Sovereign Network Group (202514382)

Background

1. The resident complained about several issues. These included not having proper use of the shower, the electricity frequently cutting out, a lack of hot water, and excessive damp. They said the lack of action by the landlord had caused an impact to their mental and physical health. The resident is a wheelchair user and has disclosed a number of other vulnerabilities to us and the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of no shower chair.
   3. Reports of a faulty shower pump.
   4. Reports of electrical faults.
   5. Reports of no hot water.
   6. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint related to damp and mould is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the shower chair.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The faulty shower pump.
   2. No hot water.
   3. The complaint.
6. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical faults.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord noted the resident had not previously reported the damp issues. It explained it needed an opportunity to put it right before raising a complaint. As a result, the damp and mould did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure and is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Reports of no shower chair

8. The landlord acknowledged some of the delays related to the shower chair. However, the information provided would suggest it failed to fully consider the resident’s account and the impact caused to them by the ongoing issue. This was not appropriate and resulted in the issues remaining unresolved for a significant length of time.

Reports of a faulty shower pump

9. It would have been reasonable to have shown consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities in responding to the concerns and the repeated issues. In not doing so, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s response to the reports was appropriate.

Reports of electrical faults

10. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports and concerns. Therefore, we have not identified any maladministration.

Reports of no hot water

11. The landlord demonstrated it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy. However, its communication could have been clearer, and it has not shown a proactive response to the issue with the mixer taps. This caused unnecessary delays in fully resolving the issues for the resident.

The complaint

12. The landlord responded to the reports in line with its complaints policy and the Code. However, it failed to fully acknowledge all its failings and appropriately apply its compensation policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

The complaint procedure

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.

13. The resident has raised complaint issues which had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident reported the issues prior to their formal complaint and therefore the issues were not included within the complaint procedure. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

14. The landlord has not provided any records from the time to evidence what action it had taken in relation to the resident’s reports. As a result, our investigation relies on the resident’s communications and the landlord’s later complaint responses. We have considered the landlord’s record keeping throughout the investigation.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy sets 3 priority categories:
    1. Emergency repairs: where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety. It aims to respond within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs: are those repairs which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or damage if not fixed straight away. It aims to attend within 2 weeks and to complete the repairs within 1 calendar month.
    3. Complex repairs: are larger repairs which take longer to arrange. It aims to complete these repairs within 90 days.
16. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident reported the broken shower chair on 16 September 2024 and it attended on 24 September 2024. It said it noted the tiles had broken and required replacing before the chair could be resecured to the wall. The next recorded visit was a “no access” visit on 14 November 2024, but the landlord did not explain the almost 2 month delay from its initial visit. This delay breached its repairs policy and it showed no evidence it assessed the risks to the resident in the meantime.
17. The landlord said it returned on 23 January 2025 and repaired the cracked tiles and wall. It said it installed a new shower chair on 14 February 2025 and considered the matter resolved.
18. Between 14 February 2025 and the resident’s formal complaint there does not appear to have been any further reports from the resident. Therefore, the landlord could not have been expected to take any further action related to the shower chair during this time. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its initial delays in its stage 1 response, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It awarded £600 which was in line with our compensation guidance for failures which significantly affected the resident.
19. However, the resident reported that the chair had not been installed and remained unusable in their complaint escalation on 27 August 2025. The resident said due to the lack of chair and fear of injury, they were “forced to sit on the floor to shower”. They described this as unsafe. unhygienic, and harmful to their health. Despite this, the landlord maintained in its stage 2 response that it installed the chair on 14 February 2025. It advised the resident to contact it if it remained unsafe or unusable.
20. The landlord’s response was neither appropriate nor proactive. The resident had already explained that the issue remained unresolved. Even without full records, the landlord should have acted on the resident’s clear statement and arranged an inspection or repair, rather than placing the burden back on the resident.
21. The resident reports that the landlord has still not fixed the chair, leaving them without suitable bathing facilities for an extended period. They told us they often travel elsewhere to shower. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable and required a chair to use the shower. By failing to assess the risks and/or expedite the repair, the landlord did not adequately safeguard the resident or act in line with its repair obligations.
22. Although the landlord attempted to put matters right at stage 1, its stage 2 response failed to recognise the ongoing problem and its impact. With no evidence that delays were unavoidable or that it took all reasonable steps, the landlord did not demonstrate it effectively handled the reports of no shower chair. This had a significant impact on a resident, who relied on this adaptation to be able to use the shower properly. It is reasonable to assume the landlord would have been aware of this information at the time and should have given due consideration to the resident’s circumstances by acting promptly. We would have found severe maladministration if not for the landlord’s recognition of some of its earlier failings.
23. In these circumstances, further compensation is appropriate. This reflects the length of time the issue remained unresolved after the stage 2 escalation, the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their bathroom, as well as the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

