Sovereign Network Homes (202415627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415627

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

14 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Enquiries about electric car charging points.
2. Concerns about parking enforcement.
3. Concerns about communal landscaping.
4. Enquiries about an ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) incentive scheme.
5. Reports of a back door defect.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since March 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. In one of the bedrooms, there is an external back door. The flat is in a block on an estate with other residential blocks, parking areas and communal open spaces. The resident has sole use of a parking space on the estate, which has an electric car charging point.
When the resident bought the property, it was a new build under a defect period. The property was built by a third-party developer and the landlord took handover of the property from the developer, before selling it to the resident. The developer owns the communal open spaces and these are managed by a third-party management company on its behalf.
At times, the resident’s father acts as her representative. For the purposes of this report, unless we need to specify, all communications from the resident and her father are referred to as coming from the resident.
At the end of March 2024, the resident reported:
1. There was no trickle vent on the external bedroom door and no way to rapidly ventilate the room, other than opening the door, which was a security risk.
2. There was no parking enforcement on the site.
3. Landscaped areas had been damaged by cars being driven over them. This was because people were parking in areas they should not be.
4. She needed guidance on using the electric car charging point.
As part of an email exchange between the resident and the landlord in early April 2024, she said she was entitled to a payment of £2,000 as part of a ULEV incentive scheme. She asked it to confirm the process for this to be paid.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 April 2024. She said:
1. The bedroom door was affecting her health, as she could not ventilate the room at night when she was sleeping.
2. She had been unable to park in her space on several occasions due to other people parking there.
3. Damage had been caused to the communal grounds because of the lack of parking enforcement.
4. She asked how she would be reimbursed the £2,000 as part of the ULEV incentive scheme.
Three days later the resident asked the landlord for details of how to use the charging point in her bay. She said she had picked up her new car the day before but there were no instructions on how to charge it. On 26 April 2024 the landlord provided details of the app she needed to install and register with, to use the charging point.
On 9 May 2024 the resident reported the electricity tariff for the charging point was a fixed price, rather than having a reduced, off-peak rate. She said this meant she was paying more than she should to charge her car.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. This said:
1. It did not manage the parking enforcement, so this was outside its jurisdiction.
2. It acknowledged she had not been given details of how to use the charging point in a timely manner. It was waiting for confirmation regarding the off-peak charging rates.
3. It would visit her on 12 June 2024 to investigate the lack of ventilation in the bedroom.
4. It did not promote the ULEV incentive scheme to her and had not told her she could claim this through it.
5. The landscaping concerns had been sent to the developer to review.
6. It acknowledged there had been communication failures and apologised for this.
The next day the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had not correctly answered the complaint and the issues were unresolved.
On 16 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. This said:
1. The management company had confirmed that parking enforcement had started and visits were being made. The process of getting this set up could take some time and residents had been told this may not be in place when they moved in.
2. It did not own the charging points so the tariff was outside its control. The management company had confirmed the day and night charge was the same, which was the lowest rate possible.
3. It had not advertised the ULEV incentive scheme and this had nothing to do with the lease agreement. Any claims needed to be made directly to the developer.
4. It had raised the lack of ventilation in the bedroom with the developer and was waiting for it to confirm whether this had been accepted as a defect.
5. The management company had confirmed landscaping works were being carried out to address the issues raised. These should be completed within 2 weeks.
The same month the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues and pay compensation.
In May 2025 the developer resolved the back door defect by replacing the external bedroom door for one with a trickle vent, and fitted 3 restrictors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she believes a number of the issues raised were a breach of planning conditions and/or a breach of the section 106 agreement (a legal document between the developer and the council’s planning department). As the landlord was not party to either of these, it was not responsible for ensuring compliance with their terms. Therefore, we are not in a position to assess whether these have been breached. The resident can raise her concerns directly with the council’s planning department, if she wishes for these to be investigated further.

