Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sovereign Network Group (202451134)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202451134

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Sovereign Network Group

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Shared Ownership

Date

27 October 2025

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. She told the landlord that she has a diagnosis of asthma.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a)     A roof leak and associated damp.

b)     Reports about staff conduct.

c)     The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found that:

a)     There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the roof leak and associated damp.

b)     There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of staff conduct.

c)     There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof leak

  1. The landlord did not have responsibility to repair the roof and the associated damp issues. However, it decided to do so and took 3 months to complete the repair. This meant that it incurred costs that would reasonably have been the responsibility of the resident. We therefore consider that it has provided reasonable redress for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its miscommunication caused.

Staff conduct

  1. The landlord apologised for the conduct of the staff member and said that it would investigate this. It also offered £50 compensation. However, we have seen no evidence of the investigation it took regarding the matter.

Complaint

  1. There were delays in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and providing a stage 2 complaint response.


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

24 November 2025

2           

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:

  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports about staff conduct.
  • £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

 

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure the £100 it has already paid regarding these complaint points.

 

No later than

24 November 2025

3           

A manager must carry out an independent review of this case to understand and explain why the failings occurred and consider if they were limited to this case. A report should be provided to us regarding the findings within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include the following and provide a timed implementation plan for any identified improvements:

  1. Consideration on how it investigates complaints about staff and records the outcome of this.
  2. How it identifies what work it is responsible for in shared ownership properties and how this is communicated to residents.

No later than

19 January 2026

 


Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The resident advised us in October 2025 that staining has returned to the previously treated area. She said that the landlord told her when it completed the work initially that she should contact it again if this happened. This means that she is still uncertain about the landlord’s and her responsibilities regarding repairs. The landlord must therefore contact her to discuss this and put in writing its position regarding such repairs moving forward.

 


Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

4 February 2025

The resident raised her complaint about the handling of the repair to the roof and the landlord’s lack of communication. She said that:

  1. She had reported the issue on 27 November 2024.
  2. No scaffolding had been erected.
  3. She was not living in the property due to damp and mould

caused by the leak.

  1. An operative had walked mud through the house, damaged

a door, got mud on her bedding, and a curtain tie was missing.

 

26 February 2025

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.

11 March 2025

The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that:

  1. According to her lease she was responsible for maintenance

of the property. However, it had completed the work as a gesture

of goodwill.

  1. It had reviewed her communication with it and had found no

issues with this.

  1. It had fed back regarding the operative that had caused damage

to the property and offered her £25 for the inconvenience

caused.

  1. It would clean, treat, and paint the bedroom and bathroom for

damp and mould on 15 April 2025.

18 March 2025

The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process because she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and the stage 1 decision.

24 April 2025

The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that:

  1. The repairs should have been her responsibility.
  2. Her home had been made damp by the leak but no mould was present.
  3. The conduct of the operative that caused damage to her property was not acceptable and it apologised for this. It would address this internally.
  4. She had told it that she had asthma and had slept in the lounge for 3 months. If she wanted to claim for damages to her health, she would need to do this via its public liability insurance.
  5. It had responded promptly to her calls and emails. However, it had missed an appointment on 15 January 2025.
  6. It offered £300 compensation comprising:
    1. £50 for the delayed stage 1 complaint response.
    2. £50 for ineffective communication.
    3. £50 for the conduct of the operative.
    4. £50 towards the cost of a dehumidifier.
    5. £100 for not being able to sleep in the bedroom.

 

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome and contacted us. She felt that the landlord had not adequately compensated her considering that she had been unable to use the bedroom.

 


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

Roof leak and associated damp

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The lease confirms that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good repair.
  2. The resident told the landlord that the roof was leaking on 27 November 2024.
  3. The landlord inspected the property and decided that there was a leak from the dummy chimney on the roof. It raised repairs jobs to rectify the issue and missed an appointment which cost the resident time and trouble. It considered taking the dummy chimney off, however, found that it could not do so because the property was in a conservation area.
  4. There were delays in erecting scaffolding and the resident took time and trouble contacting the landlord on several occasions to chase this up.
  5. It took approximately 3 months for the landlord to rectify the source of the leak during which time the resident was living with damp in the bedrooms which meant that she had to sleep in the living room. This caused her distress and inconvenience which was particularly distressing as she is diagnosed with asthma.
  6. The landlord was not responsible for completing the repairs but we have seen no evidence that it told the resident this until the stage 1 complaint response. Had it been clear from the outset she might have arranged her own contractors to carry out the work. However, this would have incurred a considerable monetary cost which the landlord took on instead.
  7. Overall, considering that the landlord also repainted the affected area and fitted a new extractor fan in the bathroom we consider that it has given reasonable redress to the resident. This counteracts its miscommunication about whose responsibility the repair was and the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused her.

 

Complaint

Staff conduct

Finding

Service failure
  1. On 31 January 2025 the resident told the landlord that an operative had caused damage to her property while treating the damp and mould. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Our role is to decide whether the landlord investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from both parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident. It said that it would deal with the matter internally and offered £50 compensation. It was appropriate for it to not divulge any details about the conversations it had with the staff member.
  3. The landlord said that it had passed the resident’s concerns onto a manager to deal with internally. However, we have seen no evidence or notes taken regarding any interviews with the staff member and the outcome of this. Therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the residents concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure

 

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days of being received.

 

  1. In this case the landlord took 26 working days to log and acknowledge the complaint. This prolonged the complaints process which meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot achieve this it will let the customer know why.

 

  1. However, in this case the landlord took 27 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. It did not agree an extension with the resident or let her know the reason for the delay. This failure to follow the policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also further delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.

 

  1. The landlord offered £50 at stage 2 of the complaints process for the delay in the stage 1 complaint response. However, it did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delay at stage 2. Therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.