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

Sovereign Network Group (202419125)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419125

Sovereign Network Group

24 July 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp, mould, and associated window and door issues.
    2. Communal maintenance concerns.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2013. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. During January to June 2024, the resident reported damp and mould, particularly in his bedroom, which he said he was unable to sleep in. He referred to the impact on his lung condition. He also reported issues with his windows and patio door. The landlord raised 3 inspections, 2 of which were completed during this period.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about its limited communications and progress with these issues, on 16 July 2024. The following day the landlord arranged its third inspection for 4 September 2024. It identified that his windows and doors should be replaced. It explained this in its stage 1 response on 6 September 2024. It upheld his complaint and said that it would raise a further damp and mould inspection.
  4. The landlord identified potential causes of damp and mould at its inspection on 17 October 2024. It attended a mould wash the following month. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 December 2024. He said that he was still waiting for his windows and doors to be replaced, and experiencing damp and mould in his property. He said that this had caused damage to some of his belongings.
  5. During January 2025 the landlord updated the resident on his window and door installation. It noted his use of crutches and a wheelchair for mobility, with regards to communal maintenance issues he had recently reported. It said it would add “vulnerability flags” to his record, which it did not currently have. It noted his concerns regarding the cost of running his dehumidifier.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 13 February 2025. It confirmed the forthcoming replacement of his windows and doors. It said that further investigation of the damp and mould was needed. It committed to complete a camera survey and add vulnerability flags for his “mobility and health”. It apologised for its “lack of an action plan” and “poor communications”. It offered £100 towards his dehumidifier running costs and £50 for its delayed complaint responses. The resident’s window and door installations were completed in April and May 2025.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. He referred to recent communal maintenance issues. He said that the damp and mould in his property is improved in the hot weather but not fully resolved. He stated that the landlord completed an inspection on 14 July 2025 and promised various works. He said that he wanted the issues permanently resolved, that he did not feel he had been adequately compensated, and that the landlord had not commented about his damaged belongings.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s communal maintenance concerns

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident made a previous complaint about communal area maintenance, which the landlord closed at stage 1 on 25 August 2023. His complaint in July 2024 did not refer to the issue. The landlord’s stage 2 response, in February 2025, referred to its recent removal of moss from the communal paths. This followed the resident’s report that the paths were slippery, made after his complaint was escalated in December 2024. He reported other communal maintenance issues during the months after the conclusion of his complaint.
  4. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s more recent handling of his communal maintenance concerns, he should raise a new complaint with it. Once the landlord has sent its responses to his complaint, he has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate the matter. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 42.a, this issue will not be investigated here.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that he had reported damp and mould to the landlord from early in his tenancy, and more frequently from December 2022. His associated complaint, made in October 2023, was upheld and closed in December 2023 at stage 1. The resident did not escalate his complaint at the time, but made a new complaint in July 2024. Because of that, this investigation is of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from January 2024, the period following the end of his previous complaint.
  2. The resident has referred to the impact on his health from the matters related to his complaint. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident could consider taking independent legal advice in that regard. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to any time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident, and the landlord’s consideration of his vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould, windows, and door issues

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that, where possible, it will respond “to all complaints of damp and mould, providing clear timelines and completing any repairs as quickly as possible”. It says that where the resident has vulnerabilities it will aim “to assess the damp and mould within 3 days”. Its repairs policy states that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days of being reported. It says that follow on works may be added to a programme for completion within 6 months.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord raised an inspection of the resident’s doors and windows “due to them causing damp and mould”, on 26 January 2024. It completed the doors and windows inspection 39 days later but there is no evidence that it considered the damp and mould.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for updates on 9 April 2024. He emphasised his concerns about the impact of the mould on his lung condition. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection the same day, and a window and doors inspection the following month. However, it did not complete the inspections until 28 June and 4 September 2024 respectively, which was well beyond the timeframes in its polices.
  4. In addition to its lack of timeliness, and as the landlord later acknowledged, there is no evidence that it had an action plan or otherwise took appropriate steps to address the resident’s damp and mould through this period. It also failed to show consideration of the potential impact of the issues on his vulnerabilities, despite his report of this. It later told him that it had no record of his vulnerabilities and committed to add this to its system. It is therefore unclear why the landlord more recently told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  5. The resident complained in July 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 6 September 2024, committed to replace the resident’s windows and doors, and put in place an action plan for the damp and mould. However, it provided no timescales, and it was a further 54 days before it completed an inspection.
  6. The landlord carried out mould treatment works on 8 November 2024, and advised that an appointment for his window and door installations would be booked as soon as the quotation was approved. The installations were completed 7 and 8 months respectively from when their need was identified. Its attendances were therefore again beyond the 38 day and 6 month timescales in its policy.
  7. The resident continued to chase the landlord, up to and beyond the escalation of his complaint in December 2024. He emphasised the continued impact of the damp and mould, and being unable to sleep in his bedroom. He described the damage to his furniture, mattress, digital camera, and clothes, and the cost of running a dehumidifier. The landlord acknowledged his stage 2 complaint in December 2024 and called him twice in January 2025. However, as it again later acknowledged, its overall communications continued to be poor.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 13 February 2025. It accepted that its lack of action plan and communication had been unacceptable. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint handling. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for this specific failing. It also offered £100 towards his dehumidifier costs.
  9. However, the landlord did not consider compensation for the time, trouble, and distress caused by its delays responding to and resolving the resident’s reports over the previous 14 months, which arguably had a greater impact on him than might otherwise be the case due to the health concerns he had told the landlord about. Furthermore, it failed to respond to his complaint that the damp and mould had damaged his belongings.
  10. The stage 2 response committed to complete a camera survey of the resident’s wall. The landlord told us that it had later decided not to do this, but there is no evidence that it updated the resident. He has told us that he remained unaware of its camera survey intentions.
  11. Overall, the landlord acknowledged that, regarding the resident’s reports, its communication and handling had been poor. While it compensated him for its delayed complaint handling, it did not do so for these failures. There is no evidence that it recorded or considered his vulnerabilities, despite committing to do so. It failed to follow through with one of its remedies, or communicate its change of plan, and has only recently committed to further investigate and resolve the damp and mould. The resident’s complaint therefore remains unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communal maintenance concerns is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and associated window and door issues.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord must write to the resident to:
    1. Confirm it has recorded his vulnerabilities and the level of service he can expect to receive in light of them.
    2. Consider the resident’s complaint that the damp and mould damaged some of his belongings and respond as it should have previously.
  2. Pay the resident £650 compensation in relation to the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of his reports.
    1. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s own £150 compensation, which it should pay if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with the orders within 4 weeks.