Enquiries about electric car charging points

The landlord does not own or manage the car charging points. These are on land owned by the developer and are managed by the management company on its behalf. Despite this, the landlord is responsible for answering any enquiries from the resident about them and raising any queries or concerns with the management company.
In her initial enquiry to the landlord on 28 March 2024, the resident asked for guidance on using the car charging point. Despite this, and asking again on 8 April 2024 for instructions to be provided, there is no evidence the landlord provided the required information until nearly 3 weeks later, on 26 April 2024. This was after the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 more occasions on 18, 20 and 25 April 2024.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that this information had not been provided in a timely manner. While it does not own or manage the points, it should have been proactive in obtaining the relevant information from the developer and/or the management company on how to use them, so it could share this with its residents, if requested. On 25 April 2024 the landlord told the resident it was seeking a response from the management company on how to use the charging points. This indicates it had not proactively obtained this information.
This reactive approach resulted in a delay in the resident being able to make use of the charging point for around 9 days, between 17 and 26 April 2024. She said this impacted her being able to travel to work as she could not charge her car. This amounts to service failure and we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that impacted the resident for a short duration.
The resident has made enquiries about the electricity tariff for the charging points. As the landlord does not own or manage them, it has no control over the tariff. When the resident asked about this, the landlord made enquiries with the management company and provided its response on multiple occasions between May and October 2024. This included a commitment by the management company to look into whether a cheaper tariff was available.
We note the resident disagrees with the management company’s response to this issue, including the definition of ‘overnight charging’. However, we are not assessing the reasonableness of the information provided by the management company, as this falls outside our jurisdiction for reasons already set out. Our assessment is of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries. As it raised her enquiries with the management company on a number of occasions and provided feedback, this was reasonable and showed the landlord wanted to help her get answers to her queries.
When the resident continued to challenge this issue, the landlord told her on 10 October 2024 that it did not own the points and reconfirmed the management company’s explanation. It said if changes were going to happen the management company would tell it and it would share this with residents. It advised it could not provide further information at that time.
While disappointing for the resident, this was reasonable as the landlord had gone back to the management company on a number of occasions to raise her concerns and provided feedback. While the landlord is responsible for raising enquiries on behalf of its residents, where it has done so and provided feedback, it is reasonable that it does not continue raising the same queries. Particularly, where there is unlikely to be a different response or outcome.
The resident has told us this issue remains unresolved. While frustrating for her, any changes to the tariff are outside of the landlord’s control. Therefore, there is nothing we can order the landlord to do to resolve this matter and the resident may wish to raise this formally with the developer and/or the management company, if not already done so.
It is not clear when the landlord last made enquiries with the management company about this and so we have made a recommendation for it to obtain an update from the management company and share this with the resident, if it has not done so in the last 3 months.

Concerns about parking enforcement

The landlord does not own or manage the communal land, including parking areas. This is owned by the developer and managed on its behalf by the management company. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for implementing the car parking enforcement and so we cannot assess the timeliness of this and/or how well this was managed. The landlord is responsible for answering enquiries from residents and raising queries or concerns with the management company. Therefore, our assessment has focused on this.
When the resident first enquired about the parking enforcement, the landlord replied on 8 April 2024 and said this was managed by its leasehold team and advised her to raise the enquiry with them. It is not the resident’s responsibility to understand the inner workings of the landlord. Therefore, this was an unreasonable response. The resident had submitted her enquiry to the landlord; and it should have passed this on to the appropriate department, rather than asking her to incur time and trouble in resubmitting this.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it did not manage the parking enforcement, so this was outside its jurisdiction. While correct, it still had a responsibility to the resident to support her with this issue. Particularly as she said there had been times she could not use her space as someone else had parked in it. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did anything to raise this issue with the management company on the resident’s behalf until after she escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was more than 2 months after she first raised the issue. This delay was frustrating for the resident as she was being inconvenienced by people parking in her space.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord provided an update on the parking enforcement, including explaining the process to set this up. This indicated it had been in touch with the management company, which was appropriate. It was sensible to share details of how this was set up to help explain the reasons why it was not in place immediately.
Following the stage 2 response, the resident has raised a number of other concerns about parking enforcement between July and December 2024. This included non-enforcement of electric vehicle bays, warden attendance, permit enquiries and people parking in her bay. On all occasions, the landlord has raised the enquiries with the management company and provided timely feedback. This was reasonable and showed it had taken her concerns seriously.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking enforcement. While it was not responsible for any delays in this being implemented, it did not do enough in the early stages to raise her concerns with the management company in a timely manner. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures which the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or put right.

