Sovereign Network Group (202437640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437640

Sovereign Network Group

25 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 handling of the resident’s concerns of a leak in the property, as well as damp and mould.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat built in 2024. The property is a new build and was still within the defect warranty period during the period of the complaint. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
On 24 September 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing issues with damp and mould in the property. On the following day she told the landlord that her personal belongings were starting to become damaged due to mould growth. The landlord spoke to the developers about the resident’s concerns. The communication was ongoing between the parties and the developer attended the property on 23 October 2024. The resident said that she was told mould treatment was required, as was redecoration. The resident continued to contact the landlord, and the landlord chased the developer between 24 October 2024 and 4 November 2024.
On 6 November 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak in her bathroom. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 7 November 2024. The contractor documented that there was no visible sign of a leak. However, the contractor said there was damp and mould in the property and noted that it was under warranty. The landlord then contacted the developer about these issues. On 8 November 2024 the resident told the landlord she was finding it difficult to sleep in her bedroom due to the mould and smell. The developer attended the property on 9 November 2024 to contain the leak and checked the property again on 12 November 2024.
The resident told the landlord she has a respiratory condition and mental health vulnerabilities on 12 November 2024. The resident referred to the developer’s recent visits, which identified the overflow was not connected properly on the bath. The resident said this probably meant it had been leaking the whole time. She also added that she felt this was not an environment to live in. She reiterated her concerns to the landlord on 13 November 2024 expressing dissatisfaction. The landlord said it would raise the resident’s complaint and advised a 10-working day timescale. She reiterated her concerns on 24 November 2024 to the landlord.
On 2 December 2024 the resident submitted a complaint using the landlord’s portal. She complained that the property had a leak, damp, and mould issues. This was affecting her health and wellbeing, and she did not feel the property was suitable to live in. Additionally, her items were damaged, and she wanted to be reimbursed. Subsequently, the landlord chased the developer. She continued to write to the landlord and chased it on 6 January 2025.
The parties communicated with one another from 6 January 2025, and the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to her. The landlord said:
1. There were delays in raising and responding to the resident’s complaint, and it apologised for this. It also said this was not good enough and it had taken steps to address performance by recruiting new people.
2. The landlord raised works with the developer as soon as it was put on notice of the issues. Although it was the link between the resident and the developer, it could not guarantee when developer would attend. It could only provide the information it was given.
3. In terms of the items damaged, the resident could claim via her contents insurance. If the resident’s insurer finds the landlord liable it would cover the costs of the claim. The resident could also potentially claim via its public liability insurance and said to advise it if she would like to explore a claim.
The resident also contacted the local council’s environmental health department. The local council attended the resident’s property on 21 January 2025. The developers attended the resident’s property on 24 January 2025 to carry out a mould wash. The parties communicated with one another, including the landlord providing the resident a damp and mould guide on 4 February 2025, and speaking to her about improving ventilation
On 12 February 2025 the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, and she cancelled an upcoming mould wash. The landlord decided it would carry out its own inspection to identify defects in the property. This was completed on 27 February 2025. The landlord found multiple defects in the property and sent this report to the developer on the same day. It subsequently chased them to take action.
The parties communicated with one another from 3 March 2025, and a mutually agreed property visit took place on 12 March 2025. The landlord chased the developer about what action it would take following the visit of 12 March 2025. On 18 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. The property was still in its defect period. This meant the developer was responsible for repairing defects in the first year.
2. When the resident initially reported damp, it was believed to be the result of a leak. The leak was fixed but damp and mould continued. It ultimately carried out its own inspection on 27 February 2025.
3. On 12 March 2025 it arranged for developers to attend the resident’s property with its staff. At this visit, the developers identified a faulty ventilation system causing the area to become wet. It was awaiting to hear from the developer’s electrician.
4. The extraction fans in the kitchen and the bathroom were not mechanically turned on. This was repaired on 12 March 2025.
5. It provided the resident with an industrial dehumidifier on 12 March 2025. It advised the resident to run this, and it would contribute £15 per week towards the electricity used.
6. The developers said it would arrange another inspection of the resident’s property at the end of the week. It may cut out the walls to check if they are wet.
7. There was poor communication by it. It assigned a single point of contact for the resident. It awarded £100 for its poor communication.
8. It would share the resident’s feedback to the relevant managers to improve its service.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her concerns on 18 March 2025. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 March 2025 asking how she can claim back the electricity cost. This was for running the dehumidifier as offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She also asked how to be reimbursed for damaged possessions. She moved out of the property via mutual exchange on 7 April 2025. The landlord told her on 8 April 2025 that she could submit a claim to its liability insurance and provided a claim form. It asked her for the electricity bill and account details and there is evidence it processed this payment.
