Sovereign Network Group (202526712)

Decision
Case ID	202526712
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 June 2026

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to address structural concerns with the property which she stated had been ongoing since 2013. She also raised concerns that the landlord had not made reasonable adjustments to enable her to adequately discuss and pursue the matter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of works to address subsidence.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
   1. Handling of works to address subsidence.
   2. Complaint handling.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence was inadequate due to poor management and oversight of the issue, as well as a failure to take timely and appropriate action. As a result, the matter has remained unresolved and made insufficient progress over an extended period. Although the landlord did offer compensation, this does not adequately reflect either the length of time the issue persisted or the impact of the landlord’s shortcomings on the resident.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment was inadequate. Although it was appropriate not to share the resident’s account details with the support worker, as it did not have proper consent, the landlord should have considered whether the resident required communication adjustments based on the information provided by the support worker. There is no evidence that it did so.
7. There were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord delayed in logging the complaint, and limited the scope of its investigation which resulted in an incomplete assessment of events. Furthermore it did not address all aspects of the complaint and failed to commit to providing regular updates until the matter at the centre of the complaint was resolved.

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 30 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 compensation comprising: £800 to recognise the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence. This amount includes the £400 previously offered by the landlord in its complaint response. £50 to recognise the landlord’s failure to adequately consider the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment, and the resulting distress caused. £100 to recognise the failures in complaint handling, and the uncertainty and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment, by the due date.	No later than 30 June 2026
3	Action order The Landlord must write to the resident with a comprehensive update regarding the works required to address the identified subsidence. This update must include, but is not limited to: A detailed update on the current status of the insurance claim made in respect of the subsidence, including any decisions, progress, or outstanding actions. A clear timeline for the proposed works to remedy the subsidence, even if this timeline is provisional or subject to change. A clear commitment to maintaining regular communication with the resident regarding progress. This shall include setting out the frequency of updates, for example monthly, and considering whether to provide a name point of contact in relation to this matter in order to support her reasonable adjustment needs.	No later than 30 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We acknowledge the resident’s expressed wish to move to a new property. In order to provide appropriate support, the landlord should ensure that the resident is given clear, comprehensive, and accessible information on all available options to facilitate a move. This should include, but not be limited to, details on transfer schemes, mutual exchange opportunities, rehousing pathways, and any relevant eligibility criteria, processes, and timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 September 2025	The resident made a complaint. In summary she said: She had reported structural concerns with the property since the beginning of her tenancy in July 2013. In 2023 she raised a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of these concerns. Following this a technical surveyor (TS) inspected the property and recommended the installation of tell tales. There had been significant delays and multiple failed appointments in arranging the installation of the tell tales. Although the TS had attended the property on 18 July 2025 to inspect the tell tales she had not received any subsequent update or information about the next steps. She had attempted to escalate the 2023 complaint however the landlord had not responded. The landlord had refused to engage with her support worker who had requested that it provide her with a dedicated officer to discuss the repairs. The ongoing situation was having a detrimental impact on her mental health.
14 October 2025	The landlord replied at stage 1. In summary it said: It had investigated the resident’s concerns “within the 12 month timeframe advised by the Housing Ombudsman”. It was sorry that its communication with the resident had been poor. Following the TS’s recent visit the matter had been passed to its insurance team. This process was lengthy and involved monitoring the property before any decisions were made. The tell tales which were installed were currently being monitored and the TS was waiting further advice from the insurers. It was sorry that it had not updated the resident until she had contacted it. It had raised a task for the resident’s locality officer to contact her directly. It was unable to discuss the resident’s account with the support worker as it did not have consent recorded on her file. The resident should contact its contact centre to set this up. It had been unable to locate any complaint which had gone unanswered. It was unable to offer compensation as it had not identified a service failure in its handling of the subsidence investigation.
17 October 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. In summary she said: The landlord had not taken into account that the subsidence had not been remedied since her original complaint dated 2023. She had not been provided with an action plan or timeline of works required to address the subsidence. The external paths outside the property and front door step were uneven. Inside the property there were “9 significant cracks”. The landlord had not clarified the role of the locality officer or confirmed when they would contact her. As an outcome to the complaint she would like to be rehoused.
5 November 2025	The landlord replied at stage 2. In summary it said: It acknowledged that there had been delays in attending the property and conducting investigations, along with poor communication and updates in relation to the subsidence. Following the TS’s visit in July 2025 it referred the matter to its insurance team. It was waiting for the claim to be processed to understand what the next steps were. This was taking time because as part of this process it was required to monitor the property. This was to ensure that appropriate works were undertaken.  Authority to discuss the resident’s tenancy with her support worker had been added to her account following receipt of consent. The resident had spoken with its Specialist Housing Team on 21 October 2025 regarding rehousing. It understood that the resident had applied to go onto the local authority’s housing register and joined Homeswapper which were the correct methods to progress a move. It would like to offer the resident £400 compensation comprising: £150 for “timescale”. £100 for “lack of communication and updates”. £150 for “stress, impact and inconvenience caused”.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the complaint response as the subsidence issue remained unresolved and she had not received a clear plan of action or any updates on the next steps. She also advised that she no longer wished to remain in the property including as she believes the necessary repair work cannot be carried out while the property is occupied.

