Sovereign Network Group (202508328)

Decision
Case ID	202508328
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	22 December 2025

Background

1. The property is a flat. The resident was not occupying the property at the time of the complaint as the property was sub-let. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports about water ingress, citing delays, missed appointments, and poor communication by the landlord and its contractors.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.

6. There were avoidable delays in the landlord completing repairs to resolve water ingress and overflow issues, with poor planning, missed appointments, and inadequate communication, causing prolonged inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acknowledging its failings and offering redress during its own complaint investigation.
7. However, issues with the overflow were not resolved for a further 17 months, causing the resident ongoing distress. The landlord missed opportunities following issue of the stage 2 complaint response, to pursue the matter with sufficient urgency, to implement temporary measures to minimise further damage, and to provide interim support to the resident. It also failed to keep the resident proactively informed of the steps it was taking to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

8. We could not verify the landlord sent complaint acknowledgements. But the landlord did issue the stage 1 and stage 2 response, broadly, within acceptable timescales.

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 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,858 made up as follows: £1,258 for distress and inconvenience, caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs, up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. This is the compensation the landlord offered the resident during its own complaint investigation £600 for ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident, arising from the further failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs, following issue of the stage 2 complaint response.   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 19 January 2026
3	General order The landlord must make endeavours to speak with the resident: Offering advice and support, as may be required, with making a claim to its insurer, in relation to damage caused to the interior of the property. To explain its intentions for addressing damage caused to the wider building from the leaking overflow pipe and provide indicative timescales for remedying this.   The landlord must then write the resident with an action plan, with timescales, setting out any action that may have been agreed by the parties. The landlord should commit to keeping this action plan under review at regular intervals, until all actions have been completed. If the landlord is unable to make contact with the resident, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to do so by no later than the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026
4	The landlord must complete a learning review of its handling of this case. The landlord must present the findings from this review to its senior leadership team. And then send a summary of the review to the resident and to us, explaining any subsequent action it intends to take.	No later than 16 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 March 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about a leaking gutter, which she first reported in October 2023. The resident: Said the landlord had failed to repair the gutter, despite of her repeatedly chasing the landlord. Explained this had resulted in severe internal damage, including blown plaster, black mould, damp walls, damaged carpet, and deteriorating window frames. Cited delays, missed appointments, and poor communication by the landlord and its contractors. Requested urgent action from the landlord, to make the property watertight and habitable. Said the landlord should investigate communication failures, identify any learning, and compensation for her time, stress, and the damage caused.
28 March 2024	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord: Acknowledged that repair times had fallen below expected standards due to poor planning by its contractor and there had been a lack of communication, for which it apologised. Referenced that its contractor had admitted that follow-on works were poorly managed. But had since committed to preventing future delays. Reassured the resident that service improvements were being made, including stricter contractor oversight. Provided appointment dates, to complete outstanding repairs. Offered £388 compensation for delays, time and trouble, and missed appointments. Shared its insurer’s contact details in relation to claims for damages.
2 May 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident explained that its handling of the matter had caused her stress, anxiety, and had impacted her wellbeing.
3 June 2024	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response, which it upheld. It: Admitted that repair times had fallen significantly below expected standards due to poor planning by its contractor. And to issues with communication, which had resulted in the resident having to continually chase for appointments. Said it would obtain a date for its plumber to attend and rectify the issue with the overflow. And it would monitor this until completion. Reiterated that it was committed to improving its services. And that it was working closely with its contractors to address performance issues. Apologised for the failings it identified during its complaint investigation and for the impact upon her wellbeing. Offered an additional £870 compensation in recognition of missed appointments, delays, distress, and for time and trouble.
30 May 2025 to 19 December 2025	The resident brought her complaint to us in May 2025 after the landlord failed to remedy the water ingress from the overflow pipe. The resident said in August 2025 that the landlord had fixed the guttering (in June 2024). But there was still an issue with water ingress from the overflow pipe at the rear. In October 2025 she reported that the issues with the overflow pipe had continued, resulting in damp, mould, structural damage, and had caused a decline in her mental health.   The resident told us in December 2025 that the landlord had now resolved the issue with the overflow. But there was significant damage to the interior of the property and the wider building, which was still to be addressed. She suggested this was preventing her from selling the property. She said the landlord should repair the building, pay compensation, and learn from the complaint.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The leak on the guttering

