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 (202450540)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450540

Sovereign Network Group

29 August 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak which affected her flat.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2011. She lives in the 2-bedroom flat with her partner, who is a joint tenant. The landlord was aware during this complaint the resident had a broken leg, and her partner had physical and mental health concerns.
  2. The landlord was made aware of a leak on 5 July 2024 and completed an inspection that day. It said it had turned off the water and electricity and could not reinstate this until it completed the repairs. Therefore, it offered to move the resident into temporary accommodation. The resident, who was away on holiday until 9 July 2024, declined this as the offers made did not suit her family’s needs.
  3. The resident complained on 24 July 2024. She said the landlord had not offered any help in drying out the property, it was at the resident’s cost. If she had gone to a hotel all her belongings would have been ruined. She complained again on 26 November 2024. She said she could not make the inspection date of 3 December 2024. The next date the landlord offered was 4 March 2025. The resident was unhappy the date was so far away.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 January 2025. It said it had not updated the resident about the repair progress, despite her chasing. The landlord checked and the resident had secured the earliest available date of 4 March 2025. It recognised the resident’s experience was not acceptable and provided feedback to the relevant teams.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 January 2025 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord sent its final response letter on 18 February 2025. It offered the resident £250 in compensation. The landlord said:
    1. It did not respond effectively.
    2. Had the resident taken up the temporary accommodation offer, it would have completed the work more promptly.
    3. It did not offer the resident further support, which it should have when she declined temporary accommodation.
    4. The resident was still waiting for another inspection which it had raised on 29 October 2024.
    5. It would bring forward the appointment to assess the damage to 20 February 2025 and the plasterer would attend on 4 March 2025.
    6. It reviewed its complaint handling, and it was late in raising the stage 1 complaint due to confusion as the resident had a few complaints open.
    7. It fed back the failings it found to the relevant teams.
  6. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of it. As a resolution she would like the landlord to complete the repairs, or to pay for her to organise this herself. She would also like compensation to reflect the length of time this has been ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak which affected her flat

