Sovereign Network Homes (202230225)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230225

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

17 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 repairs caused by leaks.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for compensation following leaks at her property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom second-floor flat in a 3-storey building. The landlord is the leaseholder of the property. The freeholder employs a managing agent to fulfil their repair obligations for the building. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. The resident has informed us that 1 of her 2 children has been recently diagnosed with health vulnerabilities.
On 27 February 2023 the resident reported a leak to the landlord. The landlord attended as an emergency response during out of hours (OOH). It stopped the leak and replaced a faulty ball valve in a water tank situated in the building’s loft. The landlord advised the resident it had attended due to her emergency, but the freeholder was responsible for the repair.
On 16 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She considered it responsible for the leak and sought compensation for water damaged possessions, furniture, and decoration.
The resident asked us for help on 30 March 2023. She said the landlord would not compensate her for the leak. Instead, it had given her the contact details of the freeholder to make an insurance claim. The resident explained the freeholder had already denied liability and refused to provide its insurance details.
On 14 April 2023 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to send the resident a response. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2023 and said it had no record of the resident’s complaint in March 2023. The landlord also asked the resident to provide evidence of the freeholder’s “refusal” to provide their liability insurance details. The landlord also encouraged the resident to contact the freeholder again, and suggested she seek independent legal advice through the Citizens Advice if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord said it could not raise a complaint as the freeholder was responsible for the repair and any subsequent claims for damages.
Between May to September 2023 the resident sought help from us and her Member of Parliament (MP) to progress her complaint. She said repairs remained outstanding and the landlord should replace her front door due to water damage. The resident also repeated her desire for compensation.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. The landlord said it was aware the freeholder had a live buildings insurance claim for structural damages. However, the landlord said it would assist to resolve remedial repairs due to the managing agent and freeholder’s delays. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise its delayed complaint handling.
On 13 October 2023 the resident reported another leak through her bedroom ceiling. The freeholder made safe the leak and completed a repair to the building’s roof and chimney stack on 18 October 2023. The resident said the landlord should compensate her for the damage caused to her possessions following both leaks.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 13 November 2023. It empathised with the resident’s situation, but it would not compensate her. The landlord said, while it had not been responsible for either leak repair, it had a responsibility to chase the freeholder for outstanding repairs on the resident’s behalf. It apologised, said it would carry out the necessary repairs, and offered the resident £495 to recognise the time, trouble, and distress caused by the delays. The landlord also said, on production of a receipt, it would ask its Director to consider the resident’s water damaged carpet. However, it said “it could make no promises.”
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. The resident said the landlord’s action caused her stress and she sought compensation for all water damaged personal possessions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with us the resident states the landlord’s handling of her complaint caused her stress. She also said she was a single mother with a child with disabilities and needed to borrow money to replace her furniture and possessions. The resident considered the landlord should cover the costs of every water damaged item as she was now in debt.
During our initial support in 2023 and during a telephone conversation on 6 June 2025, we informed the resident of our role and jurisdiction. We explained although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury or monetary loss. These matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
While we cannot determine liability, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s compensation request.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs caused by leaks

The landlord’s lease with the freeholder sets out the landlord (lessee) and freeholder’s (lessor) repair responsibilities for the demised property. The landlord is responsible for the internal areas of the resident’s flat.
The lease sets out the freeholder’s responsibilities. This includes the maintenance, repair, redecoration, or renewal of:
1. The structure and in particular the main drains, rainwater pipes, windows, roof, and chimney stack.
2. The gas and water pipes in, under, and upon the building.
Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to take the position that the freeholder was responsible for the identified repair and or remedial work associated to these issues.
While the lease identifies windows and window frames as the freeholder’s responsibility, the lease is silent regarding the responsibility for the resident’s front door.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will offer resident’s routine repair appointments that are mutually convenient. However, it aims to complete all repairs within 1 calendar month. It is unclear from the evidence supplied by the landlord if the freeholder adopts the same approach to repairs it has responsibility for.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord arranged to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident’s property. It offered this as the resident said the leak had soaked her carpet. The landlord does not dispute that it did not deliver the dehumidifier until 13 March 2023. Although the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the timeframe for delivering such equipment, the landlord acknowledged this was an unreasonable wait for the resident and apologised.
Between May to October 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing delays to complete her repairs. The resident says the leak caused damp in her walls and her front door to swell. The resident says the freeholder’s insurers visited in May 2023 and said they would replace her wallpaper and front door. As the freeholder’s insurer had not replaced the door for approximately 5 months, the resident said the landlord should.
While the structural repairs and insurance decision were not the landlord’s responsibility, the resident experienced an unreasonable length of time for the freeholder to remedy matters. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not act on the resident’s repair concerns sooner.
