Sovereign Network Group (202453223)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to repair issues in her bathroom. She said leaks, damp and mould were affecting her property as well as neighbours. She said her health had been impacted by the ongoing repair problems.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. the resident’s reports of repair issues, damp and mould in the bathroom
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues, damp and mould in the bathroom
   2. service failure in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Repair issues, damp and mould in the bathroom

4. The landlord identified failings in its completion of the repairs and compensated for them appropriately. However, it failed to show it had considered adjusting its service once it knew she was vulnerable. It was slow to respond to reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord gave clear and reasonable responses to the complaint. However, it unnecessarily delayed in acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation and gave no explanation for this.

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.

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.

What we have not looked at

6. The resident told us that the presence of mould and unplanned visits to her property had injured her. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident had raised reports of repair problems with her bathroom for several years. We looked at some earlier reports for context, but our investigation focuses on April 2025 onwards, when she raised her formal complaint, and the reports that led up to it. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of historical events due to the lapse of this time.
8. The resident also raised a more recent complaint with the landlord regarding issues with the bathroom. We have not investigated this issue as it was still being responded to at the time of writing. Landlords need a fair opportunity to exhaust their own complaints procedure before we are involved. We have investigated up to July 2025 and the steps it took immediately after the complaints process had finished.

What we have looked at

9. The resident’s complaint on 1 April 2025 raised concerns about the quality of works that had been done in her bathroom as part of a refurbishment the landlord had arranged. She said the poor quality works had resulted in damage to her flat and also neighbouring properties due to unresolved water ingress. She said it never resolved her older report of a leak from the shower, which led to the need for a full refurbishment in the first place.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will provide an efficient and effective repair service to residents. It says it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within one month.
11. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response on 22 April 2025 that it had logged 3 emergency jobs between 26 March 2025 and 10 April 2025 regarding leaks from the resident’s flat affecting neighbouring properties. It attended each of these within its timeframes. However, repeated emergency responses to the same issue show it had failed to resolve the underlying cause of the leaks. It was not appropriate that it failed to complete an effective or lasting repair as its policy says it will.
12. It sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 22 April 2025 to identify a way to resolve the outstanding issues. This was appropriate and showed it wanted to solve the problem. The landlord logged the surveyor’s report on 28 April 2025 which confirmed that the cause of the problems was poor workmanship during the bathroom refurbishment in November 2024. It took steps to re-raise the works in the bathroom with the original contractor and assigned them to a new contractor on 8 June 2025 when the original contractor refused. It notified the resident it would be changing contractors on 5 June 2025. This was appropriate and showed it was exploring the most efficient way of addressing the outstanding repair issues while trying to keep the resident updated.
13. In its stage 2 response on 16 June 2025, the landlord said it faced further delays because it had to change contractor. It accepted the resident had faced ongoing time, trouble and inconvenience as a result of delays which was appropriate. It said it had identified remedial works that were required and that it would contact her to organise a date to complete this once they had been approved. Its repair log shows that these works were logged as complete on 18 July 2025, 75 working days after her complaint.
14. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to keep to the repair timelines set out in its policy, despite responding to multiple reports of issues. Once it became clear that the issue was recurring and affecting neighbouring properties, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to consider escalating the repair and taking decisive action to resolve the underlying workmanship issues instead of responding on a reactive basis. It was unreasonable that it took so long to complete a repair.
15. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 16 June 2025 that it should not have taken the resident’s complaint to prompt it to organise a survey of the property. It acknowledged that it had spent too much of the complaint process suggesting she contacted an occupational therapist for support requesting the installation of specialist bathroom equipment rather than investigating the quality of the bathroom works. It was appropriate that it identified these failings and showed it was trying to take learning from the process. This also highlighted that the landlord’s focus during the early stages of the complaint was misdirected, which contributed to avoidable delay in identifying and resolving the cause of the problem.
16. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,085 in its stage 2 response which covered her reports of issues between 9 December 2024 and 16 July 2025. This was made up of:
    1. £310 for the impact of delays in completion of the repairs
    2. £620 for the level of distress she experienced throughout this period
    3. £155 for time and trouble she faced chasing it for updates
17. We have reviewed the level of compensation against the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our own guidance and consider it an appropriate amount that reflects the impact of its failings around the completion of repair works. There is evidence that this compensation was accepted and paid to the resident in December 2025. However, additional failings have been identified which mean we cannot find reasonable redress in the complaint overall.