On 10 April 2025 the resident told us that she remained dissatisfied and wanted consideration for:
1. Her ill health.
2. Reimbursement of damaged items.
3. Unpaid leave.
4. Expenses.
On 10 June 2025 the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to consider damaged possessions, the resident’s well-being, and the loss of bedroom. The landlord said:
1. It had identified further learning. It was delivering vulnerability training to its teams. It had moved to a centralised complaints model meaning most complaints were now owned by its complaints team, whereas previously it was allocated to the relevant business area. This gives more ownership and accountability to complaints. It had also recruited more staff.
2. It was awarding more compensation totalling £1,340. This was made up of:
  1. £315 for it not taking into account the resident said she could not sleep in her room. This was calculated at £15 per week from 6 November 2024 until the resident left the property.
  2. £25 for the delay in raising the complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints process.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience this experience had on the resident due to her vulnerabilities.
  4. £700 compensation towards the cost of damaged personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We are unable to assess the actions of the developer. The developer is not a member of the Scheme. We can only assess the actions of a member of the Scheme, in this case, the landlord who the resident had a direct relationship with. Therefore, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the matter and if it was reasonable and followed its obligations.
The resident told us the damp and mould affected her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts. However, we will consider any distress, or inconvenience caused.
Further, the resident has said the leak, damp, and mould in the property caused damage to personal possessions. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim. However, we will assess if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about damaged possessions.
The resident told us she wants to be reimbursed for unpaid leave she had taken. There is no evidence she complained about this aspect to the landlord. A claim for loss of income is generally not dealt within a landlord’s internal complaints process. We would not be able to award financial redress for loss of income in the way that a court or insurance company would. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wants to pursue this matter.

Leak, damp, and mould

We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The property is a new build. Residents are protected by the defects period and the warranties that are in place. The existence of defects alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
When a property is built, the developer is responsible for any snagging and defects that are identified during the warranty period. The landlord is responsible for liaising with the developer and advocating on behalf of the resident when defects are identified. This includes holding the developer to account when issues are not resolved.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy confirms that the first 12 months from development is within the warranty period. Defects are the responsibility of the developer, as are snagging issues. Therefore, the property was still under the developer’s defect period during the entirety of the resident’s tenure at this property.
The evidence shows the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing damp and mould issues on 24 September 2024 and provided photos. On the same day, the landlord raised this issue to the developer. The landlord also told the resident that the developer would attend in 20-working days. This was reasonable action by the landlord and showed it was following its obligations to communicate with the developer and the resident.
Additionally, in such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to consider any interim measures to address the immediate impact. The landlord knew from the resident’s report that she was using a dehumidifier. It was therefore reasonable that it did not take any further immediate action.
On 25 September 2024 the resident also told the landlord her wardrobe and clothes were being affected by the mould. The landlord appropriately relayed this to the developer on the same day.
As above, the landlord initially advised the resident that the developer would attend in 20 working days. This meant by 22 October 2024. While this was the case, on 8 October 2024 the resident told the landlord the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord told the resident on the same day that it would chase the developer and advised a 10-working day timescale. The evidence shows the landlord asked the developer for an update on the following day and it included the resident’s concerns. This was reasonable action by the landlord and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously while managing her expectations.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 October 2024. The resident told the landlord that the 20-calendar day and 10–calendar day timeframes had passed. While we can see the landlord had previously advised timescales in working days, it did respond to her saying it agreed the repairs by developers were overdue. The evidence shows the landlord chased the developer on the same day. This was also reasonable action by the landlord.
The evidence shows the developer attended the property on 23 October 2024. On 24 October 2024 the resident then told the landlord that the developer said the property would need mould treatment and redecorating. As the resident had not received contact from the developer, she wrote to the landlord again on 1 November 2024. The resident then wrote to the landlord again on 4 November 2024 reiterating her concerns and that her food was being spoilt by the mould. It was still reasonable that the landlord chased the developer to take action on 4 November 2024.
At that stage, the landlord demonstrated that it considered the damp and mould to be an urgent matter and advised this to the developer. The landlord included this was due to the resident’s circumstances and further damage being caused. It was also reasonable the landlord replied to the resident on 4 November 2024. It clearly communicated to her that it had chased the developer due to her most recent contact and apologised for delays from the developer.
The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 7 November 2024. The resident had reported a leak the day before. The timeliness of the landlord’s attendance was within its 24-hour timescale as set out in its Repairs and Maintenance Policy. Therefore, this was appropriate action by the landlord.
The contractor found no visible signs of a water leak and recommended developer intervention as the property was under warranty. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors. We can see on 8 November 2024 the landlord advised the developer of its contractor’s findings. This demonstrated it was communicating with the developer reasonably and was resolution focused. It was also reasonable it told the resident about reporting the matter to the developer.
