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 (202503528)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202503528

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. This investigation considers:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a shed roof leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping and poor grounds maintenance.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and occupies a terraced bungalow.
  2. In 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about multiple issues. Amongst those issues, this investigation considers her reports of a shed roof leak, fly tipping and the maintenance of land behind her property.
  3. The resident informed the landlord of her leaking shed roof on several occasions from February 2024. She said the leak had caused water damage to personal belongings which she had to cover with plastic to prevent further damage. There is no evidence of it responding until July 2024.
  4. From June 2024, the resident also started reporting that her neighbour was fly tipping garden rubbish into the communal grounds, which she said subsequently delayed the landlord’s upkeep and maintenance of the area.
  5. The landlord responded to the fly tipping and ground maintenance reports in July 2024. It said it was making efforts to stop the neighbour from disposing of waste improperly. It would resume with ground maintenance once the neighbour disposed of the waste.
  6. The landlord responded to the shed roof complaint on 27 July 2024. It acknowledged it previously did not reply to the resident’s reports or log the repair. It apologised and offered £25 compensation for its error. It said a surveyor would attend on 14 August 2024 to inspect the roof.
  7. The resident escalated her complaints, due to her concerns about the quality of the landlord’s communication with her, poor record-keeping and lack of action.
  8. In its final response in September 2024, the landlord addressed both complaints together. It acknowledged again it had failed to raise the shed roof earlier. It apologised, offered £150 compensation and said its contractor would be in touch to arrange an asbestos survey for the shed roof. It also acknowledged poor communication. It said it had dealt with the complaint of fly tipping and lack of ground maintenance correctly but offered £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She told us that work to the shed roof was still outstanding. There were further issues with miscommunication and little correspondence. She said the fly tipping and the lack of ground maintenance continued until 2025. She sought further compensation from the landlord, and for it to complete the shed roof repair.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident said that she was injured by brambles on the overgrown strip of land. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

The shed roof leak

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord is responsible for repairs to a shed in the resident’s garden.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord in February 2024 that her shed roof had a leak. Having not had a response to multiple emails, she complained in early April 2024. Within this complaint, she said “the shed roof looks to be ridged asbestos, as it is many years old”.
  3. The landlord’s complaint team responded on 12 April 2024. It said the resident needed to report the leak via a different channel. The resident expressed her concern that the landlord had not already logged her leak report and asked for the repair and complaint to be addressed. The landlord then logged and acknowledged her complaint on 23 July 2024. At that point it does not appear the landlord had taken any action in response to the leak reports.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 July 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s need to complain and apologised for its delays dealing with the leak and poor communication. It offered £25 compensation and said it would inspect the shed roof on 14 August 2024.
  5. Just prior to the landlord’s complaint response the resident received a message confirming the inspection on 14 August 2024. She asked the landlord to confirm what the inspection was for, but there is no evidence of it replying. The subsequent complaint response explained the purpose of the inspection, but the repair records show that when the operatives attended as scheduled in August, they could not gain access.
  6. In its final response to the resident’s complaint on 9 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged again its delays addressing the leak and roof problem. It apologised and increased its compensation to £150 to recognise its poor handling of the matter. It said it would treat the complaint as a learning point to ensure it fully reviews future complaints and addresses all points raised.
  7. The landlord explained that the inspection on 14 August 2004 had gone ahead and confirmed the need for an asbestos test of the shed roof. This is contrary to its repair records, which state its operatives could not gain access. Nonetheless, it said its asbestos contractors would contact the resident to arrange a visit. It explained it could not proceed with the work until it received the test results but would arrange the repairs once it had them.
  8. Throughout September 2024, the contractor and landlord contacted the resident multiple times to arrange an asbestos survey. The resident replied, saying she was confused by the contractor’s wording, which suggested the whole property needed surveying instead of just the shed roof. She said a previous survey had found no asbestos, so she saw another one as unnecessary. She asked the landlord to update her on regulations which needed a new survey.
  9. The contractor sent the resident’s enquiry to the landlord. The landlord spoke to the resident, and its notes state she told it she was willing to give access for the survey but doubted the need for it.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She told us that contractors tried to book an asbestos survey but she responded explaining it had already taken place and no further action followed. As there is no evidence of a recent asbestos survey the resident appears to have been referring to a previous one done in 2007.
  11. In July 2025, the resident said no work had been done on the shed which might invalidate the historic survey findings. She insisted there was no asbestos at her address and saw no reason for another survey. The resident asked for a flexible cover to stop the shed roof from leaking and did not believe the whole roof needed replacing.
  12. The resident was fully entitled to query the landlord’s intentions and its planned work. However, the repairs were for the landlord to decide and act on, based on its repair obligations, the inspections its operatives had done and their opinions of what was needed. The evidence shows it attempted to proceed with what it understood to be necessary but could not get the resident’s agreement or access. It responded to her complaints and enquiries, explaining why it believed the asbestos test was required, but the repair work did not proceed. Nothing in the evidence suggests that was due to a lack of action by the landlord, or that its intentions with the repair were unreasonable.
  13. Overall, there were clear failings in the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s reports of the shed roof leak, in that it did not log the repair or address it until several months later. In its complaint responses it acknowledged its poor handling, apologised, explained what it had learnt from the complaint, and set out clearly the steps it intended to take to resolve the leak. It offered a level of compensation which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint involving a level of distress and inconvenience but no permanent impact. These remedies were appropriate to the complaint and its failings, and in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Fly tipping and grounds maintenance