Communal landscaping

The landlord is not responsible for grounds maintenance or communal landscaping works in the area. The land is owned by the developer and managed by the management company on its behalf. While the landlord is not responsible for maintaining or resolving any issues with the communal grounds, it is responsible for raising any concerns on behalf of its residents with the management company.
The landlord told the resident in April and June 2024 that it had raised her concerns, offered to inspect the areas of concern during a visit in June 2024 and provided updates on the progress of works in July, September and October 2024. These actions were reasonable and timely and showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously. This resulted in the resident confirming in October 2024 to the council’s planning department that the landscaping was improved and acceptable.
Ultimately, the landlord was not responsible for resolving the landscaping issues. However, it did raise the resident’s concerns and provided feedback on several occasions. In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident it did not own the communal open spaces, the developer did. This was sensible to explain its limitations to the resident and it may have been helpful if it had explained this to her sooner.
While the landscaping issues were understandably concerning for the resident, as this related to communal areas only they were not urgent concerns. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal landscaping.

Enquiries about an ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) incentive scheme

The ULEV incentive scheme was offered by the developer, not the landlord. The resident has confirmed she became aware of this via the section 106 agreement. As this was being offered by the developer, there was no obligation on the landlord to offer this also. Similarly, it was not required to advertise this on behalf of the developer.
When the resident first made enquiries with the landlord about the incentive scheme on 8 April 2024, the landlord said it had referred this to its leasehold team, rather than directing her to the developer. While frustrating for the resident, it is understandable that front line staff may not have been aware of this because it was not the landlord’s scheme, and it had not promoted or advertised it. Therefore, despite not providing a clear response at the first point of contact, this was not a failure by the landlord. As the landlord had no involvement in this scheme, there was no obligation on it to signpost the resident to the developer.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed the reimbursement could be claimed via the developer. This was reasonable as it was an incentive scheme offered by them and not the landlord. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the ULEV incentive scheme.

Back door defect

As the property was built by a third-party developer, it was responsible for resolving defects, rather than the landlord. We cannot assess the actions of the developer as it is not a member of our Scheme. The landlord had a responsibility to support the resident during the defect period; despite being limited in what it could do to resolve any defect issues. The developer was ultimately responsible for resolving the back door defect and, while we cannot assess its handling of this issue or decisions made, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and how it engaged with the developer when concerns were raised.
When the resident first raised this issue at the end of March 2024, she said the lack of ventilation was a breach of building regulations. We cannot say whether this was the case, but have assessed the landlord’s response to this concern. On 16 April 2024 the landlord told the resident it had sought advice and confirmed the door was compliant and met building regulations. It is not clear how the landlord reached this conclusion when it had not visited to inspect. It was only after the resident challenged the landlord about this, that it arranged a visit to look into it.
Following the visit in June 2024, the landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that it had reported the door to the developer as a defect. It said it had highlighted concerns about a lack of ventilation, to ensure compliance with all relevant building regulations. This feedback suggests the landlord had concluded the door may not be compliant, which differed from its original feedback.
While positive that the landlord ultimately investigated this issue and referred it to the developer, it should have done this after the resident’s initial report. It was unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the door was compliant without having looked at it. This amounts to maladministration and contributed to the overall delay in the defect being resolved.
Following the stage 2 response in July 2024, when the landlord confirmed it had referred this matter to the developer, the resident chased updates in August and October 2024. On both occasions, the landlord provided updates, but it should not have relied on the resident chasing and should have been proactive in providing them.
While the landlord was not responsible for completing the works, it was responsible for ensuring the resident was kept up to date. Therefore, it should have been proactively chasing the developer for updates so it could share these with the resident. We have seen no evidence it did this and it relied on the resident spending time and trouble to chase it up, before it sought updates from the developer. This amounts to maladministration and, had the landlord been more proactive in chasing the developer, this issue may have been resolved sooner.
As a solution to this issue, the resident asked the landlord to replace the door with a new door and window combination. In November 2024 the landlord told her the developer had advised that a door and window combination was not possible, and offered 2 alternatives. We understand the resident was dissatisfied with this decision, but as this was the developer’s decision we cannot assess it.
Following the offer of 2 alternative options, there was an email exchange between the resident and the landlord between November 2024 and February 2025. A number of the questions raised by the resident required the landlord to consult with the developer. On review of this communication, we can see there were gaps of some weeks between the landlord’s responses. However, as it needed to consult with the developer, this was reasonable.
At the end of January 2025 the resident suggested a meeting with the developer and the sub-contractor to address her concerns. This was a sensible suggestion, which the landlord confirmed it put to the developer. Unfortunately, the developer declined this request. While frustrating for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord.
On 24 January 2025 the landlord said the resident had declined the offer of a replacement door. This was incorrect as she had not declined the offer. She had asked for details of works to be confirmed in writing prior to going ahead, and raised queries about the proposed options, which she was within her rights to do. It was unreasonable of the landlord to say she had declined for these works to go ahead when she had not.
Ultimately, the defect was resolved in May 2025, 14 months after the resident first reported it. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete complex repairs in 90 days. As this job required the replacement of an external door that needed to be specially made, it is reasonable that this would be a complex repair. Therefore, the period of delay was around 11 months.
This was an unreasonable delay. As the landlord was not responsible for completing the works, it cannot be held fully accountable for the delay. However, this investigation has highlighted areas where the landlord should have taken swifter action and done more to chase the developer for progress. Therefore, the landlord is partially responsible for the unreasonable delay.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a back door defect. While it acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue and said in January 2025 that it would consider compensation, we have seen no evidence that it has. The resident has confirmed it has never offered any redress. This is disappointing for her and while the back door defect has now been resolved, the lack of redress offered suggests the landlord is not fully committed to putting things right for the resident.
We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £275 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.
The resident has said the lack of ventilation in the bedroom affected her health. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health, as this is more appropriately assessed via a personal injury insurance claim. Therefore, we cannot order compensation in respect of this. She has also asked for compensation to reflect the loss of the use of the bedroom due to the lack of ventilation. While this issue may have made the room uncomfortable at times, it would not have rendered it completely unusable. Therefore, we would not award compensation for loss of use of the room.
Our compensation award is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures. This has been calculated at £25 a month for the 11 month period of delay. While there may have been failures in the developer’s handling of this matter, as we cannot make an assessment of this, we cannot order compensation in that regard.

