Sovereign Network Group (202504219)

Decision
Case ID	202504219
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 March 2026

Background

1. The resident appointed a legal representative to raise a housing disrepair claim, which led to a joint inspection and an agreement for repairs in the property. She later complained that the landlord was taking too long to complete the works. The landlord’s records show that the resident has several physical and mental health‑related vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of outstanding repairs throughout the property.
   2. Reports of a pests infestation.
   3. Concerns about claims she was subletting her property.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs throughout the property.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about claims she was subletting her property.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs throughout the property

5. Although some delays in completing works were unavoidable, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to progress them after appointing a new contractor. It failed to adequately update the resident in line with its repairs policy. In addition, it took longer than it should to complete works to a bathroom window and failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of dangerous garden steps. Although its offer of compensation was reasonable, it failed to outline any learning from the complaint or complete the outstanding repairs.

The response to the resident’s reports of a pests infestation

6. The landlord’s initial response was in line with its pest policy. It attended to carry out pest treatments and proofing in a timely manner. However, it delayed responding to later reports, which was not in line with its pest and repairs policies.

The response to the resident’s concerns about claims she was subletting her property

7. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating concerns by its contractor that the resident may have been subletting her property. Following enquiries, it correctly informed her it was not taking any further action.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord failed to raise complaints when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its service, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).

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 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,642 made up as follows: £1,492 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing outstanding repairs throughout the property, as offered in its complaint responses £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in responding to reports of pests £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling 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 27 April 2026
3	Specific Action The landlord must write to the resident with an estimated completion date for the outstanding repairs to the kitchen worktop, and any repairs mentioned in its stage 2 response. It must give details of the works that are outstanding and the reasons for any ongoing delays. The landlord must send us a copy of the letter by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026
4	Specific Action The landlord must write to the resident to set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in its handling of the outstanding repairs and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. It should also emphasise the importance of following the Code to its complaint handling staff and of recognising and raising complaints when residents express dissatisfaction with its services. A copy of this letter must be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord explores how it can improve its handover processes when changing contractors to help minimise the impact on the services it provides to residents.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 May 2025	The resident said she had contacted the landlord several times to complain about major repair issues. She said operatives had stopped works because they claimed she had not moved her furniture, which she said was “a lie”. She added that: the painter had dismantled part of her kitchen, which led to a mouse infestation she had not sublet her property as the contractors had claimed she wanted it to assess the extent of the disruption she was experiencing because of the disrepair to her property
28 May 2025	We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about disrepair works, pests, leaks and allegations of subletting by 18 June 2025.
18 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It provided a detailed summary of its handling of works at the property. It said it had acted in line with its policies but accepted delays and apologised. It explained that changing contractors put “incredible pressure” on its services. It acknowledged it should have communicated more proactively after the resident’s legal representation ended. It confirmed prompt attendance after pest reports, found no specific reports of leaks and had investigated subletting concerns. It said its legal disrepair team would continue managing repairs and offered £940 compensation.
22 October 2025	The resident told the landlord it had removed the operative without warning, wrongly told her solicitor she was not living in the property, ignored her for a year without offering temporary accommodation, and failed to log her written complaints or show any duty of care.
27 November 2025	We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about disrepair, claims she was not living in the property, pests, damp and mould, and outstanding repairs by 4 December 2025.
4 December 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it: said it had offered dates in November 2025 for repairs to be completed and arranged for a post inspection to take place on 27 November 2025 reiterated its response at stage 1 about the subletting allegations said it had raised a job to address her reports of damp and mould, a crack in her bedroom ceiling and garden concerns gave details of the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs upheld the resident’s complaint because of “various issues throughout the property” made an increased offer of compensation of £1,492 in recognition of the impact caused by its failings
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she wanted additional compensation and for the landlord to complete the repairs to her property.