18. The resident repeatedly reported the impact of the ongoing repair issues, damp and mould on her health. The landlord acknowledged this throughout the complaints process and recorded details of her medical conditions on its system. However, it failed to show it considered ways it could offer additional support to her once it knew about her disability.
19. In its Reasonable Adjustments Policy, it says it will take certain actions once it identifies a resident as vulnerable. These include making reasonable adjustments to its service, considering additional needs they may have and recording adjustments on its systems. In its Slipping Through The Net Toolkit, it says it will explain to residents how it will make any reasonable adjustments it has considered. It says resident vulnerabilities must be checked when handling a damp and mould case.
20. The resident frequently referred to her anxiety and the impact that regular telephone calls and unplanned visits were having on her. She made requests for the landlord to communicate with her through email instead and to give as much notice as possible of any visits by its contractors. The landlord acknowledged these requests but there is no evidence that it considered any adjustment to the way it conducted the service. It continued to call her on the phone despite her request, which did not demonstrate it was taking her condition seriously. It could have more clearly noted her communication preferences and set out how it would adapt its contact with her going forward.
21. The landlord also failed to show it had considered changing its approach to the repairs once it knew she was likely to be impacted more severely as a result of her health conditions. The resident told it about trip hazards that were made worse by her mobility issues and an increased impact on her asthma as a result of recurring mould. The landlord did not show it had considered alternative ways of supporting her, such as changing the priority of the repairs or considering moving her to a temporary alternative home. It was not appropriate that it could not show it had satisfied itself that she required no additional support. She faced ongoing distress and inconvenience as her reports of the impact on her health conditions were not being properly considered.
22. The resident raised concerns throughout the complaint and following its completion about recurring damp and mould in the property. She said her and her child’s breathing was affected by the mould.
23. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy says it will work with residents to ensure they are treated with respect and empathy. It says it will investigate the cause of the damp so it can deliver effective repairs. It also says it will regularly update residents on steps it has taken and will consider additional support that vulnerable residents may need to manage damp and mould.
24. The landlord recorded multiple attempts to remove damp and mould in the bathroom throughout the complaint process and in the period immediately after it had finished. Its contractor recommended mould treatment following a site visit on 8 April 2025 but it is unclear if any mould treatment work took place at this time. The landlord confirmed the need for mould treatment at the property in its stage 2 complaint response on 16 June 2025. The resident made a further report of mould damaging furnishings on 14 July 2025. The landlord logged the completion of mould treatment works on 18 July 2025.
25. It was unreasonable that the landlord waited for 70 working days before it conducted mould treatment works on the recommendation of its contractor. Given it knew the resident and her child were at an increased risk due to respiratory conditions, it should have acted with more urgency. The resident was not shown that it was empathising with her situation as its policy says it will.
26. We have ordered further compensation from the landlord to reflect the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident faced as a result of its failure to consider the potential impact on her health condition. We have used its Compensation Policy to calculate an appropriate award for the 31 week period it already compensated for. We consider that she faced a high level of distress as a result of this failing so have ordered £20 a week for this in line with its policy.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
28. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 14 working days (1 April 2025 to 22 April 2025) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 5 working days (9 June 2025 to 16 June 2025) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
29. The landlord broadly kept to its policy timelines except for a short delay in its stage 1 response and a substantial delay in its stage 2 acknowledgment. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 9 May 2025. However, it did not acknowledge this request until 9 June 2025, 20 working days later. It gave no explanation for this delay or any apology. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It was not appropriate that it knew the urgency of the issue but delayed unnecessarily in progressing the complaint.
30. The landlord’s actual handling of the complaint was consistent and clear in all other regards. It gave reasonable explanations of how it investigated the issue and was clear when it identified failings and how it was responding to them. It set out actions it would take and apologised appropriately. It can reflect positively on its investigation into the complaint.

Learning

31. The landlord identified opportunities for learning during the complaint process. It could reflect on whether the steps it has taken since the complaint have improved the resident’s experience during her more recent reports of repair and mould issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord lacked oversight during the complaint. It could consider whether a more robust process for checking the resident’s records may have helped it to identify ways it could offer her additional support with the health issues she reported.

Communication

33. The landlord missed the opportunity to adapt its communication to meet her needs. It could consider whether providing her with regular email updates would have helped her to feel more supported during the complaint process.