The developer’s plumber attended on 9 November 2024 and found the overflow was not connected sufficiently. The evidence shows the leak was made safe on this date and a post-inspection on 12 November 2024 confirmed the leak had stopped. While we appreciate the resident felt inconvenienced by the leak, the landlord’s actions in response was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its policies. The landlord is not responsible for any defects, and prior to 6 November 2024, it would not have known the resident’s property had a leak defect.
The resident put the landlord on notice of how living with damp and mould in the property was affecting her on 8 November 2024. The resident also stated she has a respiratory condition and mental health vulnerabilities on 12 November 2024. On 15 November 2024 the resident sent the landlord pictures of mould, and it confirmed to her it had chased the developer. This was reasonable action by the landlord.
The resident had not heard back from the landlord after her email of 24 November 2024. The resident then submitted her complaint on 2 December 2024 and attached further evidence. The resident chased the landlord on 10 December 2024 as the mould was spreading. The landlord relayed this to the developer on 13 December 2024. From the information provided, the resident was told the developers would carry out a mould inspection. The resident disputed the landlord’s position on 20 December 2024 as she was awaiting repairs, not an assessment. There is no evidence the landlord replied to this, and the resident had to chase the landlord on 6 January 2025. This was unreasonable and demonstrated poor communication on this occasion.
In contrast, on 7 January 2025 it was positive and reasonable that the landlord helped facilitate the resident receiving another dehumidifier. This was to help mitigate the level of damp in the property. The evidence shows this was provided on 9 January 2025.
Further, on 13 January 2025 the landlord provided the resident the job reference numbers held with the developer for when she was speaking with them directly. This was also reasonable action.
After the resident told the landlord she had the local council visit her property who said there was structural issues, the landlord chased the developer. The developer confirmed to the landlord on 24 January 2025 that it had actioned the mould treatment. Despite the mould treatment, the resident provided the landlord evidence of the re-occurrence of mould on 31 January 2025. We have seen evidence the landlord provided the resident a damp and mould brochure on 4 February 2025, which was reasonable action by it.
We have also seen evidence the resident cancelled a further mould treatment on 12 February 2025. Following this, and due to the lack of action by the developer, the landlord decided to carry out its own inspection of the property. This was positive by the landlord and showed it was willing to go above its responsibilities and had a resolution focused approach.
The landlord’s survey of the property was completed on 27 February 2025 and found defects. This was appropriately forwarded to the developer on the same day to take action. The landlord also chased the developer on the following day, which showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. After discussing with the developer, the landlord arranged with the resident a date for the Director of the developer to attend the property. This was agreed by the parties for 12 March 2025. This action was positive by the landlord, and it arranged this in a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows the landlord chased the developer for updates following its visit to the property on 12 March 2025. In the landlord’s final response to the resident, it confirmed to her the findings from the visit. This was reasonable action by the landlord and showed it was communicating clearly. The evidence shows the landlord processed the commitment it made in its final response to contribute to the electricity cost. The evidence also shows the developer attended on 20 March 2025 and the parties were communicating effectively with one another. This was appropriate by the landlord, following the commitments it made in its final response.
From our investigation, we have found that the landlord’s level of communication was poor between 20 December 2024 and 6 January 2025. However, the landlord acknowledged this error and attempted to put things right by offering £100 to the resident.
We acknowledge the resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not done enough to put things right with damage to her personal possessions. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out that damage to personal possessions or home contents would not usually be considered. The landlord’s policy states it may refer a resident to claim via its liability insurance.
The evidence shows the landlord advised the resident she could claim via its liability insurance in its stage 1 complaint response. We would not necessarily expect the landlord to compensate directly for damaged personal items. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to insurance claims.
There is evidence the resident told the landlord she could not claim via her own contents insurance. In contrast, there is no evidence the resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s liability insurer. Despite this, the landlord reviewed the case on 10 June 2025. It used its discretion to make an offer after its internal complaints procedure of £700 for damaged possessions. While this was positive, the landlord missed the opportunity to consider its position on this matter in its final response and it only did so after the intervention of this Service.
Additionally, we acknowledge it provided a claim form to the resident on 8 April 2024. However, as the resident remains dissatisfied, a recommendation has been made for it to contact the resident about claiming via its liability insurance.
The resident told the landlord in November 2024 and during her complaint that she was finding it difficult to sleep in her bedroom. This was because of the widespread mould and the smell. Given her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have provided its position on whether the property was habitable. The landlord had not done so by its final response, which was unreasonable. It is clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due living with damp and mould until she left the property on 7 April 2025.