24. In their formal complaint, the resident said the shower pump had been broken for more than 2 years and that repeated reports to the landlord produced little action. They referred to an occasion when the pump failed, causing water to overflow and flood the property. The resident explained that due to only having one functioning arm, they needed assistance to drain the water and reported slipping multiple times.
25. The resident has referred to suffering personal injury as a result of the landlord’s lack of action. We do not doubt their account, however, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better placed to assess such matters. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
26. As noted earlier, we have not been provided with the landlord’s records from the time of the reports. The landlord reasonably explained it would only investigate a history of 12 months for the repairs, in line with its policy. The landlord’s stage 1 response refers to reports from January 2025. In the absence of any earlier reports, our assessment begins from this date.
27. The landlord said it raised an order on 22 January 2025 following reports the shower pump was not draining. Contractors attended on 31 January 2025 and replaced the “whale pump” (a whale pump is used to pump wastewater from a shower). It said it left the pump working as it should. It said the resident reported the issue again on 26 June 2025 and it attended on 10 July 2025. It said it rectified a fault, fitted a new pump system, and renewed a blocked waste pipe, and completed all related works that day.
28. After receiving the formal complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise another repair and recall the contractor to investigate the reported failure of the newly fitted pump. The contractor attended on 14 August 2025 and found no fault.
29. Although the resident later reported further issues after the stage 2 response, it was reasonable at the time for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s assessment. We accept it can take more than one attempt to resolve such issues. This would not necessarily indicate a service failure by the landlord.
30. The landlord’s response times to the reports aligned with its routine repairs policy. However, the absence of records from the time limits our ability to assess whether this was reasonable for the issues reported. It would have been helpful to understand exactly what the resident reported, any detriment they experienced, and whether that should have influenced the landlord’s approach.
31. Given the known vulnerabilities of the resident and the associated health and safety risks, we consider the landlord should have prioritised the repairs and acted more quickly. The landlord’s repair policy highlights the need to adjust services for vulnerable residents and to use vulnerability information to guide its approach. We have seen no evidence of its internal decision making or risk assessment regarding the resident’s reports and vulnerabilities at the time. This suggests the landlord did not properly apply its policy when determining its response times.
32. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it had received no previous reports related to injuries and it outlined some of the steps the resident could take to enable further investigation. It would have also been reasonable to have provided details of its insurance team, in line with its compensation policy.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response upheld the resident’s overall complaints and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, but it did not specify the reasons for upholding the complaint. Without this, the landlord has not demonstrated how it would put things right or learn from the outcome. Our compensation order is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or remedied.

34. In their formal complaint, the resident said the electricity in the property frequently cut out. They said on one occasion when the electricity was not working, they had to leave the property and the electric windows were left stuck open. They said when they returned home, the power had been restored, and the windows had been closed. The resident said this raised concerns about unauthorised access to their home.
35. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the resident reported some of the electrics were not working on 1 July 2025 and that the electric windows would not close. It said it raised an emergency repair and attended the same day but could not gain access. It attended again the following day and there was no access again. The landlord said due to not gaining any access, it could not restore the electricity. It said it was reasonable to assume the windows closed automatically when the power returned.
36. The landlord said the issue was reported again on 5 August 2025. It attended the following day, checked the fuseboard, and found there was power to the lights and sockets. It asked the resident to report any further issues.
37. With no further information and no indication that the problem persisted, we cannot identify any failing by the landlord. It attended within its emergency repair timescales and it provided a reasonable explanation for why the windows were closed when the resident returned home.
38. The resident later told us the electrical issues damaged their television. We are unable comment on this aspect of the complaint as there is no evidence the resident reported this to the landlord at the time.

