Sovereign Network Group (202504006)

Decision
Case ID	202504006
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3 bedroom mid-terrace house with her 3 children, 1 of whom is an adult. The resident and her adult daughter have long-term physical health problems. The resident raised concerns regarding damp and mould, and leaking guttering. During the time period investigated, the landlord did inspections and mould washes, but did not remedy the guttering. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of mould on her and her daughter’s health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould, and guttering repairs.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and guttering repairs.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp, mould and guttering repairs

It took too long for the landlord to do an inspection and find the root cause of the damp and mould.
The landlord did not do a hazard assessment.
It took too long to remedy the guttering.
The landlord did not prioritise work in recognition of the resident’s health and safety concerns.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, in that it did not share the outcome of inspections and planned next steps.

Complaint handling

The stage 1 response was 1 working day late.
There is no evidence the complaints investigation led to any real learning, or improvements in the handling of the matter complained about.
The £50 compensation offered at stage 2 was appropriate and proportionate redress.

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 provided by senior officer. 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 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 for inconvenience and distress due to its handling of damp, mould and guttering repairs. 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 any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the entire property for any concerns with the walls, flooring, brickwork, damp, mould, necessary repairs, and produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any damp and mould. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 09 January 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must review this case and identify what went wrong. The review should be completed by a senior manager independent of the service area involved in the case. It must provide a report detailing what lessons it has learned from reviewing the case, and how it aims to better the service it provides in the future, especially in relation to: How it aims to ensure its damp and mould, and repairs policy timescales are met in future. How it aims to improve its communication. How it aims to address its record keeping, so it can monitor and progress repairs effectively. What oversight measures it might it develop and operate so as to have an adequate level of confidence in the consistent application of any identified improvements across its relevant operations.	No later than 28 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, it is recommended the landlord directly pay the resident the £50 compensation for complaint handling offered at stage 2.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 May 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not repaired the guttering, or remedied the damp and mould.
7 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
22 May 2024	The landlord gave a stage1 response. It upheld the complaint, as the resident had been waiting for the guttering to be repaired since December 2023. It apologised and said it was in the process of “batching jobs” to be sent to contractors.
28 January 2025	The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had not fixed the guttering and her daughter’s bedroom was “very mouldy.” She was concerned about the impact on her and her daughter’s health, as they both had asthma.
30 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process.
17 or 24 February 2025	The landlord gave a stage 2 response. It agreed it had taken too long to treat the mould, identify the cause, and do the work to the guttering. It apologised and said it had asked a contractor to provide a quote for replacing the guttering. It apologised for poor communication and said it would keep the resident updated in future. It offered another mould wash. It apologised that the stage 1 response was late. It offered £400 compensation, made up of: £50 for complaint handling delay. £250 for delay doing repairs and works. £100 for poor communication. The landlord has provided a copy of the response dated 17 February 2025. The resident has provided a copy of the response dated 24 February 2025. It is therefore unclear when it was first given.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously, and its communication with her had been poor. She said the guttering was replaced on 12 September 2025, but in November 2025 a small amount of mould had returned.
24 November 2025	We notified the landlord there could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required under Awaab’s Law to consider and assess it this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard.

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	Handling of damp and mould, and guttering repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not look at

The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her and her daughter’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the issue, and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. This is because over time, evidence may be lost and staff may leave, making thorough investigation difficult. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the period from May 2023 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) to February 2025 (when the landlord gave its stage 2 response).