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	Outstanding repairs throughout the property
Finding	Maladministration

Major works following a housing disrepair claim

9. The landlord inspected the property on 16 May 2024 after it received the resident’s legal disrepair claim on 14 March 2024. It took around 2 months to complete the joint survey with the resident’s surveyor. The delay was due to clashes in availability between the surveyors. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing an external surveyor to avoid further delays.
10. The landlord received the survey report on 6 June 2024 and raised the required works the next day. The repair log indicates repairs were raised to the front elevation, living room, kitchen, staircase, kitchen worktops and chimney stack.
11. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether temporary accommodation would have been appropriate. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the number of affected rooms, it would have been reasonable for it to have recorded its reasons for not offering temporary accommodation.
12. The landlord offered to carry out the works between 15 and 19 July 2024. This timeframe was reasonable. The resident was on holiday and asked for dates in August 2024 instead, so this delay was outside the landlord’s control.
13. The landlord agreed with the resident to reschedule works for 21 October 2024, but they did not go ahead. Further delays were caused by several issues. The landlord needed to carry out additional brickwork repairs, which would have extended work into November 2024. Operatives also reported restricted access because the living room was full of personal belongings.
14. The contractor also raised concerns about non-standard electrics and recommended an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) before continuing with the disrepair works. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow this advice.
15. The landlord could not complete the EICR until 20 February 2025 because it had difficulties gaining access. It had to reschedule several appointments due to cancellations, the resident being on holiday or in hospital, and problems contacting her.
16. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the landlord and contractors access to carry out repairs. We recognise there can be many reasons why residents cannot provide access. However, without access, the landlord could not complete the EICR or any required electrical works.
17. The landlord could have done more to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not explore whether reasonable adjustments or support were needed to help facilitate access. Although this may not have resulted in an earlier EICR, doing so would have shown it was taking reasonable steps to address the issues causing delays.
18. After electrical repairs were completed on 20 March 2025, there were continuing delays restarting and completing the disrepair works. This was mainly due to the landlord transferring its repair services to a new contractor from 1 April 2025. The new contractor carried out a pre‑inspection on 5 August 2025, 4 months after taking over. This indicates a poor handover process.
19. The new contractor was initially reluctant to take on the works, which put further pressure on the landlord’s ability to progress the repairs. There is no evidence it had allocated adequate resources or monitored contractors effectively during this period.
20. The landlord accepted that its communication was poor, particularly after the resident’s legal representative stopped acting for her on 21 March 2025. It should have provided clear updates and timescales. Instead, the resident had to repeatedly chase updates. This was inconsistent with the landlord’s repairs policy requirement to keep residents informed when timescales change.
21. It is unclear from the repair log when the works identified in the 16 May 2024 survey were completed, or which were categorised as routine or complex. The records indicate most were completed by the time of the stage 2 response, more than 18 months after they were recommended. The only outstanding repair was to the kitchen worktop, which required the heating contractor to turn off the gas supply.
22. The excessive delays did not comply with the landlord’s repairs policy, which requires routine repairs to be completed within 1 month and complex repairs within 90 days. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the delays likely caused significant distress, inconvenience and a reduced enjoyment of her home.

Other outstanding repairs

23. The resident raised several repair issues in her complaint, including a lack of heating, damp and mould, leaks, safety issues in her garden, and repairs to her kitchen light, extractor fan and bathroom window.
24. The evidence shows the resident wrote to the landlord on 15 October 2025 to report difficulty accessing her back garden because of “precarious” concrete steps. She said this was a health and safety risk due to the danger of falling. There is no evidence the landlord responded or took action to address her concerns.
25. Given her physical vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered the risks and arranged an inspection, in line with its repairs policy. This requires an initial visit within 2 weeks. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had raised a job for its contractor to address the issue. However, the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns was a failing.
26. There is no evidence the resident reported damp and mould before her stage 2 complaint. The landlord raised a works order for its new contractor to carry out a mould wash, which was appropriate.
27. Records show the landlord responded to reports of insufficient heating, the broken kitchen light, extractor fan and a leak in line with its repairs policy.
28. However, there were delays repairing the broken kitchen window. The resident reported on 27 August 2025 that the window would not stay open. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 25 September 2025, which met the timescale for routine repairs, but the contractor could not attend due to capacity issues. It appropriately informed the resident and rescheduled for 3 October 2025. Further delays occurred because of difficulties obtaining parts. The repair was eventually scheduled for 3 December 2025, more than 3 months after it was reported.
29. The landlord apologised for the delays and poor communication in its complaint responses. It offered £1,492 compensation in line with its compensation policy. This is also consistent with our remedies for failures that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, while it took steps to resolve the complaint, it did not outline any learning or actions it would take as a result. Furthermore, it failed to complete some of the works. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles. For this reason, although we have not ordered further compensation, we have made orders in relation to learning and the outstanding repairs to the kitchen worktop.

