Sovereign Network Group (202539137)

Decision
Case ID	202539137
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sovereign Network Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing damp and mould in the property. She said the damp and mould, and overcrowding, were causing health problems for her family and she wanted it resolved. The landlord was aware young children lived in the property.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

There were a series of significant failures which had a detrimental impact on the resident and her family. This included alleged health issues and children unable to sleep in their room due to mould and humidity. The landlord failed to complete repairs to resolve the damp and mould over a significant period. Its communication with the resident regarding the inspections and outcomes was poor. It failed to consider relevant legislation in ensuring the property was habitable and in considering a material change. It failed to monitor its outsourced services and did not acknowledge the resident’s health concerns or the impact on her children.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and the 2024 Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 provided by the Chief Executive 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 28 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,182 made up as follows: £1,400 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property £782 as offered in its complaint responses 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 as offered in its complaint responses and provide evidence of the payments.	No later than 28 May 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works identified in its most recent damp and mould inspection are completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to, or explain why it cannot whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed	No later than 28 May 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must send the resident copies of any available inspection reports related the damp and mould in her property. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026
5	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report in its handling of the reports of damp and mould. It should set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 28 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 October 2025	The resident complained about persistent damp and mould. She said with 7 occupants in a 2-bedroom flat, the overcrowding exacerbated the issue. She said preventative measures were not effective and her clothes and belongings were damaged by mould. She wanted an immediate resolution.
28 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it instructed contractors to carry out repairs in February 2025. It was waiting for information on what work they had completed and what remained outstanding. It acknowledged the distress caused by the delays and poor service. It said following a further inspection on 31 October 2025, it would monitor the works to ensure there were no further delays. It recognised its poor record keeping and offered £713 compensation. This was made up of: £310 for the delay, £310 for distress and £93 for time and trouble.
29 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the issues had persisted for years and had caused health problems for her and her children. She reiterated there was damage to her belongings. She said she wanted a permanent resolution to the damp and mould and a review of her overcrowded living situation which made the issue worse.
2 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It gave a brief overview of repairs identified in a 7 November 2025 inspection and said a contractor would contact the resident to make arrangements. It said it did not operate an internal transfer list, and she should contact the local authority for support with the bidding process. It referred her to her home contents insurance for the damaged belongings and provided its details. It apologised for a delayed inspection and for any distress and inconvenience caused and said it would monitor the works until completion. It offered a further £69 compensation in addition to its stage 1 offer. This was made up of £30 for the delay, £30 for distress and £9 for time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the damp and mould issue remained unresolved and was still impacting her and her family’s health. She said the landlord had failed to carry out any repairs to resolve the root cause and she wanted a permanent resolution.

