Sovereign Network Group (202520008)

Background

1. The resident reported issues with the hot water in his bathroom to the landlord in February 2025. He complained on 6 August 2025, as he was unhappy the landlord had not fixed the issue. He said the hot water continued to run cold after several minutes.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Hot water issues.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of hot water issues.
4. We found 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 hot water issues

5. The hot water issue has not been resolved, despite a commitment to do so in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The compensation offered was not proportionate to reflect the further inconvenience and delay the resident has experienced.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord provided its complaint responses in line with its policy timescales and the requirements of our 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

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.

7. The resident reported hot water issues to the landlord on 19 February 2025. He said the hot water in the bathroom ran cold after several minutes. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair task on 24 February 2025.
8. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to repair and maintain systems that provide heating and hot water. This is also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it for water, including water heaters.
9. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, a loss of hot water during the winter months (October to February) is classified as an emergency repair, requiring attendance within 24 hours. In this case the resident reported some initial hot water before running cold, which may explain why the landlord did not respond as an emergency. However, an emergency response would have been a reasonable approach.
10. The landlord attended on 12 March 2025, which was within its routine repair target timeframe of one month. It confirmed the hot water was running cold after 5 minutes and an electrical contractor was needed. An electrical contractor attended on 25 March 2025 and noted a specialist valve was required. As the repair was complex, under its repairs policy, the landlord had 90 days to complete the repair.
11. However, the landlord did not refer the repair to the managing agent until 8 weeks lateron 22 May 2025. The landlord stated staff were unclear regarding whohad overall responsibility for the repair. Its failure to effectively coordinate the progress of the repair contributed to ongoing delays and demonstrated a lack of proactive management of the repair process.
12. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 20 June 2025. It noted the intermittent hot water issue had not been resolved and said the water heater may be faulty. However, in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated this attendance should not have taken place. This again raises concerns regarding its repair oversight.
13. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response that further significant additional delays occurred, as the repair referral email of 22 May 2025 was incorrect and was not received by the managing agent. It appears this error was only discovered 4 months later on 26 September 2025 as part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation.
14. Although administrative errors can occur, the landlord is expected to have systems in place to monitor outstanding repairs, to ensure appropriate follow‑up, and to keep accurate records of actions and contractor visits. The failure to detect the error for several months indicates a persistent lack of oversight.
15. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation for its repair delays, communication failings, and the distress caused. It awarded compensation to reflect the significant impact the prolonged, intermittent hot water issues had on the resident and his family, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord also committed to completing the outstanding repair. These were positive steps toward putting things right.
16. The landlord stated it attempted to call the resident to arrange an appointment on 30 September 2025 but there was no response. It also advised the resident cancelled an appointment scheduled for 19 November 2025. No information was provided regarding the resident’s reasons for the appointment cancellation or what further appointments were scheduled.
17. The landlord recently provided us with another stage 2 complaint response dated 26 November 2025, which related to a separate complaint from the resident about damp and mould. However, the response also referenced the hot water issue and stated that the landlord considered this matter to have been resolved. It is unclear on what basis the landlord reached this view, nor did it demonstrate that it had reviewed or considered the relevant repair information from the contractor’s attendance on 24 October 2025.
18. Nevertheless, the resident informed the landlord on 30 November 2025 that the repair was outstanding. The landlord then incorrectly recorded the repair as completed on 5 December 2025, despite records showing that the only work carried out on that date related to an unrelated toilet repair. The resident again chased the hot water repair on 12 December 2025. The landlord was therefore aware of the ongoing hot water issue, but it failed to learn from its earlier failure to effectively monitoring the progress of the repair.
19. Furthermore, at the time of our investigation the repair remained unresolved, almost 6 months after the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s excessive repair delay was significantly outside its complex repair timeframe. This resulted in the resident having to repeatedly chase the repair. Following our intervention the landlord recently contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the hot water issue.
20. The compensation provided did not reflect the continued inconvenience the resident has experienced to date. The landlord also did not commit to a future review of compensation or subsequently demonstrate that it reconsidered the level of redress once the repairs were complete.
21. We have therefore found the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its delayed handling of the hot water repairs. The landlord must pay the resident a further £500 compensation. This total compensation of £1,149 (including the £649 compensation already paid) is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident.
22. Our finding also reflects the steps the landlord took to put matters right, while recognising that those steps were insufficient given the ongoing unresolved issues and the significant inconvenience experienced by the resident.

23. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also comply with the Code.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 6 August 2025 that same day, within its 5-working-day target. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2025, 2 days outside its 10-working-day target. This delay was minimal, and the landlord provided an explanation for its delay (staff shortages) which demonstrated a commitment to open communication.
25. There is no evidence available to show the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request dated 23 August 2025. Despite this, it responded at stage 2 within its overall timescale of 25 working days (including the 5-working-day timescale to acknowledge the complaint). Therefore, there is no evidence that this caused any significant detriment to the resident.
26. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and took accountability for its delays and errors. As such, the quality of the responses was in line with expectations. As the landlord’s complaint responses were in line with its overall policy timescales and the Code, and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was negatively impacted by some minor omissions, we have found no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

27. The landlord identified relevant learning. It said it would ensure its staff understood its repair responsibilities which was an issue in this case. However, it did not acknowledge its repeated failure to effectively monitor the progress of the repair, and the repair remains unresolved. The landlord may wish to review this case as this may help the landlord to identify potential service improvements to improve its repairs monitoring

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records were sufficient to enable a thorough review of the complaint. However, record keeping issues were noted in its complaint handling. It should ensure that escalation requests are acknowledged in line with its policy timescales.

Communication

29. The landlord accepted its communication failings, which was appropriate. It compensated the resident for his time and trouble having to chase updates. The landlord should reflect on its repairs communication, as positive communication helps timely resolution and build trust.