Sovereign Network Group (202520357)

Decision
Case ID	202520357
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported that intermittent water ingress in multiple rooms of the property was causing damp, mould and electrical hazards. The resident lives with her children, some of whom have asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water ingress, and subsequent damp, mould, and electrical hazards.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, and subsequent damp, mould, and electrical hazards.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of water ingress, and subsequent damp, mould, and electrical hazards

4. The landlord failed to assess the cause of, or resolve, the damp and mould. It did not trace the source of recurring water ingress or assess electrical safety. It failed to complete these actions over a significant period of time.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord complied with its complaint handling timescales but did not address all the points raised in the complaint or complete the actions it agreed to in its complaint responses.

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 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, and subsequent damp, mould, and electrical hazards £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint 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 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspections are completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspections must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspections, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection/s must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor/s: inspect water ingress, damp and mould, and electrical safety in the property and produce written reports with photographs. The survey report/s must set out: whether there is an emergency or significant hazard, based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the water ingress, damp and mould, and any electrical hazards whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issues together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and us with a copy of its report/s by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 27 February 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the record keeping failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its learning.	No later than 27 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 August 2025	The resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said: a leak in multiple rooms had not been resolved since 2020 on 10 June 2025 it found significant water ingress in multiple rooms and recommended urgent follow-on works but it had taken no further action a specialist was due to investigate on 1 August 2025 but had not there was mould in the property which had returned, despite previous mould washes, as the source of water ingress had not been found water was entering the light fittings, and she had to remove lightbulbs the mould and electrics made her worry about her children’s safety it was her causing stress and impacting her mental health she asked if temporary alternative accommodation was required due to unsafe living conditions
15 August 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It acknowledged its delays in resolving the leak and testing the electrical safety. It acknowledged this had resulted in mould in the property. It said the resident had cancelled the follow-on works. It said a contractor would contact her the following week to book appointments to test the electrics and investigate the source of the leak.
22 August 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said: she had not cancelled an appointment and asked the landlord to correct this it had not contacted her to arrange appointments to resolve the leak and complete electrical safety testing as agreed her reports of leaks, mould and electrical hazards had started in 2020, and she wanted to know why it had not resolved this sooner
29 September 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: it acknowledged the resident had not cancelled an appointment a contractor tested electrical safety in July 2025 and found no faults it had not investigated the leak as its records showed it was resolved it agreed to contact the resident within 7 days to book a roof and structural inspection it apologised for its lack of communication with the resident it offered £150 compensation for delay, distress, time, and trouble, calculated at £25 per week from 15 August to 29 September 2025
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not completed the works it agreed to. She wanted it to trace and repair the ongoing leak, and to resolve the damp, mould and electrical safety issues.

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	Reports of water ingress, and subsequent damp, mould, and electrical hazards
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident reported issues to the landlord between 2020 and 2025. Our investigation will only consider events from August 2024 onwards. This is so that we can conduct a thorough and effective investigation. We may refer to events before this for context.
7. The resident told us she raised a new complaint with her landlord in January 2026, similar to the complaint we have considered in this investigation. We have not investigated any new issues occurring since the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, we have considered whether it resolved the issues the resident raised and completed the actions it agreed to, within its complaint procedure. The resident may wish to raise any new issues as part of a new, or ongoing complaint with the landlord.
8. The resident told us hers and her children’s health was affected. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord raised mould treatment works on 12 February 2025. It completed some works, although the nature and date of these is unclear from its records. On 9 April 2025 it raised mould wash works in a bathroom and bedroom. Its records show it cancelled these works and the reason for this is not recorded. The landlord raised works to repair a bathroom fan on 14 April 2025. Its records show these works were completed, although it is unclear when.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property including drains and pipes. On 6 May 2025 the landlord raised works to investigate a potential pipe leak. It did not set a timescale to respond, and the extent of the leak is unclear from its records. This has impacted our assessment of the timeliness of its response.
11. The landlord inspected on 3 June 2025 and found no active leak. Its poor record keeping of this visit has impacted our assessment, although its stage 1 response suggests a further inspection or works were required. Despite being aware that the resident would be away, the landlord booked follow-on works for 23 June 2025 and had to cancel them. The nature of the follow-on works is unclear, and it did not rebook them.
12. On 15 May 2025 the resident reported that the leak had caused staining on her ceiling. The landlord responded by inspecting on 10 June 2025 and found active leaks in multiple rooms. It suggested the leak may have been coming from communal pipes from higher in the building. It did not investigate further or repair this in line with its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement or within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
13. On 10 June 2025 the landlord found water leaking through the light fittings, creating an electrical hazard. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018) imposes an implied term on landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy.
14. When on notice of a potential hazard, the landlord should have assessed the risk, determined its responsibility, and addressed the issue to maintain habitability if required. It said contractors tested the electrics and found no faults on 16 July 2025 but the resident disputes that any inspections took place in July 2025. The evidence the landlord provided from its contractors relates to works raised in 2024 and it has not evidenced that any electrical safety testing took place in 2025.
15. When the resident reported damp and mould on 10 and 12 June 2025, the landlord did not identify the cause or provide a solution in line with its damp and mould policy. Despite the resident’s reports that her children had asthma and she was concerned about their health, it failed to risk assess or identify whether any action was required to mitigate risk.
16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. It is unclear why it did not refer to the electrical inspection it later said was completed in July 2025.
    2. It said it inspected on 1 August 2025 and found the same as it had on 10 June 2025. Its failure to provide evidence of this visit is a further record keeping failure.
    3. It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right to agree to arrange an electrical inspection and inspect the source of the leak.
    4. Despite acknowledging the mould, it did not set out what it would do to inspect or resolve it.
    5. Despite acknowledging a delay in resolving the leak, it did not offer any compensation to put things right.
    6. It unreasonably failed to respond to queries about alternative accommodation.
17. The landlord did not complete the actions it agreed to in its stage 1 response.
18. In the landlord’s stage 2 response:
    1. It was unreasonable for it to not agree to assess the electrical hazards, given that it suggested it found hazards on 1 August 2025.
    2. It did not address the issue of damp and mould.
    3. It made some attempt to put things right by offering redress, although it is unclear why it only offered compensation from 15 August 2025.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

