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

Sovereign Network Group (202311949)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311949

Sovereign Network Group

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden from April 2023 onwards.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house with a garden and she lives there with her husband and child.
  2. In March 2021 the resident reported a problem with drainage in the garden and said it flooded when it rained. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the issue in July 2021. This completed the landlord’s internal complaints process on 18 August 2021. The resident escalated her complaint (202113236) to us and we determined it in September 2022. In response to our investigation, the landlord inspected the garden the following month and installed additional drains in January 2023.
  3. On 17 April 2023 the resident reported the drainage issue was not resolved as part of the garden continued to flood when it rained. The landlord acknowledged receipt of her contact and said it was seeking advice. It agreed to get back to her as soon as possible.
  4. The resident complained again on 7 June 2023 as she had not received a response to her contact in April 2023, despite chasing on 3 occasions. She confirmed the condition of the garden was the same.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 19 October 2023 it apologised that it had not always responded to the resident in a timely manner. It confirmed it had completed works to the garden in January 2023 as a gesture of goodwill. It said the complaint was partially upheld.
  6. Seven days later the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said the stage 1 response did not answer all of her concerns and did not offer a solution to the issue.
  7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 November 2023 it confirmed that its stage 1 response had addressed the resident’s concerns about a lack of communication. It advised it would not do any further works as the garden was her responsibility to maintain. It said the complaint was not upheld.
  8. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint the same month. She said the landlord’s responses were poor and inaccurate and the issue remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden from April 2023 onwards

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including drains. It also says the resident is responsible for “small repairs” and for keeping the garden tidy by cutting the grass, looking after any trees, shrubs and flower borders and trimming the hedges.
  2. As part of the resident’s contact to the landlord on 17 April 2023, she said she felt further works to the garden were required. While the landlord acknowledged this, there is no evidence it followed up with her or provided a formal response, despite her chasing on at least 3 occasions in May 2023. This was disappointing for her and amounts to maladministration.
  3. When the resident raised this as part of her formal complaint in June 2023, the landlord did not properly address this until the stage 2 response. It was only at that point the landlord fully responded to the resident and told her it would not do any further works in the garden. This was around 7 months after she had made the request and was an unreasonable delay. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. Following the landlord’s inspection in October 2022, it noted the garden was in good condition with very little swamped areas. Despite this, and that it had completed further works in January 2023, when the resident raised ongoing concerns in April 2023, it should have investigated. It is reasonable that some issues require a trial and error, or incremental, approach to fully resolve, so it is important that landlords are responsive to new or ongoing reports about recurring issues.
  5. This was particularly important in this case as following the inspection in October 2022, the landlord acknowledged it had been a dry year with periods of extreme heat, which would have helped improve the condition of the garden. The resident had previously told the landlord the garden was worse when it rained. Therefore, when she told it the condition had worsened in April 2023, after several months of heavier rainfall, it should have taken steps to investigate. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  6. In some circumstances, it is reasonable for landlords to conclude that no works are required. Before doing so, it must ensure it has thoroughly investigated and sought expert advice, where required. While the landlord investigated the matter in October 2022, there is no evidence it did so after the resident reported the condition had deteriorated in April 2023. Therefore, it was not in a position to rely on expert opinion that no works were required. Ultimately, the landlord did not rely on this position, but told the resident it would not complete further works in the garden, as this was her responsibility.
  7. While the resident is responsible for small repairs and maintaining the garden in accordance with the tenancy agreement, it is our view that this would not extend to installing additional drainage to prevent flooding. We expressed this view in our previous determination at paragraph 22 of the investigation report, therefore, the landlord should have been aware of this position.
  8. Installing additional drainage to the garden is not related to cutting the grass, looking after any trees, shrubs, borders or hedges, and goes above what would be considered a ‘small repair’. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to decline to take further action on the basis that this was the resident’s responsibility. It should have done more to investigate and address the resident’s concerns and its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  9. Following our determination of the resident’s previous complaint in September 2022, we ordered the landlord to carry out any required works that fell outside of the resident’s general maintenance responsibility, as identified by the tenancy agreement. This prompted the landlord to complete works to the garden in January 2023.
  10. As part of its response to the complaint in 2023, the landlord said the works completed earlier that year were done as a gesture of goodwill. However, it did not tell the resident this before it completed the works. In a letter dated 19 October 2022, it told her the additional drains were being installed to improve drainage in the garden. As this work was being done following our order, which required the landlord to do works that fell outside of the resident’s general maintenance responsibility, it was reasonable to conclude the landlord accepted these works fell under its responsibility.
  11. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to change its position 3 months later and tell the resident they had been done as a gesture of goodwill. This was confusing for her and made her feel the landlord did not want to accept responsibility for taking further action to investigate or resolve the issue. This amounts to maladministration.
  12. The resident has told us she completed works to the garden in early 2025 to resolve the drainage problems. She said she did this because she had lost all faith in the landlord resolving the issue. We have determined that the landlord should have done more to investigate and address the drainage problems. Therefore, had the resident not completed these works herself, we would have ordered the landlord to investigate further and complete any required works. This means the landlord would have had to apply resources and incur further costs to resolve the matter.
  13. Under the terms of the tenancy, the resident is required to seek written permission before completing any alterations to the property. We have seen no evidence that she did this for these works, or that she informed the landlord she would be completing them prior to doing so. However, she had been experiencing problems with the garden for around 4 years, which she said negatively affected her and her family’s mental health. She had spent significant time and trouble on raising and complaining about this issue. Therefore, when she was told it was her sole responsibility to resolve this, it is understandable that she felt she had little option but to progress the works herself without any landlord involvement.
  14. Considering all the circumstances and in the interests of fairness, it is our view that the landlord should contribute towards the cost of the works completed by the resident. She has provided evidence that the works cost £3,600. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay her £1,800, as reimbursement for half the costs.
  15. The landlord acknowledged communication failures as part of its response to the complaint. While it apologised, there is no evidence it considered any other redress, or identified learning. This is in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, we also order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation and share lessons learnt from this investigation with the relevant service area. The compensation awarded is in line with our remedies guidance as it is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced, as a result of the landlord’s failures.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made her complaint on 7 June 2023 and there is no evidence the landlord responded until 18 July 2023, when it sent her copies of its stage 1 and 2 responses from the previous 2021 complaint. However, it still did not say how it was handling the more recent complaint. It was only after the resident chased a response on 20 July 2023, that the landlord told her the next day it would not open a new complaint as the issues raised related to the previous complaint. By this point, it was 32 working days since the resident had raised her complaint, which was over the landlord’s 10 working day committed response time.
  2. The landlord reconfirmed its position that it would not open a new complaint, in a letter dated 1 August 2023. Its complaints policy at the time said when it would not consider a complaint, residents would be informed of their right to take their complaint to us. The landlord did not tell the resident this in either of its written responses of 21 July or 1 August 2023. This was a failure that amounts to maladministration.
  3. Our Complaint Handling Code at the time confirmed it was reasonable that matters that had previously been considered under a landlord’s complaints policy, may not be reconsidered. While the resident’s complaint was about the same issue (garden condition and associated works), it was about new matters that had happened since the first complaint completed the landlord’s internal process, in August 2021. This included a lack of response to her contacts in April and May 2023.
  4. Therefore, the landlord should not have declined to raise a new complaint on the basis that it had already addressed the issues within the previous complaint. This was an error that amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on complaint exclusions.
  5. Ultimately, the landlord did raise a new complaint and investigated it, but this was delayed and only happened after multiple contacts from the resident and us. This meant she spent time and trouble on pursuing a response. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023, 95 working days after she first raised the complaint. This was significantly over the 10 working day committed response time and equated to a delay of around 17 weeks. This amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in 5 working days, which was in line with the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its policy at the time.
  7. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not acknowledge these failings in either the stage 1 or 2 responses, and took no action to put things right. This was disappointing for the resident. We order the landlord to apologise and pay her £200 compensation. This is line with our remedies guidance for a failure that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord did not acknowledge or attempt to put right. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden from April 2023 onwards.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £2,300, made up of:
      1. £1,800 reimbursement for half of the costs she incurred for the garden works.
      2. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced in its response to her concerns about the condition of the garden from April 2023 onwards.
      3. £200 for its complaint handling.
    2. Shared lessons learnt from this investigation with the relevant service area.
    3. Apologised to the resident for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to all complaint handling staff on complaint exclusions. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord provides evidence that it has delivered this type of training within the last 12 months.