As the resident’s landlord, it had a responsibility to ensure the freeholder was meeting its obligations. The landlord’s delayed action to address the freeholder’s performance caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience chasing updates.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 October 2023 recognised it could have raised and responded to the resident’s complaint sooner. While the landlord was not responsible for the delays caused by the freeholder’s insurance company, the landlord did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the resident’s situation up to this point in time. However, despite it not being the landlord’s responsibility, it was reasonable for it to apologise and agree to complete outstanding remedial repairs due to the freeholder’s delays.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord’s repair records show the landlord attended the resident’s property to assess the outstanding repairs. This was appropriate and within the 1 calendar month as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the records show the landlord did not complete repairs until at least 13 November 2023. This included work to align the resident’s front door. Therefore, beyond its routine repair response times.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s front door repair and described a large gap at the bottom of the door. While the evidence shows the landlord had no security concerns about the door, it suggested fitting a draught excluder. It is therefore unclear why there is no evidence the landlord did this. This caused the resident time and trouble to progress things and indicates the landlord did not monitor the outstanding work effectively.
In this case, it is clear the resident encountered difficulties with the landlord, freeholder, and managing agent’s roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, the landlord was not proactive in its approach to remedy the managing agent and freeholder’s repair delays. It is important the landlord learns from this case example and ensures it prevents similar future failings. We have therefore recommended the landlord considers the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report ‘landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents’ published March 2022. This is available on our website.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 13 November 2023 acknowledged the resident had experienced a delay of 33 weeks between 27 March 2023 to 13 November 2023. The landlord said it could have taken action to support the resident sooner. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer redress to put things right.
The landlord’s compensation policy considers the severity of a service failure and how long it went on. The landlord has 3 categories of service failure and considers compensation awards of £1 to £20 per week. The sum depends on the low, medium, or high consequences of the identified service failure.
The landlord offered the resident £495 compensation, made up of £330 for distress and £165 for her time and trouble. These sums were consistent with the landlord’s medium and high service failure categories. Furthermore, it took steps to remedy the identified repairs which the freeholder had been responsible for. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
Within the resident’s correspondence, she expressed dissatisfaction the landlord repaired rather than replaced her front door. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff and contractors. As such, an initial repair to the door while resolving matters with the freeholder’s building insurance claim was reasonable.
We note that the landlord asked the resident for evidence of the £350 cost to replace her carpet. We have not seen evidence the resident provided a receipt. While it made no promises and this matter was discretionary, the landlord was under no obligation to replace the carpet. As such, we consider this an insurance matter which is not within our scope of investigation.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge identified service failures and its steps to put things right. The landlord apologised for not acting sooner regarding the freeholder’s delays, and it recognised the effects its failure to intervene sooner had caused. The landlord’s offer of £495 compensation was consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has previously found maladministration following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving managing agents and freeholders. As a result, wider orders have been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme. These were for the landlord to review its processes with regards to managing agents and freeholders, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to case 202230369 determined on 4 June 2024, in which the wider orders were made. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider orders. So, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Handling of the resident’s request for compensation

The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will not insure any items that do not belong to it. The tenancy agreement advises residents to insure their own belongings.
The resident reported a leak on 27 February 2023. The landlord’s OOH team attended as an emergency and resolved the repair within approximately 3 hours. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s 4-hour emergency response time, as set out in its repairs policy.
While the repair was the freeholder’s responsibility to resolve, the landlord attended as the resident had reported the emergency to it. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to act and not leave the resident without support.
In contact with us, the resident appeared uncertain about the relationship and responsibilities of the landlord, managing agent, and freeholder. We have therefore recommended the landlord provides the resident with an explanation and appropriate contact details for each party.
Following the leak, the landlord raised an emergency ‘wet vac’ repair on 28 February 2023. This was to minimise the water soaking into the resident’s carpet and sub floor. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to minimise damage. It is therefore unclear why the landlord’s contractor was unable to gain access to the resident’s property as arranged.
It is unclear why the resident did not rearrange the wet vac appointment. However, the resident’s correspondence provides evidence that she vacuumed the carpet herself, and she sought £350 compensation from the landlord to replace the carpet.
While any water damage would be upsetting, components and building materials age and fail. In this case, we have identified no evidence of poor workmanship by the landlord which may have caused the leak. Therefore, the landlord’s advice for the resident to make a claim through her own insurer or attempt a claim through the freeholder’s liability insurance was reasonable. This demonstrated the landlord communicated with the resident and appropriately directed her to the freeholder, as the party responsible for the repair.