9. The resident first reported issues with leaking gutters at the front of the property in October 2023, which the resident said was causing damp within the property.
10. The landlord was responsible for addressing the leak on the guttering, in accordance with the lease. And promptly raised a works order on 31 October 2023 to address this. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 1 month. The job was assigned a target completion of 42 days, which does not exactly align with the landlord’s repairs policy. Nevertheless, the landlord did not fix the leak from the guttering until around 14 May 2024, which was 105 days after the target completion date.
11. It is not in dispute that there were avoidable delays progressing and completing this repair, which the landlord accepts was caused by poor planning by its contractor, its contractor not attending prescheduled appointments, its contractor rescheduling appointments without giving clear reasons, contractual issues between its contractor and their sub-contractors, and works orders being closed prematurely. The landlord also recognised the resident was caused avoidable time and trouble having to repeatedly chase for updates, due to inadequate communication.

Running water from an overflow pipe

12. The first reported issues with water running from the overflow pipe at the back of the building in January 2024.
13. The landlord promptly raised a works order on 19 January 2024, to investigate the resident’s reports about water running from an overflow pipe at the rear of the property. The landlord assigned a target completion of 42 days. However, no repairs were completed until 22 May 2024, which was 82 days after the target date.
14. The landlord appears to have been unaware of this at the time it issued the stage 2 complaint response. As it committed to contacting its repairs team for a date for its plumber to attend to fix the issue with the overflow pipe, said it would provide updates as to when it would attend, and would monitor this until completion.
15. It is not in dispute that there were avoidable delays progressing this repair. The landlord did itself identify that its contractor had rearranged the initial inspection without clear reason, had not arranged follow-on works when it should have, and had missed prearranged repairs appointments. It also recognised that the resident had been caused avoidable time and trouble having to chase for updates, due to inadequate communication.

The landlord’s resolution

16. Where a landlord has admitted failings, our role is to consider whether the landlord acted fairly, put things right, and learned from outcomes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
17. The landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs, which was fair. It tried to put things right by apologising, committing to fix the issue with the overflow, and by offering a total of £1,258 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord also signposted the resident to its insurer, if she wanted to raise a claim for damage to the property, which was in line with its compensation policy. It might have also explained, this would be the route to take if she wanted to make a personal injury claim.
18. The overall amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. And was within the range we would have awarded for the failings identified, up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance (published on our website), where there have been failings that had a significant impact on the resident.
19. The landlord explained in the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, some of the measures both it and its contractor had taken or were planning to take, to improve services and repairs performance. And committed to improving its communication. This shows learning, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

Following the stage 2 complaint response

20. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord that it had resolved the issue with the overflow pipe in May 2024 by changing some washers on the cold-water header tanks in the loft. The landlord ought to have proactively checked that the issue was resolved, given the resident had maintained the overflow was still running. This was a missed opportunity to investigate and prevent further damage.
21. The resident continued chasing updates from the landlord through July 2024 after water continued to discharge from the overflow, which suggests the landlord’s communication did not improve. The landlord’s contractor identified the cause of the leaking overflow to be a split coil in the neighbour’s hot water cylinder, which was the neighbour’s responsibility to repair. Although the landlord was not responsible for this repair, it had a duty to act promptly to protect the building.
22. Progress by the landlord between July 2024 and December 2024 to resolve the issue was limited. The landlord missed more opportunities during this period, to consider temporary measures to mitigate further damage. However, the landlord did step up its efforts in January 2025 by issuing a formal instruction to the neighbour with a deadline to complete repairs and the threat of legal action. This was positive. But it did not follow through in a timely manner, when the neighbour failed to provide evidence that the necessary repair had been completed, delaying resolution further.
23. By March 2025 the resident had reported severe deterioration in the conditions within the property from the ongoing water ingress. The landlord responded by raising an inspection of the property for its surveyor. And began exploring legal options for resolution on 29 May 2025. An internal email from the landlord’s surveyor on 30 May 2025 confirmed the presence water ingress and “bad mould” within the property. And that resolution was dependent on the neighbour replacing their hot water cylinder.
24. The neighbour claimed to have completed the necessary repairs in May 2025. But water continued to discharge from the overflow pipe. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractor to carry out another inspection of the neighbour’s property, to help it decide on next steps. Its contractor attempted to gain access to the neighbour’s property several times between June and August 2025 without success. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a more robust course of action, rather than continuing with the same unsuccessful approach.
25. The resident reported severe stress in August 2025. She resorted to makeshift measures to divert the water away from the building, which she then had to manage herself, creating additional time and trouble. The landlord ought to have considered whether any interim support could be offered, or signposted her appropriate services, given the impact described and the ongoing delay in resolving the issue. But it did not.
26. Legal advice obtained by the landlord in September 2025 highlighted the urgency of the situation and the risk of a disrepair claim. And recommended a track-and-trace investigation by its insurer to support enforcement action. We could not verify if this was progressed. But the landlord did tell us October 2025 that legal action was underway, which was positive.
27. Photographs and videos provided by the resident in October 2025 showed extensive internal and external damage. Internally, this included black mould, pealing and cracked plaster, rusting radiators, wet carpets, and deteriorating windows. The external wall and floor of the building were both green and wet. We also saw a video showing water rapidly dripping into a makeshift container. It is likely that damage to the property could have been lessened if the landlord had pursued the matter with more urgency. And had it proactively sought to divert the water away from the building, as an interim measure.
28. The resident told us on 19 December 2025 that the landlord had gained access to the neighbour’s property within the last 7 weeks and that the issue with the overflow pipe had been fixed. But explained that there was still extensive damage to the property and to external parts of the building, which needed to be put right, as this was preventing her from selling her interest in the property. Despite chasing the landlord, the resident remains unclear as to how and when the landlord will address this. This is unreasonable and demonstrates inadequate learning.

