Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Homes (202326209)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326209

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

28 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s information requests about the communal heating and bin storage,
    2. the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the 3rd floor of a purpose built block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 3 March 2023, the resident reported that the communal bin storage now needed a pin number to open it and he had not been informed this was going to happen. The resident also asked the landlord to check the refuse collectors had the pin number because the bins had not been collected the previous week.
  3. On 10 March 2023, the resident reported that the communal heating in the block was too warm and he had needed to turn it down. The resident noted that residents were paying for this heating through the service charge and he did not think it was necessary for the heating to be on so high when the area was uninhabited.
  4. On 12 April 2023, the landlord asked the resident to contact it if the heating needed adjusting, rather than tampering with it himself. It advised the heating had pre-set on and off times and it would contact its asset management team for more information. It stated it would contact its cleaning contractors to discuss the issues raised with the bin storage.
  5. On 28 April 2023, 30 May 2023, and 12 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update.
  6. On 31 August 2023, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the window frames in the property, the resident stated they were rotting had had started to fall apart. The resident also asked for a response to his previous emails.
  7. On 7 September 2023, the resident complained that he had not received a response to his repair request for the windows or to his emails about the communal heating and bin storage. On 13 September 2023, the landlord requested more information about the windows so it could raise the repair with its contractor.
  8. On 25 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint. It apologised for the lack of response to the resident’s emails, and advised a works order was raised for the windows on 21 August 2023.
  9. On 26 September 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He stated the landlord had not addressed his concerns. The resident expressed frustration that the landlord’s response had not addressed the bin storage or communal heating. The landlord had provided information on the cost of the communal heating service charge but had not on the set on and off times of the heating.
  10. On 31 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated it should have provided more details on the window repair and accepted its communication had been poor. It offered the resident £186 compensation for its delay in resolving the matter.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint to us because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt the landlord had not responded to his concerns in his complaint response. On 19 May 2025, the resident confirmed the windows have now been repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident has raised historical complaints with the landlord, and has several matters that are awaiting investigation by the Ombudsman. This determination will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the windows, communal heating, and bin storage from March 2023 up to the date of the landlord’s final response because this is what was considered by the landlord in its internal complaints process.  

 

The communal heating and bin storage

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord has not responded to his concerns about the communal heating and the bin storage. The resident had sought information from the landlord about how the heating and bin storage lock are managed.
  2. When the resident first raised his concerns, the landlord advised it would seek further information and provide an update. The evidence suggests the resident did not receive any further information until after he had complained 5 months later. This was inappropriate of the landlord because it failed to communicate effectively with the resident or to demonstrate it was being proactive in obtaining the requested information.
  3. The resident requested a response from the landlord on at least 6 occasions and received no response. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident who needed to chase the landlord and did not know when a response would be provided.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it apologised for its lack of communication but did not provide the requested information or an update which was a failing. This ultimately led to the resident escalating his complaint.
  5. In his escalation request, the resident was clear in what he was seeking but the landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response which was a further failing. It
  6. is disappointing to note that, while the landlord did apologise for its poor communication, it did not answer the resident’s queries which suggests it did not fully understand what had caused the resident to complain. The landlord missed its opportunity to address the resident’s complaint and prevent it from escalating.
  7. The landlord’s handling of resident’s information requests about the communal heating and bin storage amounts to maladministration. The communication with the resident was poor and it missed several opportunities to put things right. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s lack of response. These are aggravating factors that have been considered when determining what remedies are appropriate. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures outlined.
  8. The resident has stated that, at the time of this report, he has not received a response from the landlord about the communal heating or the lock on the bin storage. The landlord should contact the resident to provide the requested information, this will go some way to repair the relationship between the parties.

 

Repairs to the windows

  1. It is noted that the resident has raised a further complaint with the landlord about the windows, the stage 2 complaint response for this was issued on 9 July 2024. This was after the date that this case was accepted for investigation by us. As a result, the assessment of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows will focus on the events up to the landlord’s October 2023 stage 2 response, because this is what was considered by the landlord.
  2. The resident’s lease states that the landlord must repair and maintain the structure of the building and all external parts, including the windows. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs, including repairs to windows, will be completed within 42 days.
  3. The resident reported that the windows needed repairing on 31 August 2023. The landlords records show that a works order was raised but it is unclear when the repair was completed. The evidence suggests that the resident was chasing the repair after the 42 day time frame had passed which indicates it was not completed on time.
  4. We have not been provided with repair records in order to determine whether the landlord’s repairs process was reasonable, which is a record keeping failure. While not meeting a policy timeframe is not necessarily a failing in itself, we would expect to see evidence that the resident was being kept up to date with the progress of the repair and the reasons for any delays. We understand that some repairs can be complex and require several visits, the landlord is expected to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it is taking the repair seriously. This has not been the resident’s experience in this case.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it had not provided enough “commentary” on the progress of the repair and outlined that it would attend to inspect the windows. It apologised and outlined changes it was making to improve its communication and ensure repairs are completed on time. This was an appropriate step. It offered the resident £186 compensation for the delay and the inconvenience caused.
  6. We consider that this response and compensation offer is a reasonable redress to the failures identified. The offer is in line with our remedies guidance. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £186 for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the windows is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.
  7. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s information requests about the communal heating and bin storage
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to
    1. Pay the resident a total compensation of £200 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the resident’s information request. The payment must be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt owed. The landlord must provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss his information request and provide a response to his queries.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident its previous compensation offer of £186 if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.