Complaint	A pest infestation
Finding	Service failure

30. When the resident reported mice in her kitchen on 29 April 2025, the landlord acted appropriately by instructing its pest contractor to attend. Although the landlord would not usually be responsible for pests inside a home under its pest policy, it made a reasonable decision to assist with the issue because of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was in line with its policy, which allows consideration of a resident’s disability or vulnerability to ensure they are not disadvantaged.
31. The pest contractor attended on 12 May 2025, within 14 days of the report. It recommended filling ingress points, and the landlord completed proofing works on 27 May 2025. This met the pest policy requirement to follow professional advice, and to arrange an inspection under its repair response times of 2 weeks for an initial visit and a month for completion of works.
32. The resident reported further evidence of mice on 13 August and 13 October 2025. The pest contractor attended within 34 and 38 days respectively. This was not in line with the landlord’s repair response time. The landlord carried out additional proofing works on 20 November 2025, which was appropriate.
33. Although the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s initial reports of pests, it delayed attending to later reports with no explanation provided. We have therefore ordered compensation for the inconvenience caused by a minor failure that did not affect the overall outcome. This is in line with our remedies guidance

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about claims she was subletting her property
Finding	No maladministration

34. The landlord’s contractor reported concerns that the resident might be subletting her property. Under Section 15 of the Housing Act 1988, an assured tenant cannot sublet any part of their home without the landlord’s consent. In addition, under the tenancy agreement, the resident cannot sublet her property or take in any lodgers.
35. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to investigate a potential breach of tenancy. The evidence shows it made appropriate enquiries and concluded that no further action was needed. The landlord also explained its position in its complaint responses and the reason for its investigation. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

36. The Code sets out how landlords should manage complaints, and the landlord’s policy meets the Code’s 2024 timescale requirements.
37. Despite the resident expressing dissatisfaction on 6 May 2025 and again on 22 October 2025, the landlord did not raise these as a stage 1 complaint or an escalation request. This was not in line with the Code, which requires a complaint to be logged when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to a service request. The landlord accepted the stage 1 and 2 complaints after our involvement. The resident should not have been put to unnecessary time and trouble before her complaints were accepted.
38. Once instructed to respond, the landlord complied with the Code and its complaints policy. It issued timely responses that addressed all the issues we asked it to investigate.
39. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not acted on the resident’s earlier expressions of dissatisfaction. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience of having to escalate the matter to us. For this reason, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for a failure that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. This is consistent with our remedies guidance.

Learning

40. The landlord incorrectly stated in its stage 2 response that it had completed works to the resident’s kitchen worktop. The landlord should ensure it checks the accuracy of the information it provides in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord provided very few records of its communication with the resident. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. Furthermore, its repair logs were unclear about when it completed repairs, and it did not provide copies of inspection reports. It was therefore difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the outstanding repairs.
42. The landlord may consider how it records, retains and makes this information available with reference to our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

43. The landlord’s communication was poor following the change of repairs contractor. It failed to provide proactive updates. Better communication would have allowed it to give reassurance of works progression, manage the resident’s expectations and help minimise the distress and inconvenience caused.