Handling of damp, mould and guttering repairs

The landlord fell far short of its damp and mould policy target to assess damp and mould within 10 working days, or 3 working days where there are children or vulnerable adults are present. The policy required an inspection of the entire property, including a formal hazard assessment, to determine the root cause.
The resident reported damp and mould in the lounge and her adult daughter’s bedroom (above the lounge) in December 2022. The landlord did a mould wash in January 2023, but there is no evidence seen that it inspected the property and identified the root cause. On 14 December 2023, during an inspection of the windows and back garden, the landlord noted there was mould on the ceiling and external wall of the lounge, in the corner of the bedroom, and in the bathroom. It noted there were above average moisture readings in the lounge and bedroom, which were possibly caused by a leaking gutter. On 18 December 2023, it raised a works order to inspect, treat, and identify the cause of the damp and mould. However, the inspection was not done until 25 April 2024, more than 16 months after the resident first reported damp and mould. This extended delay constitutes a major lapse in service, leaving the resident’s household vulnerable to damp and mould issues and resulting in unnecessary distress for an unnecessarily prolonged period.
The 25 April 2024 inspection confirmed the mould in the lounge and bedroom was caused by the leaking gutter. The landlord did a mould wash. There is no evidence seen that it shared with the resident the inspection findings, and the planned works, as its damp and mould policy said it should.
The damp and mould policy said repairs to the root cause of damp and mould would be completed as quickly as possible. However, the landlord failed to do so. The resident first raised concerns about the guttering in January 2023, but the landlord did not raise a works order to repair the guttering until 18 December 2023. The work had not been completed by 24 February 2025 (more than 14 months after the works order was raised, and more than 25 months after the resident first raised concerns), when the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord fell far short of its repairs policy requirement to complete responsive repairs within 38 days of being reported. This prolonged delay represents a significant service failure, leaving the resident’s household exposed to ongoing damp and mould risk and causing avoidable distress.
The landlord’s explanation in its 22 May 2024 stage 1 response, that guttering works were suspended, and it was “batching jobs” to be sent to contractors was not reasonable, as the landlord was still obliged under its policy and statutory duties to complete the repair within a reasonable time.
In October 2024 (the landlord’s records are unclear exactly when) the landlord’s contractor inspected the guttering and decided it could not be repaired and must be replaced. The landlord closed the works order on 22 October 2024, but a new works order to replace the guttering was not raised, stalling the process. This was poor management on the part of the landlord. There is also no evidence it shared the inspection findings, or its planned next steps with the resident, until its 24 February 2025 stage 2 response, when it confirmed the guttering needed replacing, and it had asked a contractor to provide a quote to do this. This is further evidence that the landlord was not proactive, and did not communicate effectively with the resident, as required by the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould.
In her 28 January 2025 request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, the resident told the landlord she and her adult daughter had asthma, and she was concerned the mould was impacting this. The landlord did a mould wash on 11 February 2025, 10 working days later. While this was an appropriate response, given the reported health concerns, the landlord should have responded more quickly to mitigate the impact on the resident’s household. Although the landlord’s repairs policy said it would prioritise work in recognition of health and safety concerns, there is no evidence seen that it did so. However, it was correct to advise the resident on 24 March 2025 that she could make a personal injury claim to its insurer.
The £350 compensation offered at stage 2 was insufficient, taking into account the duration of the delays, the impact on the resident, and our remedies guidance.
The resident has told us the guttering was replaced on 12 September 2025, but in November 2025, despite running a dehumidifier in her daughter’s bedroom, a small amount of mould had returned. We wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2025 giving it notice that there could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It was required under Awaab’s Law to consider and assess it this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and rebuild good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy, and the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required the landlord to:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond within 10 working days (with provision for extensions of up to 10 working days).
3. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
4. Respond within 20 working days (with provision for extensions of up to 20 working days).
Apart from the stage 1 response being 1 working day late, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the required timeframes. However, while it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failures at both stage 1 and stage 2, there is no evidence that the complaints investigation led to any real learning on the part of the landlord, or improvements in the handling of the matter complained about. This meant that the gutter was still leaking by the time the stage 2 response was given.
Although we have identified shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord apologised for the delay at stage 1, and the £50 compensation offered at stage 2 was appropriate and proportionate redress, which satisfactorily resolved this element of the complaint.

Learning

There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the causes of, and learn from its failures, to improve its service delivery. We have made a learning order for it to do so.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were found to be unclear and incomplete. This made investigating the case difficult, and potentially impacted the landlord’s management of the case.

Communication

The landlord did not share with the resident the outcome of inspections and planned next steps. The resident had to chase the landlord to find out what was happening.