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 works to address subsidence.
Finding	Maladministration

8. While we note the resident’s report that the property has experienced subsidence since the start of her tenancy in 2013 this assessment covers a more recent timeframe. Taking into account the passage of time and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have focused on events from the beginning of 2023 which is approximately 2 and a half years prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which was subsequently referred to us. We consider this to be a reasonable period.
9. On 25 April 2023 the resident reported a repair about subsidence that had not been addressed by the landlord. On the following day the landlord confirmed that it would arrange a property inspection. This was appropriate to allow the landlord to assess the issue and decide what action was needed.
10. The inspection took place on 21 June 2023. This was 2 months after the resident raised the repair. We consider that this was a protracted period of time and it should have been completed within a shorter timeframe.
11. The landlord has confirmed that a copy of the inspection report is not available. This indicates poor recordkeeping practices. It is reasonable to expect that formal property inspectionsare properly documented and retained. Accurate and accessible records are essential to ensure transparency, allow for informed decisionmaking, and provide a clear audit trail of actions taken. The absence of such a report limits the ability to verify what was observed during the inspection, what conclusions were drawn, and whether appropriate followup actions were identified at that time.
12. We however understand that the inspection concluded that a structural engineer should carry out a further assessment. This was reasonable, as structural engineers specialise in subsidence and are best placed to provide an expert view on the cause and extent of the issue, as well as recommending the right course of action.
13. The inspection took place on 13 August 2023. Following the inspection follow up works were raised to install tell tales on 3 external walls. This was appropriate as it was an recommended action to monitor any movement over time and help determine whether the subsidence was ongoing or stable.
14. The tell tales were installed in October 2024. This was approximately 14 months after the works were raised. This represents a significant and unreasonable delay. Diagnostic monitoring should have been implemented within a timely period to properly assess and manage the issue. The delay will have hindered effective investigation, prolonged uncertainty, and may have contributed to the issue remaining unresolved for longer than necessary.
15. The evidence shows that there were multiple unsuccessful attempts to install the tell tales prior to October 2024. This was caused by operatives either failing to attend or attending without the necessary materials. This constitutes a service failure and reflects poor oversight and management of the issue. Appropriate planning and coordination should have ensured the work was completed without repeated avoidable delays.
16. On 18 July 2025 the landlord attended the property to inspect the tell tales. Following this inspection the landlord determined that the matter should be referred to its insurers. This was a reasonable course of action, as the tell tales indicated there may be an underlying issue requiring further investigation. In such circumstances, it is standard practice for a landlord to refer suspected structural concerns to its insurers before undertaking remedial works, particularly where there may be implications for insurance coverage and liability.
17. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not refer the matter to its insurance team until October 2025, despite having confirmed approximately 3 months earlier that this was the appropriate course of action. This delay constitutes a service failure, as the landlord did not act in a timely manner on its own identified process. By failing to make the referral promptly the landlord caused avoidable delay in progressing the claim, which is likely to have prolonged the overall resolution of the matter.
18. Following the end of the complaint procedure the insurer completed its initial investigation of the cause of the subsidence. In March 2026 the insurer concluded that the problem was likely due to leaking drains. It confirmed that it would appoint its contractor to compile a detailed schedule of works.
19. The evidence shows the landlord’s communication about the subsidence was poor. It failed to provide regular updates which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and reduce uncertainty. This lack of contact, together with unanswered requests for information, such as the resident’s 16 April 2025 enquiry about tell tale monitoring, likely caused distress and left her feeling her concerns were not taken seriously. This falls below expected standards for keeping residents informed about ongoing investigations and monitoring.
20. It is not reasonable that, despite the subsidence being reported in early 2023, the issue still has not been resolved or the necessary repairs properly progressed. This has been due to a number of failings by the landlord in managing and coordinating a proper response and investigation from early 2023.
21. In responding to the complaint, the landlord accepted shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence from summer 2025 and awarded £400 compensation. While it was appropriate to acknowledge these failings, we do not consider the amount proportionate. This is because the landlord’s failures were not limited to a short or isolated period but formed part of a wider pattern of delay and inadequate management dating back to early 2023.
22. As set out above, despite reporting subsidence in 2023, the issue remains unresolved and insufficiently progressed due to the landlord’s failure to effectively investigate, coordinate, and take timely action. The impact on the resident must therefore be assessed in light of this prolonged period of uncertainty, inconvenience, and potential risk, rather than only the events from summer 2025 onwards. In this context, the compensation offered does not adequately reflect the duration of the matter, the cumulative effect of the landlord’s shortcomings, or the distress and disruption experienced by the resident as a result. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
Finding	Service failure