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 the damp and mould in the property
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said there had been damp and mould in the property for 13 years. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back so far. We will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, the focus of this investigation will only consider events from 5 November 2024, when the evidence shows the resident reported the issue.
She also said the damp and mould had caused health problems for her family. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best equipped to resolve such matters with the support of independent medical evidence. We have not investigated this further. We can assess if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 5 November 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says where young children are present, it will prioritise and aim to assess the issue within 3 days. It inspected the property on 10 January 2025, 45 working days later. It is unclear why it delayed inspecting, and its response time was not in line with its policy.
The inspection identified works required in the bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen. The resident asked the landlord for a copy of the inspection report. The landlord’s records note it arranged a further survey of the property on 23 January 2025. It is unclear why it raised a follow up survey, or if it communicated its reasons to the resident. There is no evidence to show it responded to her request for a copy of the inspection report which is a failure.
Whilst the landlord completed the follow up survey, it is unclear what it identified because it has not provided us with a copy of the report.
On 20 February 2025 the landlord assigned a work order to its contractors to carry out repairs to the property. It is unclear why it took 20 working days to raise the work order following the survey. The delay was not in line with its damp and mould policy, which says it will complete any works as quickly as possible.
The landlord’s records show a quote for various damp and mould repairs dated 10 March 2025. It included removing gutter debris and applying damp treatments before replastering rooms. On 1 April 2025 the landlord requested a review of the quote stating discrepancies in repairs previously identified. That same day, the resident told it a contractor failed to complete a mould treatment, due to the extent of the works required.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it recognises the need to deal with damp and mould quickly. The resident told us it provided a dehumidifier as an interim measure, which was reasonable, although it is unclear when this was.
There is no evidence of any correspondence from the end of April 2025 to October 2025. It is unclear what repairs the landlord carried out in this time or if there were any further reports from the resident. We are therefore unable to assess if the landlord’s actions within this time were reasonable. This shows poor record keeping by the landlord, given it was on notice there was damp and mould in the property and repairs were needed.
The resident reported damp on 13 October 2025. The landlord inspected within 4 working days and found signs of water ingress in several rooms. On 27 October 2025 the resident asked whether any repairs had been raised. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address the inspection but arranged a further inspection for 31 October 2025. There was a lack of explanation or action about the damp and mould. The landlord carried out repeat inspections, despite it already being aware of outstanding works. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord apologised for being unable to locate an inspection report. It said it was waiting for information on completed and outstanding repairs from its contractors. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights if a landlord contracts out its repairs, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. The landlord demonstrated a poor oversight of its outsourced services and the repairs.
In her complaint, the resident said preventative measures such as the dehumidifier were not working. The landlord failed to address this concern in its stage 1 response. In her escalation, she said the ongoing damp and mould had caused significant health issues to her and her children. These included headaches, shortness of breath and skin rashes. The landlord also failed to acknowledge this concern. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns likely caused her distress.
The resident said mould had damaged her personal belongings. In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised her to claim through her home contents insurance. It provided its details in case she did not have her own insurance. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
In her escalation, the resident reiterated that overcrowding was worsening the damp and mould. The landlord had already advised her to contact the local authority with supporting evidence. In its stage 2 response, it repeated this advice, explaining it had no internal transfer list. It later advised she speak to her neighbourhood housing officer about a management transfer. This was a reasonable response, as it provided advice and signposted the resident to additional support.
However, there is no evidence to show the landlord assessed if the property was habitable by reason of the damp and mould. This would have been in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The follow up inspection scheduled for 31 October 2025 took place on 7 November 2025. The landlord apologised for the delay and any distress caused and offered redress of £69 in line with its compensation policy.
The inspection identified various repairs. These included applying protective solutions to surfaces, rendering external walls, clearing downpipe blockages and gutter debris. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would call the resident in 5 days to arrange to complete the works. It also said it would monitor the outstanding works to completion.
The resident told us no one called her. We have seen no evidence the landlord completed the repairs. This was a repeated failure to carry out the damp and mould repairs, which had a detrimental impact on the resident and her family. We have therefore made an order that the landlord completes the repairs identified in its most recent inspection.
The resident asked the landlord several times for copies of inspection reports. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says where any reports are issued, it will share these with residents. The landlord said it was unable to locate one report, however, there have been various inspections of the damp and mould. We have therefore made an order to provide copies of any reports available in relation to the damp and mould in her property.
On 25 November 2025 the resident told the landlord the situation was now “critical”, and her daughters were unable to sleep in their room due to the humidity and mould. She said their belongings, including school uniforms were damaged and smelled of mould. The landlord was required to determine if the mould was a significant or an emergency hazard under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2025 (Awaab’s law). The landlord had been given what appears to be notice of a material change on 25 November 2025. However, there is no evidence it considered whether there was an emergency or significant hazard in the property. This was a failure to fully consider its obligations under Awaab’s law.
The landlord noted in January 2026 it had raised the work orders following the November inspection. However, its contractors did not carry out the works due to the need for a specialist. The landlord completed a damp investigation on 27 January 2026 which highlighted many of the issues identified in previous inspections. We sent the landlord a notice of a possible material change in relation to Awaab’s Law on 18 February 2026.
In summary, whilst the landlord acknowledged and offered redress for its delays, there is no evidence to show it completed any lasting repairs to resolve the issues. It carried out follow up inspections without clearly communicating why or the subsequent outcomes to the resident. It failed to consider the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in ensuring the property was habitable or Awaab’s Law in considering a material change. It failed to monitor its outsourced services and did not acknowledge the resident’s health concerns.
The redress offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience these failures likely caused the resident. The landlord failed to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have therefore made an order to pay the resident £1,400 compensation, exclusive of the redress offered in its complaint responses, in line with our compensation guidance (total £2,182). This reflects the significant detrimental impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property.
We have also made orders for the landlord to apologise and complete the repairs. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the 2024 edition applies. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 2 working days of receipt. This was in line with the Code which says complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
It issued its stage 1 response 8 working days later, in line with the Code’s 10 working day timescale. In its response, the landlord was unable to clarify the status of repairs, as it was awaiting information from its contractors. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered an extension to its response, enabling it to provide more comprehensive information. However, this oversight was of little detriment to the resident as it had arranged another inspection which provided the same information.
There is no evidence of landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. However, it issued its stage 2 response 24 working days after the escalation, therefore the lack of acknowledgement would not have significantly impacted the resident. Its overall response time was in line with the Code.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the Code.

Learning

The landlord missed opportunities to identify learning points in its complaint responses. It said it was taking active steps to improve its management and follow up of repair works but did not state what the steps were. We have therefore made an order to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repair records are unclear and do not give reasons for inspections. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It did not clearly communicate the outcomes of its inspections or address all the resident’s concerns. It demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors which may have contributed to the failings identified. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures.