Sovereign Network Group (202314646)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314646

Sovereign Network Group

3 June 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. handling of repairs to doors, internal cracks and external brickwork.
3. response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lived at the property with her husband and 3 children between March 2014 and December 2024. The property is a 2 bedroom end of terrace house.
On 25 November 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. Both she and her husband contacted the landlord to complain about mould in the property. It said it would get back to her that day, 25 November 2022, but it did not.
2. Her children’s bedroom was “full of mould” and there was mould in “nearly every room” in the property.
3. Her doors did not close flush to the wall.
4. Parts of the exterior brickwork was wet, sunken and cracked and mortar was falling out from between the bricks.
5. She wanted the landlord to arrange for a structural engineer to assess the property for subsidence.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 3 December 2022. During the inspection the resident raised a number of other repair concerns, including internal cracks in the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 December 2022. It said:
1. The resident contacted it on 25 November 2022 and it “misinformed” her that the complaints team would get back to her the same day she called in. It was sorry this happened. It had provided feedback to its contact centre to ensure it was advising residents it may take up to 5 working days before it got back to them.
2. Following its inspection on 3 December 2022, it had arranged for the following, all of which was still pending at the date of its response:
  1. a contractor would attend the property and carry out a survey for the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system and fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. a contractor would provide it with a quote for clearing the gutters.
  3. a surveyor appointed by its insurers would inspect the property for possible subsidence.
  4. it would inspect the ceiling cracks along with some other minor internal repair issues on 9 February 2023.
  5. there was mould in the built-in cupboard in the children’s bedroom. It would inspect this on 9 February 2023 to see if it could reboard it with insultation plasterboard and skim it to prevent the cold spot that was causing the mould.
3. It had offered to carry out a mould wash in the built-in cupboard as a temporary measure until it had completed the wider works to it. The resident told it she did not want a wash to be carried out as she wanted to show Environmental Health the mould. If she changed her mind, she should let it know.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as soon as she received the stage 1 response. She said:
1. The contractor who had carried out an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) survey in early December 2022, had told her there was an issue with subsidence in her property.
2. More cracks were appearing in the property every day. It was affecting her “mental health and wellbeing” living in a property that she did not know was safe.
3. Mould was getting worse “in every single room”, including behind kitchen cupboards.
A building consultant, appointed by the landlord’s insurers, surveyed the property on 23 December 2022. The consultant found that any “crack damage and distortions” were historic and there was no evidence of subsidence in the property.
Over the next 4 months, the landlord completed the following:
1. It carried out 2 mould washes in the bedroom cupboard.
2. It replaced the roof and gutters.
3. It installed insulation in the roof as recommended by the EPC survey.
4. It installed a French drain around the property to ensure water drained away.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord attended the property and inspected the doors. It determined that it needed to replace 2 internal doors and adjust the front and rear external doors. It also identified during this inspection that there was a gap in the staircase requiring repair.
Later the same day, 5 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It outlined the inspections that it had carried out and work it had undertaken since the resident submitted her complaint in November 2022. It said the following works were pending:
1. On 2 June 2023 it would install a PIV system in the loft and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The fans would “reduce the likelihood of mould reoccurring”.
2. On 15 and 16 June 2023 it would replace lintels to the kitchen and living room windows. It said it was already in the process of repointing external walls and replacing missing mortar from brickwork.
3. On 28 June 2023 it would remove kitchen units and treat any mould present.
4. On 29 to 30 June 2023 plasterers would attend the property to:
  1. install insulated plasterboard on the walls outside of the built-in cupboard in the bedroom to prevent damp from re-occurring.
  2. fill in any minor internal cracks in walls and ceilings.
  3. repair the gap in the staircase.
5. It would replaster all walls in the second bedroom. It had agreed with the resident it would arrange this once it had completed the plastering work to the cupboard in the other bedroom. This would allow her time to move her belongings between rooms.
6. It would carry out percolation tests to the rear garden to determine the level of the water table prior to considering installing soakaways.
7. Following its inspection that day, it had raised works order to replace the 2 internal doors and adjust the 2 external doors.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 response that it had delayed in carrying out some of the work. It said:
1. It should have repaired a crack in the living room ceiling sooner as the resident first reported it in February 2022.
2. It received no reports of any other cracks in the property prior to the resident making her complaint in November 2022. All cracks, including the crack in the living room ceiling, would be repaired during the plastering works on 29 and 30 June 2023.
3. It received no reports of damp and mould in the property prior to the resident making her complaint in November 2022.
4. Upon receiving the report of damp and mould, it carried out an inspection on 3 December 2022. As outlined in the stage 2 response, it had completed some work, with further works scheduled. However, it acknowledged that it “could have acted sooner in dealing with reported mould in [the] bedroom cupboard and behind [the] kitchen cupboards”.
5. It offered the resident £150 compensation for “delays and inconvenience”.
Within the stage 2 response the landlord also explained that the contractor carrying out the EPC survey in early December 2022 did not carry out a structural survey. It set out the findings of the structural survey carried out by the building consultant on 23 December 2022 which concluded there was no evidence of subsidence affecting the property. The landlord suggested the resident could obtain a second opinion at her own cost if she wished. It said it was sorry that she was concerned about her health and wellbeing but assured her the property was safe.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation in July 2023. She said the outcomes she sought were for:
1. The landlord to fully resolve the damp and mould and “movement” in the property.
2. Compensation for personal possessions damaged by the damp and mould.
3. Compensation for her time and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints that have completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. As the stage 2 response in this case was issued by the landlord in May 2023, events have inevitably moved on since then. However, our role is to focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint between November 2022, when it was raised, and May 2023 when it issued its stage 2 response. We have assessed the landlord’s actions based on the facts known to it at that time.
We are aware from speaking to the resident that she is unhappy with how the landlord handled a decant in Autumn 2023, the standard of works carried out at that time and the conduct of the operatives doing the work. As these events occurred months after the stage 2 response was issued, they are excluded from the scope of our investigation. This is because the landlord did not have an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns in its May 2023 stage 2 response, given they had not yet arisen. We are therefore unable to assess whether its response and complaint handling in relation to these issues was reasonable.
The resident told us that the landlord advised her in June 2024 it was selling the property due to ongoing issues with damp. It moved her and her family into a new permanent property in December 2024. The resident advised us that there are lots of repair issues with the new property and that she has reported these to the landlord, but it has not addressed them. As these events post-date the May 2023 stage 2 response, we are unable to investigate the resident’s concerns about the new property. We would encourage the resident to continue reporting any repair issues to the landlord and if she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a formal complaint.
We have advised the resident that if she has raised any further complaints with the landlord, she may refer these to us for investigation if it has issued a stage 2 response. Alternatively, if she provides us with evidence that the landlord has failed to respond to any complaints she has made, we can intervene and ask it to respond in line with its complaints policy.
When referring her complaint to us, the resident raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.
Similarly, claims for damages to personal possessions are more appropriately progressed as an insurance claim. We advised the resident of this when she told us she wanted the landlord to compensate her for damage to belongings. We note she has since pursued this as an insurance matter. The landlord’s insurers agreed in July 2024 to pay her £6,000 compensation to settle her claim. The resident told us she does not feel this fully covered her losses. However, it is outside our remit to determine if the amount offered was appropriate. If the resident is unhappy with how the insurers have handled her claim, she may ask it for details of its complaint process or she may seek independent legal advice.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Damp and mould is a hazard identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) that can cause physical illnesses such as breathing difficulties and infections. The HHSRS also recognises it can adversely affect mental health. It states that the “mental and social health effects of dampness and mould should not be under-estimated. Damage to decoration from mould or damp staining and the smells associated with damp and mould can cause depression and anxiety.”
Given the serious implications of damp and mould, and its potential to spread throughout a property if not addressed, we expect landlords to adopt a zero tolerance approach to it. As detailed in our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, as soon as a resident reports it, landlords should take action to thoroughly investigate the cause. They should book any required repairs in promptly and communicate next steps clearly to residents. They should treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. We have found through our investigations that the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound.
The landlord has previously carried out a self-assessment against our spotlight report and its damp and mould policy aligns with it. The policy states that it will:
1. adopt an empathetic and resident focussed approach.
2. respond to reports of damp and mould, where possible, within 10 days.
3. provide residents with clear timelines and complete any repairs as quickly as possible.
4. prioritise its response where residents have young children or there are vulnerabilities in the household.
In this case, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was appropriate. It received her initial report that there was mould in a built-in cupboard in the children’s bedroom, and elsewhere in the property, on 25 November 2022. It promptly inspected the property the following week on 3 December 2022. In the months that followed it carried out mould washes inside the built-in cupboard. It completed roof and drainage works externally.
However, by the time of its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023, it had not yet carried out the works to plasterboard, the built-in cupboard, to install fans and the PIV system, or to remove the kitchen units to treat any mould behind them.
It was understandable that the landlord had not installed the fan and PIV system by 5 May 2023. In line with its repair policy, it may take 6 months to complete such planned works. It indicated in its stage 2 response that it would carry out this work on 2 June 2023. This was just less than 6 months from its inspection on 3 December 2022 when it determined additional ventilation was required.
It was not appropriate, however, that by May 2023 it had not completed the works to resolve the damp and mould issues in the bedroom or kitchen. Almost 6 months had passed since the resident first reported damp and mould. There is no evidence that during this time the landlord attempted to complete the work “as quickly as possible” in line with its damp and mould policy. Given 3 children lived in the property, with their bedroom affected by damp and mould, the landlord should have prioritised its response as required by its policy. That it did not was maladministration.
In its stage 2 response the landlord did not provide an explanation as to why the works had not yet been completed. However, it acknowledged that it “could have acted sooner in dealing with the reported mould in [the] bedroom cupboard and behind [the] kitchen cupboards.” It provided dates within the stage 2 response for when the outstanding work would be completed.
The landlord also acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had delayed in repairing a cracked ceiling. It offered the resident £150 compensation in the response for the “delays and inconvenience” she had experienced in relation to the damp and mould and cracked ceiling. It did not break down how much it had attributed to each delay it had acknowledged.
In our view, £150 compensation was not enough to recognise that the landlord had been aware of damp and mould in the property for almost 6 months, but had not completed the required works to address it. However, it explained to us that after it issued its stage 2 response, it determined that it would “revisit the complaint to offer suitable compensation once all required works had been completed”.
Over the next year, the landlord carried out the works outlined in its stage 2 response, plus additional works such as replastering the whole house in Autumn 2023. It also arranged for damp and mould surveys of the property to be carried out by 2 different companies in November 2023 and April 2024. The second survey concluded that while “significant steps have been already taken [by the landlord] to try and prevent condensation… with the high occupancy of the property the issues are likely to persist”. Shortly after this, the landlord advised the resident it had decided to sell the property and that it was looking for an alternative property for her and her family.
In July 2024 the landlord offered the resident £4,401.43 compensation. It linked this offer to her November 2022 complaint. The offer was comprised of £1,000 for “substantial delays” in completing repairs, including those relating to damp and mould, its “poor communication” and the impact this had on the resident. The remaining £3,401.20 was a rent based calculation due to the resident being unable to fully use the bedrooms in the property due to damp and mould.
We are unable to find that the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress to her complaint as its increased compensation offer was made after she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. Our finding of maladministration therefore still stands. However, we have not ordered the landlord to pay the resident any additional compensation. We are satisfied the £4,401.43 it has now paid includes proportionate compensation for the maladministration we have identified up to May 2023.
For clarity, we have not assessed whether the £4,401.43 has reasonably compensated the resident for the landlord’s actions from May 2023 onwards given events occurring after this fall outside the scope of this investigation. As we have explained above, we would only be able to investigate this later time period if the resident has made a further formal complaint that has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. She would need to then refer that subsequent complaint correspondence to us and ask us to investigate.

Handling of repairs to doors, internal cracks and external brickwork

The landlord is responsible under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes external brickwork, internal plasterwork on walls and ceilings, and exterior doors. It is also responsible under the tenancy agreement for keeping internal doors in repair. These were all repair issues raised by the resident in her complaint of 25 November 2022, during the landlord’s inspection of the property on 3 December 2022, and in her escalation request of 16 December 2022.
Where a repair issue for which the landlord is responsible arises, it should resolve it within a reasonable period of time. Its repair policy states it will aim to:
1. complete emergency repairs within 24 hours of them being reported.
2. complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of them being reported.
3. complete follow on repairs, if placed on a works programme, within 6 months of the original repair visit.
By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023, it had not completed the repairs to the internal cracks, external brickwork, 2 internal doors and 2 external doors. As the resident reported all these non-emergency repairs to it in November and December 2022, it should have completed them within 38 days in line with its repair policy. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. It only acknowledged that it had delayed in repairing a living room ceiling crack that the resident reported in February 2022. It said that she did not report other cracks in the property until she made her complaint in November 2022. While that may have been so, it failed to acknowledge that over 5 months had by then passed since it received her complaint. Therefore, it had also delayed in repairing the additional cracks reported by the resident, as well as the repairs to the brickwork and doors.
As the landlord did not acknowledge these delays, we do not consider it factored this into the £150 compensation it offered the resident at stage 2 for “delays and inconvenience”. We similarly do not consider it to have factored this into its later compensation offer of £4,401.43, given it did not acknowledge in the stage 2 response it had delayed in completing these repairs.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing repairs to cracked internal plasterwork, external brickwork, and internal and external doors.