In April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the freeholder did not respond to her. The landlord contacted the freeholder on the resident’s behalf. The landlord also explained the purpose of contents insurance and encouraged the resident to seek independent legal advice through the Citizens Advice if she considered the freeholder responsible. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the resident to obtain the freeholder’s insurance details, and to explain her options.
We note there is evidence of correspondence between the landlord and freeholder regarding this matter. The freeholder states its insurance provider sent the resident’s claim to a loss adjustor on or around 14 March 2023. However, the insurers did not accept liability. As such, the freeholder says it informed the resident of this decision.
Therefore, we have not identified any failing by the landlord. It demonstrated speaking to the freeholder on the resident’s behalf when she reported difficulties. Furthermore, it passed on information and provided advice to the resident to seek independent legal advice if she remained dissatisfied with the freeholder’s response.
On 13 October 2023 the resident reported a second leak. The evidence shows the freeholder attended as an emergency and resolved the repair. It is not our role to assess the freeholder’s actions. Had there been issues at this stage that required the landlord’s involvement, we would have considered how it supported the resident.
For both leaks in March and October 2023 the landlord directed the resident to the freeholder. It indicated there had been accidental damage due to aged or failed components in the water tank and roof/chimney stack. Therefore, as per the landlord’s lease agreement, these repairs were the freeholder’s responsibility. Furthermore, it was consistent with the resident’s tenancy agreement to expect the resident to cover any losses via her own contents insurance policy.
When a resident does not have contents insurance, any accidental damage caused to personal possessions does not become the responsibility of the landlord to replace them. The landlord provided the resident with advice and directed her to the freeholder. As the freeholder did not accept liability for either unrelated leak, the resident had the option to seek independent legal advice if she considered poor workmanship or negligence responsible. It was not the landlord’s responsibility to raise an insurance claim on the resident’s behalf.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The complaint response times in its procedure mirror our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states landlords must send complaint responses within 10 and 20 working days, at stage 1 and stage 2, respectively.
The landlord’s complaint policy states if a resident lives in a property managed by an external managing agent, the resident should complain to the managing agent first. The landlord will independently review the matter and may consider logging a new complaint if the managing agent does not resolve the complaint within a reasonable time.
On or around 16 March 2023 the resident complained. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not respond to her complaint. Or inform the resident to contact the managing agent as per its complaints policy.
The evidence shows the landlord did not have a record of the resident’s initial complaint. It took our involvement in April 2023, an MP, and the resident providing screen shots to the landlord of its original automated acknowledgement. This demonstrates a record keeping failure which caused the resident time and trouble trying to progress matters.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in April 2023 and demonstrated contacting the managing agent on the resident’s behalf. While this was consistent with its complaints policy, its policy is silent regarding what it considers a reasonable timeframe for the managing agent to respond.
The Code expects landlords to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not chase the managing agent sooner or provide the resident with a stage 1 response until 5 October 2023. This was 131 working days after the resident’s original complaint date of 16 March 2023. This was not appropriate and caused the resident further time and trouble chasing updates.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that it could have raised a complaint sooner. It was therefore appropriate for it to apologise and offer £50 compensation for identified complaint handling delays.
However, while we note the landlord offered to take responsibility for the freeholder’s delayed repairs, its response did not demonstrate any complaint learning. It is therefore unclear what steps it planned to take to prevent similar failings from happening again. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 November 2023, 5 working days later than the expected 20 working day timeframe. The landlord’s response included the resident’s repeated request for compensation following the second leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to address both incidents within its stage 2 response. This is consistent with the Code.
While the landlord’s response demonstrated a thorough investigation and offered an apology for identified repair delays, it offered no apology for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
While the detriment of 5 days would be minimal, the resident experienced a total of 168 working days for the landlord to conclude her complaint. The landlord had opportunity to apologise and demonstrate how it would improve its communication to prevent similar situations happening again. That it did not, did nothing to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its services.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the resident’s initial complaint. It also failed to take responsibility for the complaint within a reasonable time. Therefore, the resident did not receive either a stage 1 or stage 2 response within the time expected by the Code.
Furthermore, the resident required the assistance of an MP and us to progress matters. This caused her avoidable time and trouble. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £100 to put right the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is consistent with our remedies guide when the landlord’s offer of compensation does not reflect the detriment caused to the resident. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £50 at stage 1.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs caused by leaks.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following leaks at her property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £100 the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord may deduct £50 offered during its stage 1 response, if already paid.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the total sum of £545 offered at stage 1 and 2 of its complaint handling process, if not already paid.
2. Contact the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
3. Provides the resident with an explanation of the roles and repair responsibilities of itself, managing agent, and freeholder. And ensures she has the relevant repair and complaint referral information.
4. Consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.