months. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration over a significant period of time, compensation of between £100and £600 should usually be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, to proportionately reflect the likely adverse effect caused to the resident. This replaces the £175 offer already made.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it promised to learn from outcomes and feedback information about the complaint to its contractor. The evidence shows it did this, which was appropriate. It was right to inform the contractor that its own internal changes (for which the contractor blamed its performance), should not have impacted the resident.
However, the landlord failed to learn lessons from its own role in its management of its contractor. The evidence shows that delays continued after the stage 2 complaint response, indicating that the steps it took were likely ineffective. We have ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case, with regard to its management of its contractors and the associated communication with the resident. It must set out what went wrong and why, and outline the steps it will take to ensure this area of its service delivery improves.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of window frames at the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states that from time to time, it will identify major works as part of its responsive repairs activities. It gives an example of this is identifying the need to replace windows at a property. It describes these types of works as ad hoc major works projects. When identifying ad hoc major works projects, the policy states that there is no standard timescale, but that the landlord will ‘agree specific completion targets’, which it will ‘communicate and agree with affected residents.’
The landlord’s window contractor attended on 10 September 2024, which was prompt in view of the resident’s wishes not to accommodate works during the summer holidays. The contractor advised that there were no issues with the trickle vents it had been asked to inspect and so the landlord took no further action. In view of this, it is reasonable that the landlord took no further action after receiving the inspection report and instead focussed on completing other works at the property, which were ongoing at this time and are not part of this investigation.
The evidence from the inspection of 20 June 2024 shows that the trickle vents were highlighted as needing replacement; there is no mention of the condition of the window frames. As a result, the job given to the contractor was to inspect the trickle vents only. The resident was unhappy that the contractor only inspected the trickle vents, as she said the window frames needed replacing entirely. It is unclear what the resident based this on, but it is likely that she was correct as the landlord raised a job to replace the window frames on 18 October 2024, without further inspection.
It is possible that there was a miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor. However, based on the evidence contained in the inspection report of 20 June 2024, we cannot say that it was unreasonable that the contractor was not instructed to survey the windows beyond the trickle vents, or that a job to replace the window frames was not raised sooner.
From 18 October 2024 the landlord should have provided the resident with an agreed timescale to complete a first inspection in line with its policy, but there is no evidence that it did so. The evidence shows that this caused the resident to go to unnecessary time and trouble to contact the landlord for updates until the window contractor inspected on 14 January 2025. The landlord was provided with a quote by the contractor on the same day. In its stage 2 complaint response it should again have been able to provide a timescale for approving the quote and booking in the work in line with its policy, but said it was unable to do so. It is unclear why this was. This was a failing.
The landlord was right to accept that there were failings in its handling of the window replacements in its stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows that the £175 compensation it offered was proportionate to the frustration, time and trouble, likely caused to the resident as a result of its failings.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord took a further 4 months and 4 days from the time of its stage 2 complaint response, to approve the quote provided by its contractors. This was a total of 5 months and 2 days from receiving the quote on 14 January 2025. We are unclear what the quote approval process involved or why it took so long. The landlord has provided no evidence to us to suggest that this timescale was reasonable.
The resident reported on 3 September 2025 that the window replacements were booked in for 15 September 2025. This is a total of 7 months and 3 days beyond the stage 2 complaint response and almost 11 months since the job was first raised on 18 October 2024. This timescale was unreasonable and was a failing. This further demonstrates that the landlord was unable to manage the commitments it made to the resident in its complaint responses. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of windows at the property.
The £175 compensation was proportionate to the likely adverse effect to the resident at the time of the stage 2 complaint response. However the landlord must now pay an additional amount to put right the likely adverse effect resulting from the further delays in delivering upon the promise made to replace the windows. Our remedies guidance states for delays over a significant period, compensation of over £100 should be considered.
We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £40 compensation per month that the window replacements remained outstanding after the stage 2 complaint response, up until the reported completion date of 15 September 2025. This is approximately in line with the landlord’s original £175 offer, that was proportionate. This totals £280, to be paid in addition to the £175 already offered. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £455 compensation to the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to provide evidence to us that the window replacements have been completed.
The landlord did not have the opportunity to consider ways that it could learn from its delays in approving the quote in its stage 2 complaint response. We have ordered the landlord to consider this as part of the senior management review ordered in this case.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. It states that landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 2 complaint responses should be issued within a further 20. Where delays are expected, the Code states that landlords must ‘decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.’
The landlord handled the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with the Code. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 5 December 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this request until a phone call on 16 January 2025. It is unclear why there was a delay of 22 working days in acknowledging the request. It took the landlord a further 19 working days until it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 February 2025. This was a total delay of 21 working days beyond the maximum time allowed to issue its stage 2 complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of any delays, in line with the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its final complaint response. Therefore, it did not put things right or learn from outcomes. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been service failure over a short duration that has likely resulted in frustration, time and trouble, compensation of at least £50 should be considered. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation.
In addition to the delay, the landlord failed to manage the promises made to the resident in its complaint responses. In doing so, it failed to act in line with the customer commitments set out in its complaints policy to ‘take responsibility, get things done, and keep in touch’. This was seen at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process.
We have considered the adverse effect caused to the resident by this as part of our assessment of the repairs above, so we have not ordered any further compensation be paid for this. However to ensure the landlord learns from outcomes, as part of the senior management review ordered in this case, we have ordered the landlord to consider the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of insulation works at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of window frames at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that:
1. It has paid the resident £855 compensation, made up of:
  1. £350 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of insulation works at the property. This replaces the £175 already offered, which can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
  2. £455 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window replacements at the property. This replaces the £175 already offered, which can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
2. The insulation works at the property have been completed.
3. The window replacements at the property have been completed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Completed a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It must set out what went wrong and why, and outline the steps it will take to ensure its service improves. It must consider, as a minimum:
  1. Its management of its contractors.
  2. Its communication with residents during repairs managed by its contractors.
  3. Its process for approving quotes from contractors, with regard to its timescale.
  4. The delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The way in which it manages its commitments made to residents in its complaint responses.