19. The landlord did not provide evidence that it arranged a roof or structural assessment within the agreed 7 days after its stage 2 response. It raised works to investigate roof leaks on 31 October 2025. Although its records show these works were completed, they do not confirm when or what was found. A follow‑on inspection was raised on 20 November 2025, but it is unclear whether this took place. The resident told us she believed the landlord had not inspected or identified the source of the water ingress.
20. In October and November 2025, several organisations reported concerns to the landlord about worsening risks linked to the electrics and mould. The landlord inspected the property on 7 November 2025 and confirmed the presence of damp and mould but did not identify the cause. It raised mould‑related works on 20 and 26 November 2025. Its records show these works were completed, though it is unclear when. The landlord said it completed an Awaab’s Law assessment in December 2025 and removed mould at the property.
21. The landlord completed works raised in October and November 2025 in response to the resident’s reports of water entering electrics and flickering lights. The date and nature of these works is unclear from the evidence. The resident said it changed a light bulb but did not assess the safety of the electrics. She said it inspected following electrical safety concerns in January 2026. It is unclear whether this related to water ingress.
22. The resident said she was unable to decorate and had to regularly clean the mould. She told us she was unable to use some of the electrics, did not feel safe and was concerned for her children. She said the issues had a significant impact on her wellbeing, she had to take medication and attend counselling. She told us her children had worsening breathing problems and needed medical treatment. She said she lost trust in the landlord and spent time chasing it, which she said caused inconvenience and distress.
23. The landlord did not appropriately respond to reports of hazards in the property for a significant period of time, despite reported health concerns. It failed to respond to the resident’s request to consider temporary alternative accommodation, despite its repairs policy referring to the potential need to provide this as a result of repairs. It also failed to consider whether other interim solutions were required to mitigate the impact on the resident.
24. The landlord offered some redress but did not identify all its failures. It failed to complete inspections and works at the property or to provide accurate updates to the resident. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for failures where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to its failings. This includes orders to pay additional compensation and inspect the water ingress, damp and mould, and electrical safety.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were in line with the 2024 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with its 5 working day timescale. It issued a stage 1 response 9 working days after, in line with its 10-working day timescale. It did not acknowledge her complaint at stage 2 in line with its complaints policy but it issued a stage 2 response 25 working days after escalation. This was within the maximum 25 working day period its complaints policy timescales allowed.
26. The resident raised issues going back to 2020. The Code requires landlords to explain if they limit the investigation period. The landlord did not assess its actions before 2025 but did not make it clear in its complaint responses how far back it was investigating. It did not respond to the resident’s reports that the issues had started in 2020, and requests for it to explain why it had not resolved this sooner. In doing so, it did not respond to all issues raised, in line with the Code.
27. The landlord generally responded in line with its complaint timescales and apologised for an inaccuracy in its complaint response. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to address all the points raised in the complaint. The resident said she lost trust in the landlord as it did not respond to all her concerns or complete the actions it agreed to in its complaints process. We have therefore made a compensation order for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure that it did not acknowledge or put right.

Learning

28. The landlord set out learning at stage 1. It said it was completing an internal review and identified that better communication and coordination would have improved the outcome for the resident. The failures of service following its stage 1 response suggest further learning was required. We have therefore made a learning order. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Poor record keeping impacted our assessment and likely contributed to errors in the landlord’s complaint responses, and failure to complete works and assess hazards. Its records were at times unclear, did not evidence whether or when works were completed, or detail outcomes. It did not evidence inspections on 3 and 10 June and 1 August 2025.

Communication

30. The landlord’s records suggest lack of oversight of works contributed to the failures identified. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication with the resident.