39. In their formal complaint, the resident said the plumbing did not supply hot water. The resident said they suffer from skin conditions and could not wash properly with cold water.
40. The landlord said the resident reported no hot water on 23 January 2025. It attended the same day and found the “Economy 7” switch (Economy 7 is an electricity tariff which offers cheaper unit rates during off peak hours) had been turned off. It advised the resident that the switch must remain on to access hot water and the boost switch was for emergency use only. The landlord said the issue was next reported on 5 August 2025, where the resident described the water as “lukewarm”. It said it attended the following day and found both the peak and off-peak switches turned off. It again advised the resident to keep the switches on at all times.
41. Given the information available at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude it had acted appropriately. It attended within emergency repair timescales, and with the switches turned off, it could have been difficult to consider any other faults.
42. In their stage 2 escalation, the resident suggested the issue was not user error. They said they turned the switch off to stop the motor noise and turned it back on when they required hot water. They said the mixer taps in the bathroom and kitchen did not function properly and was preventing them from adjusting the water temperature. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it understood the resident’s explanation and would ensure its future communications were clearer. It advised the resident to confirm if the issue with the mixer taps persisted so it could raise a repair.
43. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. Once the resident confirmed they were still turning the switch off, the landlord should have provided clearer guidance on proper usage. Instead of asking the resident to confirm whether the issue with the mixer taps persisted, the landlord should have proactively raised a repair, as the resident already confirmed it was ongoing.
44. When speaking with us, the resident said their English is limited and the language barrier with the landlord was an issue for them. Although we have not seen evidence that this was raised during the complaint, the landlord should have considered whether its communication was sufficient in the circumstances. Ensuring the resident understood how the system worked and raising a repair for the mixer taps would have demonstrated a more collaborative approach. Its failure to do so caused the resident additional time and trouble in raising the issues again.
45. The resident said the issues with the taps are still ongoing. In an update to us, the landlord said it raised a repair on 18 February 2026 for reports ofintermittent hot water from outlets and the hand basin mixer taps. It said it attended on 3 March 2026 but there was no report regarding the outcome of the visit.Our orders seek clarification on the current status of the issue and any steps required to put things right for the resident.

46. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Code. It says that it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints in 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint in line with these timescales. Although we have no evidence that it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation, it provided its stage 2 response within 16 working days, which was appropriate.
47. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that some issues had not been previously reported and, under its policy, it must first be given the opportunity to put matters right before they can form part of a complaint. It clearly identified which issues it would consider and advised the resident to report any outstanding concerns to the scheme manager. This approach was reasonable and aligned with the Code, which distinguishes between service requests and complaints.
48. However, we note the resident raised a further complaint in December 2025 about outstanding issues in the property. If the landlord has not already done so, it should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and provide a stage 1 response in accordance with its policy.
49. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had upheld the resident’s complaint but did not specify which elements it upheld or why. It then asked the resident to confirm which issues still required attention and said it would consider additional compensation once all outstanding matters were resolved. As already mentioned, it was not appropriate for the landlord to rely on the resident to restate issues that should have been identifiable from its own records and the complaint history. This likely caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble.
50. The landlord’s internal complaints process was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident and the landlorddid not do so. It is our understanding that the landlord has not made any further offers of compensation since the stage 2 response, despite indicating it would. This was not in line with its compensation policy and would not have managed the resident’s expectations.
51. Our compensation order is in line with our compensation guidance where a landlord has failed to apply its own compensation policy to the facts, resulting in a lower overall offer of compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord provided very limited information regarding its repairs, despite our initial and further requests for information. We have not been provided with repairs logs or contemporaneous records of internal correspondence or contact between the landlord and the resident.
53. Effective record‑keeping is a core part of a repairs service. Accurate and complete records enable landlords to track the progress of repairs, provide timely updates to residents, monitor outstanding work, and maintain an audit trail that explains delays or decisions. Good records also allow landlords to carry out thorough investigations when things go wrong.
54. We are aware that the landlord has been ordered to review its record keeping in other recent determinations. For that reason, we have not made further orders or recommendations.

Communication

55. We identified instances of poor communication by the landlord, particularly in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of delayed repairs. The resident told us that English is not their first language, therefore we used an interpreter when communicating with them to ensure we fully understood their complaint. It is concerning that the resident has reported language barriers as an obstacle to resolving issues in the property with the landlord. When made aware of potential barriers to accessing its services, the landlord must ensure it considers its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and applies reasonable adjustments where appropriate.