In summary

29. Our investigation identified multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and associated repairs up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged there had been failings during its own complaint investigation, committed to resolving the matter, offered reasonable redress, and outlined lessons learned, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
30. However, the resident continued to experience ongoing water ingress for the next 17 months. Difficulties engaging with the neighbour were a mitigating factor. But the landlord missed opportunities to progress the matter with sufficient urgency, to implement temporary measures to prevent further damage, to provide interim support to the resident, and to proactively inform her of the steps it was taking to resolve the issue. These shortcomings caused continued distress and inconvenience to the resident and suggests insufficient progress was made in applying the learning it previously identified, thus resulting in our failure finding and orders.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are the 2022 and 2024 editions. The landlord had published complaints policies, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
32. This means the landlord had to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It had to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of logging the complaint. The landlord was permitted to extend these response timescales by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, provided it explained to the resident why this was necessary.
33. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 11 March 2024. It issued the stage 1 complaint response 13 working days later. We cannot conclude that the landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response within expected timescales. This is because we do not know when the landlord logged the complaint and we cannot verify that it sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. However, the detriment to the resident from this was minimal.
34. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 2 May 2024. Again, we cannot verify that the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. But it did issue the stage 2 complaint response on 3 June 2024, which was 20 working days after the resident complained.
35. While we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, we have identified some learning for the landlord to consider. This is set out in the learning section of this report.

Learning

36. The landlord identified some learning during its own complaint investigation, including (not an exhaustive list) the need to strengthen oversight of its contractor and the need to improve communication. And set out some of the steps that it and its contractor were taking / had taken to improve. However, we have ordered the landlord to carry out a further learning review, given the additional failings we identified following issue of the stage 2 complaint response. We have included some areas of learning for the landlord’s consideration as follows:

a.             The landlord should ensure that repairs targets align with its repairs policy.

b.             Landlords should maintain proactive and clear communication with residents throughout repairs and complaint handling to reduce the need for repeated chasing.

c.             Landlords should implement checks to confirm reported issues are fully resolved before closing jobs, particularly where residents report ongoing problems.

d.             Landlords should consider temporary measures to mitigate damage and assess whether interim support can be offered to residents, where delays occur.

e.             Landlords should act promptly and follow through on enforcement actions when third-party responsibilities impact resolution, ensuring legal advice is acted upon without delay.

f.               While the landlord acknowledged failings and offered compensation, the prolonged delays and lack of urgency after the stage 2 response indicate a need for stronger internal processes to ensure lessons learned are embedded in practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We were able to determine this case based on the information provided by the parties. The landlord did not provide us with all of the supporting evidence it used to create the repairs timeline, set out in its complaint response. Landlords should keep a robust record of their actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request.

Communication

38. The landlord has itself recognised, there was inadequate communication with the resident prior to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. We identified that communications did not significantly improve following this.