Response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence

We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.
The resident told the landlord there was cracking in the walls and ceilings throughout the property, as well as to external brickwork. She was concerned this was a sign of subsidence. She asked it within her complaint of 25 November 2022 to assess this by carrying out a structural survey of the property.
Upon receiving this request, the landlord promptly referred the matter to its insurers. The insurers appointed a building consultant, specialising in subsidence, to survey the property. The consultant carried out the survey on 23 December 2022 and provided the landlord with a report outlining his findings. We have seen a copy of the report.
The consultant found that any “crack damage and distortions” were historic and due to “gradual deterioration” rather than subsidence. He found no evidence of subsidence in the property. Given this, the landlord took no further action at that time in relation to the resident’s subsidence concerns, other than to repair the cracks and brickwork which we have considered separately above as repair issues.
The resident suggested in her escalation request that a contractor carrying out an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) survey in early December 2022, had told her there was an issue with subsidence in her property. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the EPC contractor was “not engaged to carry out a structural survey”. The specialist survey for subsidence that took place on 23 December 2022 post-dated the EPC survey. It was appropriate that the landlord relied on the findings of this specialist survey.
The landlord suggested in its stage 2 response, issued in May 2023, that if the resident wished to, she could seek a second opinion about subsidence at her own cost. This was a reasonable and practical suggestion. We note, however, that it later arranged for the building consultant to return to the property and carry out a second survey in October 2023. While it could reasonably have relied on the consultant’s original report, that it commissioned the second survey demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The consultant confirmed in the second survey report that his professional opinion had not changed. He could not detect any sign of subsidence damage to the property.
Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports about subsidence in a prompt and appropriate manner. There was no maladministration in its response to her concerns.

Complaint handling

In 2022 and 2023 when the landlord was processing the resident’s complaint, its complaints policy stated that:
1. it would aim to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint.
2. It would aim to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
3. it could take up to a further 10 days to respond at each stage but would let the resident know if this additional time was needed.
The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to clarify that it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. From the date of its acknowledgement, it then has 10 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 20 working days to issue its stage 2 response. It may extend the deadline at both stages by a further 10 working days but must notify the resident of this in advance. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Based on the policy in place when the resident submitted her complaint on 25 November 2022, the landlord should have issued its stage 1 response by 9 December 2022. It did not issue the response until 16 December 2022. It did not inform the resident in advance that it required more time to issue the response and did not apologise in the stage 1 response for the delay. While this was a complaint handling service failure, there is no evidence this had a significant adverse impact on the resident.
There was a more significant complaint handling failure at stage 2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request on 19 December 2022 and confirmed it would carry out a stage 2 review of her complaint. It appears to have then duly carried out an initial review of the complaint as it prepared a first draft of the stage 2 response in January 2023. However, it did not issue the response until 5 May 2023.
While we recognise the landlord may have been hoping to progress some of the remedial works before issuing its stage 2 response, that it took almost 5 months to issue the response was excessive. We have produced guidance on the Code which explains that if a complaint relates to outstanding repairs, the landlord is not expected to complete all the repairs within the complaint response timeframe. Instead, an action plan should be provided in the response setting out when the repairs are due to be completed. In other words, it should not delay issuing the complaint response in order to complete the repairs.
The landlord’s delay in issuing its stage 2 response was therefore a complaint handling failure. It led to the resident spending unnecessary time and trouble asking the landlord to respond. Between January 2023 and May 2023 she contacted it by phone, online webform and email on numerous occasions to ask when she would receive the stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge this or apologise for the delay within the stage 2 response itself.
Overall, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to its delay in issuing its response at both stages. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the unnecessary time and trouble she spent in chasing it for the stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to doors, internal cracks and external brickwork.
3. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence.
4. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £450 compensation which is broken down as follows:
  1. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of repairs to doors, internal cracks and external brickwork.
  2. £100 compensation for her time and trouble due to the service failure in its complaint handling.
  3. the £150 compensation it offered to her in its stage 2 response of 5 May 2023, if it has not already done so. This should be paid in addition to the £4,401.43 compensation it later paid in July 2024.