The landlord exercised its discretion to compensate the resident for the loss of her bedroom from 6 November 2024 until she left the property. This totalled £315. The landlord also awarded £300 for lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. While this was positive, we are unable to conclude the landlord would have proactively compensated the resident further, prior to our involvement. The landlord had not committed to do so in its final response either. Therefore, these actions are not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding.
The landlord did identify some learning during its internal complaints procedure. The landlord said it had shared the resident’s feedback to managers in order to improve its service. The landlord further added on 10 June 2025 that it had delivered vulnerability training to its teams. However, this was identified after our involvement. We have elaborated on our position on post internal complaint procedure offers below in our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, as well as the severity of the situation, and the length of time involved. The revised level of compensation was in line with the highest tier of what we would order under our Remedies Guidance. This is usually for cases where there has been a significant impact and lack of consideration to vulnerabilities.
It is clear the landlord chased the developer and went beyond its responsibility by completing a survey on 27 February 2025. We have considered these actions as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the developer was responsible for the repairs of defects. However, the resident still experienced detriment until 7 April 2025. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports, the landlord also failed to set out its position on whether the property was habitable for the resident during its internal complaints procedure. Given that the landlord had not acknowledged this at the time of its internal complaints investigation, we would have considered maladministration, but for the above mitigating factors.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of a leak in the property, as well as damp and mould. When making orders we have considered that the landlord has now acknowledged further failures and identified further learning. As such, no additional financial order will be made. This is because the landlord’s revised compensation offer was proportionate to the events. Instead, the revised offer of £1,415 has been made an order, if not paid already.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the following that landlords must:
1. Have processes in place to consider which complaints can be responded to as early as possible, and which require further investigation.
2. Acknowledge, define and log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
3. Issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
4. Decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
5. Acknowledge, define, and log complaints at stage 2 within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
6. Issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension at stage 2 must not exceed 20 working days and without good reason.
Although the resident used the landlord’s portal to submit her complaint on 2 December 2024, there is evidence she complained before that. In the landlord’s communication with the resident on 15 November 2024 it said it would raise the complaint for her and advised a 10-working day timescale. Therefore, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication of 13 November 2024 as a complaint. It should have responded by 29 November 2024. It was inappropriate it did not do so and not in line with the Code. This delayed the resident’s complaint journey by 31 working days as a stage 1 complaint response was not provided until 16 January 2025.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. The landlord did not comment on complaint handling in its final response. In the landlord’s review of the complaint on 10 June 2025 it offered £25 to put things right for this error. However, this was only after our involvement.
It is important to note that our Guidance on Outcomes says that an offer of redress that is awarded late is not in the spirit of our Dispute Resolution Principles, or the Code. This is where a landlord makes a substantial offer of redress at the end of a long process with the effect that we will not consider the matter further. It was positive that the landlord reviewed the case and made a new offer of compensation. However, an effective complaint procedure should identify service failures at the earliest opportunity. It should aim to provide reasonable redress from the very first stage. This ensures fairness to all residents who access its complaint handling procedures.
The landlord acknowledged delays at stage 1 and identified some learning including the need to recruit. However, its response at stage 2 was also outside the timescales set out in the Code. The evidence shows the resident escalated her complaint on 12 February 2025 and was acknowledged by the landlord on this date. Therefore, a final response would have been due by 12 March 2025. The landlord did not send the final response until 18 March 2025, which was 4 working days over the 20-working day timescale set in the Code. This was inappropriate action by the landlord, albeit a short delay.
Overall, the landlord had not identified all of its errors and did not fully attempt to put things right within its internal complaints procedure. Also, the landlord only offered compensation after our involvement. In total the resident’s complaint journey was delayed by 35 working days from the time of her initial complaint of 13 November 2024 until the final response. There is no evidence that the landlord decided an extension was needed and did not keep the resident informed. These delays amount to a finding of service failure. Additionally, our Remedies Guidance suggests that compensation of £50 is appropriate for delays of a shorter duration.
In the circumstances, a total of £50 has been ordered for the complaint handling failings identified at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The award of £50 is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully put them right (prior to our involvement). This amount replaces the landlord’s offer of £25. However, no further orders have been made regarding its complaint handling, as the Code is now statutory.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of a leak in the property, as well as damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Ensure it pays the resident a total of £1,465 comprised of:
  1. Its revised compensation offer of £1,315 (excluding complaint handling) made on 10 June 2025, if not done so already.
  2. £100 it offered for its communication failings as identified in its final response of 18 March 2025, if not done so already.
  3. £50 for the complaint handling failings and delays as identified in this report. If any of the £25 offered on 10 June 2025 has been paid, it can be deducted from the £50 total.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendation

The landlord is also recommended to contact the resident about her options in making a claim via its liability insurance.