  1. On 5 July 2024, while the resident was away on holiday, her friend told the landlord there was a leak. The landlord inspected that day and turned off the water and electricity supplies. This was in line with its repairs policy to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and make safe. We have not seen a record of the landlord’s visit, only that it offered the resident temporary accommodation.
  2. On 8 July 2024, the landlord emailed to offer the resident temporary accommodation when she returned from holiday. It said it deemed the property to be unsafe for the resident to return to. It had turned off the water and electricity, these could not be turned on until it had completed the works. The resident had specific needs which were difficult to meet. The landlord recognised this and attempted to find alternative forms of accommodation. This was not possible due to the resident’s requirements and the availability of accommodation. The resident did not find the landlord’s temporary accommodation offer to be suitable and refused this. This was reasonable.
  3. The resident clearly described to the landlord that she was experiencing “great anxiety” returning from holiday not knowing whether she would be living in the flat or temporary accommodation. When she returned to the flat on 9 July 2024, she found the water and electricity was on. She believed this meant it was safe for her to remain.
  4. The resident reported the leak was ongoing and chased the landlord for an update on 10 July 2024. We have not seen that the landlord visited to stop the leak. The landlord’s internal notes say it could not complete the repairs without the resident moving out, which it said she refused. The following day the landlord emailed the resident to reoffer temporary accommodation. It said it understood she wished to remain in the property, despite having no electrics and water. The resident reports to us the electrics and water were working. We are unable to confirm whether they were or were not.
  5. However, when the landlord knew the resident was living back in the property, it would have been reasonable for it to have:
    1. Ensured the property was safe for the resident to live in.
    2. Assessed how it could support the resident to remain. For example, by providing dehumidifiers or advice on how to manage the situation.
    3. Considered how it could progress the repairs to reduce the impact on the resident.
    4. Required the resident to leave if there was a threat to her safety.
  6. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this and we are aware the resident borrowed dehumidifiers from friends.
  7. The resident chased the landlord to progress the repair and see if she could remain in the property on a number of occasions. The landlord decided it needed to complete another inspection. Despite the resident’s contact it took 3.5 months to raise a job for this. It offered the resident an inspection on 3 December 2024, but she was not available. It then booked the next available date for 4 March 2025. This was 8 months after the first inspection.
  8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it:
    1. Aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of a report.
    2. Prioritises repairs by recognising the resident’s health and safety, urgency of the works, or resident’s availability.
    3. Has a commitment to “get it done” aiming to complete the repair on the day. Sometimes it needs to scope the repair, it would complete follow-on works in 6 months of the original repair.
  9. The landlord did not meet either its 38 day or its 6-month target. We have not seen evidence the landlord assessed the resident’s health and safety or the urgency of the works to prioritise this. This meant the landlord did not act in line with its repairs policy.
  10. We have seen that the landlord planned to start the works the week starting 15 July 2024. This was not done. We recognise the landlord said it could not complete the works without the resident moving out, however it ultimately started the works with the resident living in the property.
  11. The landlord’s final response letter said there appeared to be minimal damage. and it had isolated the leak at the inspection on 5 July 2024. We note the resident reported the leak was still coming through on 10 July 2024. The landlord’s inspection on 4 March 2025 supported the idea the damage was not extensive. It said it needed to:
    1. Stain block to living room and bathroom ceiling. This was organised for 21 July 2025.
    2. Conduct asbestos testing on kitchen ceiling. The landlord put a cover over the hole as a temporary measure.
  12. The landlord closed the asbestos job down as the property was built after the ban on its use. During our conversation with the resident, she said the landlord would be visiting shortly to complete the asbestos check. We have not seen evidence the landlord told the resident it closed the job down. This has meant the resident believes the landlord has allowed her to remain living in a property with disturbed asbestos which is a continuing source of concern for her.
  13. The landlord visited the property on 21 July 2025 and sprayed parts of the living room and bathroom ceilings white. We believe this was the stain block. The resident advised it did not spray the whole ceiling so there are different colour patches. This was over a year after the leak was 1st reported. The resident advised us that the kitchen ceiling needs stain blocking and the hole filling.
  14. Given the length of time that passed, we think it would have been a proportionate goodwill gesture for the landlord to have repainted the ceiling to restore the decoration to how it was before the leak.
  15. There have been some records which we have not seen evidence of. For example, the resident’s escalation request, or records of the 5 July 2024 or 20 February 2025 visits. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. 
  16. In accordance with the Scheme we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak which affected her flat. The landlord’s compensation offer of £100 for the lack of support and £100 for the dehumidifier costs did not proportionately address the failings we have identified in this report. The landlord did not progress the repairs in line with its policy. This lack of urgency was more serious as the landlord was aware the resident was in a property it had assessed as unsafe. The landlord also did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding potential asbestos in the property.
  17. As a resolution, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the kitchen ceiling hole and complete any necessary work to fill it, and stain block the ceiling. The landlord is to paint the living room, bathroom, and kitchen ceilings, or to compensate the resident for organising this.
  18. We have awarded £600 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £200.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. In the final response letter, the landlord recognised it had not responded to the resident’s initial complaint dated 24 July 2024. This was despite the resident’s attempts to chase it. The landlord’s policy says it will respond in 10 working days of receiving a complaint. The resident was without a response to her complaint for 5 months longer than she should have been.
  2. In its final response letter, the landlord awarded the resident £50 for not raising or responding to the stage 1 in line with its policy. It shared the failings with the relevant team. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  3. The landlord’s compensation offer of £50 was in line with our remedies guide for service failure. This aligns with what we would have found. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak which affected her flat.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is to issue a written apology for the failings found in this report.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £600. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £200.
  3. The landlord is to:
    1. Complete an inspection of the kitchen ceiling, organise any necessary work to fill it.
    1. Stain block the kitchen ceiling.
    2. Paint the living room, bathroom, and kitchen ceilings, or provide the resident with compensation to organise this herself.
  4. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. We would emphasise that we have made the reasonable redress finding on the provision the landlord has either paid or offers again to pay the resident the compensation of £50 for its complaint handling failings. If the landlord does not do this, it would undermine the reasonable redress finding and we may revisit this. We would like to see evidence of the landlord making the payment or offering it to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.