23. On 6 February 2025 the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord requesting that a single point of contact be provided for matters relating to both the complaint and the subsidence issue. The support worker explained that the resident has autism and was experiencing significant difficulty navigating the landlord’s services.
24. On 12 February 2025 the landlord responded to the support worker, stating that it was unable to discuss the resident’s tenancy as it did not have the authority to do so. It advised that the resident could contact it directly via its contact centre, by email, or through social media.
25. The support worker replied on the same day. They said they did not wish to discuss the resident’s case with the landlord. However, they asked the landlord to consider offering the resident additional housing support. This would allow her to speak to someone directly and consistently, without going through the landlord’s call menu which she found challenging. In response the landlord set out that the resident should contact it directly so that it “could discuss things clearer”.
26. While it was appropriate for the landlord to decline to discuss the resident’s account with the support worker, as it did not have the authority or consent to do so, we consider that its overall response was unreasonable. This is because the support worker had shared information indicating that the resident may have additional communication needs which could be affecting her ability to engage effectively with the landlord in relation to her tenancy.
27. In these circumstances, although the landlord could not share account details, the information provided should have prompted it to consider whether the resident required any adjustments to the way it communicated with her. We consider it would have been good practice for the landlord to contact the resident directly following the support worker’s approach to check whether the concerns raised were accurate, to understand the resident’s preferred communication methods, and to identify whether any reasonable adjustments or additional support could assist her in managing her tenancy. By not taking these steps, the landlord missed an opportunity to better support the resident’s communication needs. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.
28. We understand that during the complaint process the resident provided consent for the support worker to communicate with the landlord on matters relating to her tenancy.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s service, actions, or inaction, and confirms that residents do not need to use the word complaint for it to be recognised. Landlords are expected to identify such expressions and offer the resident the opportunity to have the matter treated as a formal complaint.
30. On 19 September 2025, the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of subsidence works, meeting the definition of a complaint. However, the landlord did not confirm it would address the matter through its complaints procedure until 1 October 2025. This was 3 working days outside the Code’s timescale for acknowledging and logging a complaint. This represents a service failure as the landlord did not promptly recognise and act on the complaint, delaying the complaints process.
31. Following acknowledgement, the landlord provided its stage 1 response within the Code’s 10 working day timeframe, and its stage 2 response within the prescribed 20 working days.
32. At stage 1, the landlord stated that it would limit its investigation of the subsidence to a 12 month period, citing advice from the Housing Ombudsman’s Code. While the Code allows a landlord to decline a complaint where the issue arose more than 12 months previously, this provision does not prevent consideration of earlier events where a complaint has been accepted. Given the ongoing nature of the reported subsidence it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take account of the broader history in order to properly assess its actions and obligations. By relying on the Code to restrict its investigation to a 12 month period the landlord’s investigation failed to address key aspects of its handling and response.
33. In its complaint response the landlord explained that it was awaiting the outcome of the insurance team’s investigation to determine next steps for the subsidence. While it is acknowledged that further information was not available at that stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to commit to providing updates at agreed intervals. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right, particularly given its own recognition of previous poor communication. Regular contact would have helped reassure the resident and manage expectations, even during periods where there was no material progress.
34. When escalating the complaint the resident requested further information about the locality officer. The landlord failed to address this point in its stage 2 response. This represented a missed opportunity to provide clarity and fully resolve the resident’s concerns.
35. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the landlord ultimately met the required timescales for its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, it failed to promptly recognise and log the resident’s complaint, resulting in a delay outside the Code’s expectations. This was compounded by the landlord’s decision to limit its investigation to a 12 month period which led to an incomplete assessment of an ongoing issue. Furthermore, the landlord missed an opportunity to commit to providing regular updates while awaiting the outcome of the insurance investigation as a resolution and provide further information on the locality officer. Taken together, these failings demonstrate that the landlord did not fully act in accordance with the Code or adopt a resident focused approach.

Learning

Complaint handling

36. The landlord should ensure its complaint handling approach aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code by recognising that, where a complaint has been accepted for investigation, the Code does not prevent consideration of events that occurred more than 12 months prior, as these may provide essential context to the issues raised. Accordingly, the landlord should review its procedures to avoid excluding relevant historical events solely on age, adopt a holistic approach to investigations that considers the full timeline where necessary, and provide appropriate guidance and training to complaint handlers to ensure timeframes are not applied rigidly in a way that could undermine a fair, thorough, and informed outcome.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. This investigation identified gaps in the landlord’s record keeping, particularly around documenting inspections. The landlord should ensure that all inspections are consistently recorded, including dates, findings, and any follow-up actions. In doing so the landlord should have regard to the Housing Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight Report, which emphasises that accurate and comprehensive records are essential to demonstrate service delivery and effective management.

Communication

38. This investigation has identified shortcomings in the landlord’s communication with the resident. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its communication practices to ensure they are consistent, regular, and timely. The landlord should maintain clear and proactive engagement with residents throughout the handling of cases. In particular even when there are no substantive updates available, the landlord should provide holding updates to keep the resident informed of progress and expected next steps. This approach will help manage expectations, maintain transparency, and improve the overall resident experience.