Sovereign Network Group (202532594)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202532594 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Sovereign Network Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
3 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not compensate her for damage to her personal items after a leak and mould in the home. She was also unhappy that it refused to replace her living room flooring.
What the complaint is about
- This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of damaged personal items and flooring.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged personal items and flooring.
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
- We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Damaged personal items and flooring
- The landlord acted in line with its compensation policy and the tenancy agreement.
The complaint
- After the resident referred her case to us, the landlord offered £70 to recognise delays in its complaint handling. This sum is in line with our guidance. However, it ought to have made this offer within its formal complaint response.
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 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £70 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 31 March 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £731 compensation offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so. This represents genuine elements of service failure. |
|
The resident informed us there was mould remaining in the property on the living room door and in the utility room. We recommend the landlord inspects these areas and writes to the resident to set out its position. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
7 April 2025 |
The resident reported mould in her daughter’s bedroom, which she believed was caused by a leak. She also reported damage to a wardrobe, personal belongings, and flooring, and asked how to request compensation. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend. It directed her to claim through her contents insurance. |
|
28 August 2025 |
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord about the repair works carried out in her home. It acknowledged her complaint the same day. |
|
11 September 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It recognised and apologised for the repair delays and offered £688 compensation. |
|
18 October 2025 |
The resident escalated the complaint, reporting damage to her bed, wardrobe, and personal items. She asked the landlord to review its compensation offer. |
|
30 October 2025 |
The resident chased the landlord for a response. |
|
12 November 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. |
|
10 December 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, increasing its compensation offer to £731 for the delay completing the complex repair. This was comprised:
It confirmed it would not replace the doors and said the resident was responsible for the flooring she had installed. It also explained it could not compensate for damaged personal belongings through the complaints process. It advised her to claim through her home insurance or via the landlord’s insurance team if she believed it had been negligent. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to us. To resolve her complaint, she wants the landlord to replace her flooring and compensate her for damaged belongings. |
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 damaged personal items and flooring |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
What we have not considered
- The resident told the landlord that the living conditions had a detrimental impact on the health of the household, including her asthmatic daughter. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have considered
- During a call with this Service, the resident said that although the landlord had compensated her for delays and distress, it had not fairly dealt with the damage to her personal belongings. Our investigation has therefore focused on this issue.
- The resident said the leak was caused by a construction defect. We have not seen evidence confirming the cause.
- The landlord’s compensation policy says it does not usually deal with claims linked to negligence. This includes damage to personal belongings. If a resident asks, the landlord will refer such claims to its insurance team.
- When the resident first reported the leak and mould in April 2025, the landlord advised the resident to claim on her own insurance. It did not mention its liability insurance at that stage. However, the leak had just been reported, and it needed to investigate.
- In August 2025, the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team. The team acted reasonably by explaining its process, giving her a claim form, and asking for photos and other evidence. It is not clear whether she went ahead with the claim.
- Although the resident continued to raise concerns about her damaged items, the landlord had already explained the correct routes for making a claim. Better communication may have helped her understand the limits of the complaints process.
- The landlord reviewed the flooring after the resident and contractors sent photos. It escalated the matter internally, noted minor damage, and confirmed that repairs were the resident’s responsibility. The resident maintains the damage was extensive. Nonetheless, its overall decision was consistent with the tenancy agreement and the ‘who is responsible [for repairs]’ guidance on its website.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated the resident’s options. It directed her to claim through her contents insurance and explained it did not compensate for damage to personal belongings through the complaints process. It also provided details of its liability insurance should she believe it had been negligent. By offering both routes again, it ensured she had access to the correct processes for assessing liability and potential compensation, in line with its policy.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without good reason.
- The landlord’s complaint policy aligned with the Code’s definition of a complaint. The timescales set out in its policy also complied with the Code.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days from the date of complaint. This was in line with the Code.
- The resident asked the landlord to review the compensation on 18 October 2025 due to damage to her personal items. The landlord did not ask whether she wanted to escalate her complaint until 5 November 2025, causing a delay in the complaint escalation. It did not formally acknowledge her request until 12 November 2025. It then issued its final response on 10 December 2025. At stage 2, the landlord did not respond in line with the timescales set in the Code or its own policy. It also did not recognise these shortcomings within its final response. As such, we have made a failure finding.
- Within the landlord’s contact with this Service, it offered the resident £70 compensation for the complaint handling delays. This is in line with our guidance. It is unclear whether it informed the resident about this offer. We have made an order to reflect this.
Learning
General learning
- The landlord should consider whether a risk assessment is needed when residents report health concerns relating to damp and mould.
- Post-stage 2 offers should be made directly to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should capture enough information within its records to evidence the cause of any leaks.
Communication
- Communication with the resident could have been clearer. Training resources are available through our Centre for Learning.