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair pathways, other means of access, and will complete regular grounds maintenance to its estate.
  2. On 3 June 2024, the resident reported her neighbour was disposing of garden waste on the strip of land behind her property. She said the landlord’s ground maintenance staff could not do their work because of the waste, which meant the area was becoming overgrown with weeds, brambles, and vines. The overgrowth was blocking her rear access path while vines spread across the path, creating a tripping hazard. The landlord logged her complaint and said it would work with its housing officer to resolve the issue.
  3. Throughout July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times explaining landscapers attended but once again avoided the strip of land due to the waste. She asked the landlord to instruct the neighbour to dispose of the waste properly for ground maintenance to resume. She formally complained to the landlord about the issue in July 2024.
  4. The landlord visited the resident at her home to assess and discuss the issues in person on 23 July 2024.
  5. The landlord sent its first complaint response on 24 July 2024. It referred to having visited the property and witnessed the rubbish. It said it would write to the residents in the area reminding them not to dump such waste, and once the waste was removed it would attend to the ground’s maintenance in the relevant area.
  6. The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout August 2024, explaining that the fly tipping had gotten worse. Grounds maintenance staff had attended and still could not tend to the strip of land. It is unclear what correspondence the landlord specifically regarded as a complaint escalation, but it acknowledged a further complaint on 23 August 2024 and gave a deadline of 9 September 2024.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2024. It reviewed its earlier response and confirmed it had followed the correct process and plan. It sent a letter to residents asking them not to dispose of waste improperly. The landlord planned to visit the responsible neighbour to discuss waste disposal and fly tipping. After the visit and removal of the waste, it said it would arrange for ground maintenance to finish the outstanding work. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 for the inconvenience of the lack of ground maintenance.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2024. She told us that the landlord had not acted to resolve the issue and it was getting worse. She asked for the compensation offer reviewed or a reduction to her rent since she could not use the rear entrance to her home.
  9. The neighbour eventually cleared the fly tipping waste in May 2025. By June 2025, the resident confirmed that ground maintenance had taken place.
  10. The landlord accepted responsibility for ground maintenance and made attempts to address the fly tipping. However, it took several months to act and only followed up once again after the resident escalated her complaint. It offered £50 compensation for the lack of ground maintenance between June and September.
  11. However, problems with fly tipping and lack of ground maintenance continued for another 7 months. The problem posed by the rubbish is understandable, but the landlord had an obligation to keep the relevant communal areas maintained and in an appropriate condition. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to contact the fly tipping perpetrator and ask them to remove the rubbish. However, the evidence shows that was not successful, and the landlord allowed the situation to continue, with the impact on it meeting its grounds maintenance obligations.
  12. Given that the fly tipping perpetrator appears to have been known to the resident and landlord, it is not apparent why it did not undertake to clear the rubbish itself and recharge the person responsible. This was something the resident had suggested, but there is no evidence of the landlord considering this option, or why it might not have been feasible.
  13. Overall, the landlords handling of and responses to the issue and the complaint were unreasonable. Although it made some attempt to put things right, the effort was not sufficient, subsequently causing delays to resolve the issue. When considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the compensation amount offered does not appropriately reflect the frustration and inconvenience it caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of a shed roof leak satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping and poor ground maintenance.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £250 within 4 weeks of this report. This amount includes the £50 it previously offered.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of the above to this service.