Complaint handling

When the resident’s father asked to raise a complaint on her behalf on 15 April 2024, the landlord replied the next day and said it would pass the concerns to its complaints team, so it could log a formal complaint. When he chased a response on 23 May 2024, the landlord said the concerns were not being investigated as a complaint as it could only do this with permission from the resident. It said it needed this via email or a completed form.
In an email from the resident on 8 April 2024, she had asked the landlord to include her father in responses and said she was happy for him to respond on her behalf. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said if a resident wanted someone to represent them, it needed consent from them confirming this. While the resident had said she was happy for her father to respond on her behalf, this was quite a general statement and so it was reasonable that the landlord wanted to seek more formal consent from her.
However, the landlord should have sought this immediately, rather than waiting more than 5 weeks after the resident’s father made the complaint to request this. Considering the landlord’s initial response to the complaint said it would log this, it was understandable that the resident and her father assumed this had been done. It was only when the resident’s father chased this up that he was told the complaint had not been logged and further written consent was needed. This delay was disappointing for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response 38 working days after the resident’s father first submitted the complaint, on 15 April 2024. This was over the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy at the time. This delay meant the overall complaint journey was delayed by more than 5 weeks. This was frustrating for the resident and amounts to maladministration.
On 24 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to raise the complaint straight to stage 2 because of the delays in it progressing the stage 1 complaint. The landlord declined and explained it needed to follow its two-stage complaints process.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that a landlord’s complaints policy should be made up of 2 stages. The purpose of this is to allow the landlord to respond to the complaint and then review its response, before the matter is escalated to us. If the landlord agrees to skip one of these stages, then it loses the opportunity to review its response. This is not a fair or reasonable approach to complaint handling. Therefore, the landlord’s decision was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 18 June 2024 and responded 20 working days later, on 16 July 2024. This was in line with its complaints policy at the time, which said it would respond within 20 working days of accepting and acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the stage 1 complaint and apologised. While positive that it did this, it did not offer any other form of redress to fully put things right for the resident. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but the redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Enquiries about electric car charging points.
  2. Concerns about parking enforcement.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Concerns about communal landscaping.
  2. Enquiries about a ULEV incentive scheme.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of a back door defect.
  2. Formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for:
  1. The delay in it responding to her enquiries about electric car charging points.
  2. Its response to her concerns about parking enforcement.
  3. Its response to her reports of a back door defect.
2. Paid the resident £600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £75 for its response to her enquiries about electric car charging points.
  2. £100 for its response to her concerns about parking enforcement.
  3. £275 for its response to her reports of a back door defect.
  4. £150 for its complaint handling.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to obtain an update from the management company on the resident’s enquiry about the electric car charging points tariff, and share this with the resident, if it has not done so in the last 3 months.