Sovereign Network Group (202452283)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroomed house. The resident reported problems with antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property on 3 June 2024. The local authority issued the resident’s neighbour with a community protection notice on 18 December 2024. The landlord secured an injunction against her neighbour on 6 August 2025.
2. The housing records confirm the resident has a brain injury and one of her children is disabled.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

ASB.

6. The landlord acknowledged it did not follow its ASB procedure or offer the resident support. It offered her an apology and compensation for the identified failures. It also confirmed it would take legal action against her neighbour.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord offered an apology and compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.

 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and its actions were fair in all the circumstances. On receipt of reports of ASB, landlord should gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This includes using the powers available to it, such as mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
9. In this case, the landlord acknowledged on 21 March 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that there were delays in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB and it failed to offer her support. It apologised for the service failures and noted a new member of staff had taken over the case. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It did not, however, offer her compensation. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
10. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 23 May 2025 in its final complaint response. This included noting it had not followed its ASB policy. It said it should have developed an action plan with the resident and kept her updated. It also noted that whilst it worked with partner agencies, it failed to consider other options sooner. The landlord said it would seek an injunction against her neighbour given she had failed to comply with the community protection notice warning. It offered the resident an apology and £200 compensation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
11. In summary, the landlord acknowledged it failed to follow its ASB policy and support the resident. It offered an apology and compensation for the identified service failings. It also confirmed it was planning to take legal action against her neighbour. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

12. The resident made a complaint on 17 February 2025. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 11 March 2025. This was not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). This says landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint meant the resident was not clear when she could expect to receive a reply.
13. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2025. This was some 4 weeks after the resident made a complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst the landlord offered an apology for the delay in responding, it did not offer the resident any compensation. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
14. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 8 April 2025. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
15. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 May 2025. This was 37 working days after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord offered an apology and £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
16. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding in its final complaint response and offered the resident compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

18. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s communication in this case.