Sovereign Network Group (202526784)

Decision
Case ID	202526784
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

The resident moved into a flat in a block in February 2025. She told the landlord she has mental health conditions, is neurodivergent, and is at risk of domestic abuse. She raised concerns about her safety in relation to domestic and honour-based abuse and complained that the landlord did not act appropriately, promptly or communicate clearly in response.

What the complaint is about

The landlord handling of:
1. Reports of safety concerns
2. The complaint

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in the landlords handling of reports of safety concerns.
2. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Safety concerns

The landlord took some appropriate safeguarding steps, but its communication about a safeguarding referral was unclear, inconsistent, and significantly delayed, falling short of policy requirements for clear and timely safeguarding responses. This led to confusion, raised expectations, and undermined the resident’s confidence at a time when she was vulnerable.

The complaint

The landlord met its response timescale at stage 1. Its stage 2 response was issued one day outside its stated timescale. This was a minimal delay, and there is no evidence that it caused any disadvantage to the resident. On that basis, the delay does not amount to a complaint‑handling shortcoming.

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 19 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of safety concerns. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

19 March 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of safety concerns.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

19 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss what support it can offer with her re‑housing options.
The landlord should also consider contacting the resident to reassure her about how the accreditation process will improve its handling of future cases.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord explaining she continued to feel unsafe due to possible domestic abuse and felt the landlord did not act promptly after she reported her concerns. She said there were delays, limited communication, and missed safeguarding actions, which she believed resulted in inadequate support.
4 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response and said it had completed the required assessments and referrals, acknowledged some communication errors, and apologised. It explained that some decisions were made by external agencies and that safety measures were installed when recommended. It found no evidence of staff misconduct and advised the resident to contact the police about any safety concerns. It later made an additional referral it considered appropriate and noted the resident was already linked with a support organisation.
4 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had given unclear or inconsistent information about referrals, safety measures, support services, and how her data was handled. She also questioned comments about contacting other agencies and sought clarity on why her case had been opened.
8 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and acknowledged communication issues and apologised for specific errors. It clarified its role in referrals, confirmed what safety measures it provided, and explained that some actions were outside its responsibilities. It said it had no evidence of any disclosure of the resident’s information and clarified why it had referenced her contact with other agencies. It explained that the domestic abuse case was opened after concerns identified during a tenancy visit.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she felt the landlord did not follow safeguarding or referral processes and provided incorrect information. She felt its approach showed possible bias and did not handle safety measures appropriately. She wanted a written apology, compensation, a review of safeguarding processes, and support to be re-housed.

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 safety concerns.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident said she was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with her subject access request (SAR). Issues relating to data protection and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the appropriate body to consider any alleged breaches of this legislation and to decide whether an organisation has met its legal duties. We will therefore not consider this issue as part of our investigation.
The resident told us she felt the landlord’s handling of situation affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any issues 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’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

There has been extensive correspondence between the resident and the landlord. While we recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses, this report does not assess every point raised. Instead, we have considered the available evidence and assessed the landlord’s overall handling of the case, including whether it acted reasonably and in line with its policies.
The resident complained to the landlord that she believed the landlord would make a referral following her disclosures in early 2025. The landlord said it opened a domestic abuse (DA) case in February 2025 and completed a risk assessment on 20 February 2025, which did not meet the multi‑agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) threshold. It said it sought advice from support agencies and apologised in July 2025 for unclear communication that may have led the resident to believe a referral had been made.
The resident also complained that no safety measures were put in place despite her view that risks were ongoing. She also questioned why the landlord later supplied a video doorbell when she had previously been told she did not meet the threshold for equipment, and she sought clarity on panic alarms. In its complaint response, it acknowledged it did not respond when she raised the issue about panic alarms on 24 July 2025 and apologised. It also said it received a security‑measure referral on 25 July 2025 and provided window alarms and a camera on 31 July 2025, with lighting works completed by 8 August 2025. It confirmed the video doorbell formed part of this referral and that it does not provide panic alarms. The evidence shows the landlord received a recommendation for safety measures and completed this work within a reasonable timeframe following required checks.
In her escalated complaint, the resident told the landlord some safeguarding signposting was incorrect. The evidence confirms the resident informed the landlord that one organisation suggested by the landlord was not available locally. The landlord later provided appropriate alternative signposting. Its policy states that it will work with relevant local authority departments and other agencies to support safeguarding. The initial inaccurate signposting did not meet that expectation, although the later correction was appropriate.
The resident disputed the landlord’s response that it advised her to change her passwords when her social media accounts were hacked. There is no evidence that the landlord gave this advice, although records show the resident told the landlord on 17 June 2025 that she had updated her passwords. The landlord visited her on 19 June 2025 to discuss her concerns, which was an appropriate response. The resident also complained that the landlord made inappropriate references to her previous landlord’s ethnicity and religion. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised, which was appropriate.
The landlord took several appropriate safeguarding actions, including engaging with agencies, carrying out home visits, and installing safety measures promptly once the referral was received. However, its communication about the MARAC threshold and referral outcome was unclear and delayed. This caused confusion, raised expectations, and reduced the resident’s confidence in the support available. Given her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have communicated more promptly and clearly. While other parts of its response were reasonable, the communication failures were not fully remedied by the apology. We have therefore made orders to the landlord.
As part of the outcome of this investigation, the resident said she wanted the landlord to improve staff training so it can respond better in similar situations. The landlord’s website states that it is working towards Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA) accreditation. While the landlord identified areas of learning in its formal responses, we have made a recommendation in relation to this.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, and the process allows a 5‑day acknowledgement period in line with our Complaint Handling Code. In this case, the resident complained on 30 July 2025.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2025, which was within the required timescale. The resident asked to escalate the complaint the same day. The landlord issued its final response on 8 September 2025, 26 working days later, which was one day outside its policy timescale.
Although the landlord missed its stage 2 target by one day, the delay was minimal, and there is no evidence that it had any adverse impact on the resident. The short delay, therefore, does not amount to a complaint handling failure

Learning

Communication

While the landlord took several appropriate safeguarding actions, it’s unclear and delayed communication undermined the effectiveness of its response. The landlord should strengthen its safeguarding communication processes, so staff provide clear, timely, and accurate updates – particularly about referral thresholds and outcomes – to prevent confusion and avoid raising expectations for vulnerable residents.

Record keeping

The landlord should consider strengthening its record‑keeping practices to ensure all safeguarding actions, advice given, and referral decisions are recorded clearly, accurately, and in chronological order.