Sovereign Network Group (202511615)

Decision
Case ID	202511615
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 November 2025

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat with his wife. He feels the property is not suitable for his medical needs and that the landlord has not dealt with the damp and mould effectively. He has mobility issues. Both occupants have asthma. The landlord is aware of their vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

3. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. Adaptation requests.
   3. A rehousing request.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. Adaptation requests.
   3. A rehousing request.
   4. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord attempted to arrange the works on several occasions and offered reasonable options of temporary accommodation.

Adaptation requests

6. The landlord considered the resident’s request in line with its policy, having due regard to the Equality Act 2010.

Rehousing request

7. The landlord acted in line with its policy and provided its reasoning to the resident in a clear way.

The complaint

8. The landlord responded in line with the Code and its internal complaints procedure.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 August 2024	The resident complained that the property was unsuitable for his disability due to damp, mould, lack of an access ramp, and restricted space for wheelchair use. He said the landlord had refused adaptations and the mould rendered the flat uninhabitable.
16 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure.
30 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, confirming it inspected the property in January 2024 and completed a survey in February 2024. It raised a work order for extensive repairs but said the resident refused access. It noted discussions about moving him to a sheltered scheme or bungalow. It explained it had consulted the local authority on adaptations, outlining why some were not feasible. It arranged for its voids team to contact him about alternative housing and offered mould washes in the meantime.
4 October 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He maintained his health was at risk due to the condition of the property.
15 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
6 November 2024	At stage 2, the landlord stated that the resident declined offers of accommodation in older person schemes, a 1-bedroom bungalow, and a fully adapted 1-bedroom property, requesting a 2-bedroom instead. Repairs were on hold due to lack of access. It proposed temporary accommodation given the intrusive nature of the required works, which would limit use of key areas like the kitchen. The landlord confirmed repairs could not proceed until temporary housing was agreed. It offered help with removing and storing personal belongings.
4 December 2024	The resident told the landlord he had not refused contractor calls and was willing to engage once a 2-bedroom property became available. He also expressed concern about it offering sheltered accommodation despite him being capable of living independently.
18 December 2024	The landlord said it had offered the resident another 1-bedroom property on 12 December 2024, which he rejected. It reiterated he was not eligible for a 2-bedroom property. It explained it offered sheltered accommodation as it was fully adapted and would allow repairs to begin, with reassurance he could return home once it had completed the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident disagreed with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to us. He said it had not offered a meaningful solution, and his living conditions were becoming increasingly difficult.

 

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 damp and mould in the property
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

9. The landlord said the resident initially reported damp and mould in 2022. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in August 2024 and the related responses. Any reference to previous events is for context only.
10. The resident was concerned about the health impact of damp and mould. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. During a call in November 2025, the resident said the landlord was now completing repairs while he remained in the property.He expressed frustration over delays. These delays arose after the landlord’s complaint process was completed. We cannot investigate matters the landlord has not had an opportunity to address. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about post–stage 2 delays, so we have therefore not investigated this matter.

What we have considered

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states it completes routine repairs within a month and complex repairs within 90 days.
13. The landlord identified damp and mould during a December 2022 inspection. In April 2023, contractors reported access issues. Records from May 2023 demonstrate the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation for the duration of the works. However, he was reluctant to move due to concerns he would not be able to return to the property. The landlord has not evidenced how it addressed his concerns at the time.
14. Another inspection took place in January 2024, followed by a survey the following month. The landlord has not provided a copy of the survey although it has shared the surveyor’s findings. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping but has not impacted the overall outcome of this investigation.
15. On 11 March 2024, the contractor’s administrator called the resident to arrange works from the survey and reported he declined further contact. Contractors attended on 14 March 2024 and reported that he denied access. The landlord made several attempts to engage with the resident to agree next steps. However, as of the date of the stage 2 complaint response, the repairs were unresolved.
16. The landlord’s decision to move the resident into temporary accommodation to facilitate extensive remedial works, including a full kitchen replacement, was reasonable given the scale of the repairs required and the vulnerabilities of the occupants. It was also appropriate for it to offer support with moving and storing personal items, demonstrating consideration for the resident’s mobility issues.
17. We find that initial communication issues arose regarding whether the offers of alternative accommodation were temporary or permanent; however, once this was clarified, the resident did not engage with the landlord to vacate the property. This delayed the commencement of the works.
18. Although the resident disputes refusing to speak with contractors or refusing access, the landlord received several reports from both contractors and their administrator indicating he declined access and did not cooperate in arranging repairs. The landlord’s records also include calls and reference to a webchat from the resident expressing concerns about mess left by contractors at a neighbouring property and stating he did not want them working in his home. In response, the landlord offered a post-inspection by its surveyor and provided assurance that the property would be thoroughly cleaned after the repairs. This was fair and reasonable.
19. Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the evidence shows there were further instances where the resident did not engage with offers of temporary or permanent rehousing. While we do not question his reasons, the resulting repair delays were not attributable to the landlord.
20. Where a resident refuses access and there is a potential risk of harm, it may be appropriate for a landlord to consider legal options to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement. While it is unclear whether it sought legal advice in this case, its overall response to the reports of damp and mould was reasonable. It made repeated efforts to engage with the resident and offered practical solutions to address his concerns. We have therefore not found failings in its handling of the matter.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of adaptation requests
Finding	No maladministration

21. In March 2024, the local authority wrote to the landlord setting out a proposed list of adaptations to the resident’s home, following his application for a disabled facilities grant.
22. The property is a house converted into 2 flats, and due to its construction, the landlord deemed it unfeasible to carry out the requested works to the front elevation, including widening the entrance door. Furthermore, more than half of the requested adaptations related to communal areas, which would affect another property and resident. This raised additional considerations for it, including fire safety. Given the extent and complexity of the works suggested, it assessed that rehousing the resident would be a more appropriate and practical solution.
23. While the Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled people, this duty does not extend to structural changes where such works are impractical, unreasonable, or impact others. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s request and concluded that rehousing was a better option. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
24. The landlord also demonstrated willingness to accommodate the resident’s needs through alternative measures, such as installing a wet room as part of the damp and mould works, subject to an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. However, progress on these works were hindered by a lack of engagement from the resident regarding temporary accommodation and uncertainty over the provision of an OT report.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a rehousing request
Finding	No maladministration

25. The landlord offered the resident a permanent move to sheltered accommodation. It also offered a move to a 1-bedroom bungalow, and a fully adapted 1-bedroom ground floor property. While the resident has expressed a preference for a 2-bedroom property, its allocation policy entitles him to a 1-bedroom home based on his household composition.
26. The landlord’s offers of rehousing aligns with its obligations under its lettings policy and the Equality Act 2010, which requires reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of disabled tenants. In this case, the provision of sheltered housing and a ground floor adapted property reflects a reasonable and appropriate response to the resident’s needs, even though it does not meet his preference for additional bedrooms.
27. The landlord was under no obligation to offer a larger property without an OT report stating that he required a 2-bedroom property. Neither party has provided a copy of an OT report to us.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20. Landlords should not exceed these timeframes without good reason. The timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with the Code.
29. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 and responded within its policy timescales. At stage 2, the landlord’s acknowledgement was slightly delayed, but this was reasonable as the resident’s escalation lacked a complaint reference or property address, making the case harder to identify. It issued its stage 2 response within the expected timeframe.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord should retain copies of all surveys and inspection reports.

Communication

31. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was satisfactory within this case.