Sovereign Network Group (202533132)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about delays completing repairs to address damp resulting from a leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to complete repair work within its policy timescales. The matter remains outstanding. Due to this its compensation offer was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It did not acknowledge this throughout its complaint process.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the damp and mould on her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness caused via the courts. 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 illness 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 did investigate

7. Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
8. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and she had to spend time chasing it for information and progress. These failings likely worsened the situation and increased the impact on her.
9. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 1 August 2025 was timely. It inspected the property 12 days later and found no visible mould but damp areas in the living room and kitchen. It promptly raised repair work the following day to investigate the cause of damp.
10. That said, delays ensued throughout the case in the landlord completing the required repairs. It inspected the issue 4 days after its 28‑day routine repair deadline and identified a leak from a neighbouring property as the cause of the damp. However, it did not repair the leak until 8 December 2025, which was after its final response and over 3 months outside its policy timescales. Although it recorded one no‑access attempt to gain entry to the neighbouring property, it did not take a proactive approach to resolving the issue. After repairing the leak, it also failed to arrange the necessary remedial work in the resident’s home within a reasonable timeframe, and this work remains outstanding.
11. The resident told the landlord that her children were injured as a result of the outstanding repair work. It would have been reasonable for it to provide details of its liability insurer in response. As it has not demonstrated it has done so throughout this case, we have made a recommendation.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 investigation it asked the resident for receipts for food she had to throw away due to damp damage. It then compensated her for these items in its final response. This was reasonable and aligned with its compensation policy.
14. The landlord offered the resident £207 in compensation to acknowledge its failings up to 28 October 2025. However, after issuing its final response, it did not complete the repair work within a reasonable timeframe. Seven months after the resident’s original report, she has told us the repair work remains outstanding, showing poor oversight and ineffective repair monitoring. As a result, we found its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays and detriment the resident experienced. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered additional compensation and specific actions to resolve the outstanding repairs, consistent with our principles of fairness and putting things right.

15. 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 complied with the Code.
16. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage. This was not in line with its policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and indicates a record keeping failure.
17. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 6 working days outside its published timescale of 20 working days. It did not acknowledge its delay, apologise or offer redress to the resident in its response. We have made an order for it to apologise and pay compensation of £50. This is in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there had been a failing.

Learning

18. The landlord did not monitor the repair actions it agreed in its complaint responses. It should put processes in place to ensure it tracks and completes agreed actions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements for complaints to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

20. The landlord failed to consistently communicate about delays throughout the repairs process. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns. It should keep them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.