Sovereign Network Homes (202420358)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420358

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

22 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 repairs.

Background

2. The resident has been a joint assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2017. The resident completed a management transfer to the property in June 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident’s 3 children also live in the property. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident and her children.
3. Both the resident and her husband have corresponded with the landlord and us about the complaint. For the purposes of this report, unless necessary to distinguish between them, all communications are referred to as coming from the resident.
4. On 15 September 2023 the resident reported drainage issues in the kitchen sink, bathtub, and both toilets. She said the bathtub and one of the toilets were upsurging. She said there was a very strong smell of sewage in the property. She made a further report on 2 October 2023 about sewage water coming up from the sink and leaking uncontrollably and a loose manhole cover being a trip hazard.
5. She logged a complaint on 5 October 2023, saying the landlord’s contractor had put a camera in the pipes and confirmed they were fine. She said there seemed to be a blockage next door which the landlord needed to check. She said the blockage was causing tiny flies to come up out of the sink, and this was witnessed by the contractor. She noted health concerns for her daughter and herself which she said were ongoing from issues with her previous property.
6. In its stage 1 response of 18 October 2023 the landlord said:
   1. It had logged the resident’s report of 15 September 2023 as an emergency repair but had not attended within the expected timescale. It apologised.
   2. Its contractor had attended on 17 September 2023 and found no drainage defects. The resident expressed concerns about the smell, not related to upsurges. The contractor further inspected the pump pit and confirmed everything was working as it should. No further action was taken as no repairs were identified.
   3. It raised the 2 October 2023 report as an emergency. Its contractor visited and secured the manhole cover. They could not find the sewage water backing up into the property or the uncontainable leak that was reported.
   4. A CCTV survey was conducted but it was unable to find any defects that could cause drain flies and did not find any evidence that flies were present in the drainage.
   5. It was sorry the contractor did not attend within its emergency timescales, but it was clear that emergency attendance was not required as there was no upsurge or uncontrollable leak. This would not have been classified as an emergency and was not in accordance with the maintenance policy.
   6. Emergencies were a crucial and resource intensive service that must be reserved for genuine emergency situations to ensure the safety of residents and condition of properties. It asked that the resident ensure future reports were communicated accurately to reduce the risk of false attendance as repeat instances could result in a breach of tenancy and accountability for costs incurred for the call out.
   7. It confirmed that drain flies were the resident’s responsibility to manage. It had reviewed the images she provided, and they did not show an infestation. However, she could approach pest control service and arrange attendance privately. If they found a defect that was the landlord’s responsibility to fix, it would reimburse her for the cost.
7. The resident escalated her complaint the same day, saying:
   1. The landlord was lying. She knew from dealings with the previous property that it told workmen what to say.
   2. It was correct there was no blockage, the flies were coming out of the sink; she did not believe the contractor told it differently because they put cameras in the drain.
   3. She had previously had issues with the complaint handler who issued the stage 1 response and did not want to hear from him again.
8. In its stage 2 response of 22 November 2023, the landlord repeated its apology and said:
   1. It would not comment again on issues the resident had complained about previously and would only look at the issue of the flies and the attendances linked to it.
   2. It did not pick and choose who investigated complaints. This was a repairs complaint, and the complaint handler was the assigned contact within that team and therefore handled the complaint at stage 1. It had undertaken an independent review at stage 2.
   3. It had found no evidence of a fly issue. It appreciated this differed from the resident’s experience, but it had to be led by the reports and feedback produced by the contractor. She indicated that the report was not correct and had gone as far as to call several people liars. It could not agree with this, but if she had evidence, it would be happy to discuss the accuracy of the reports with the contractor.
   4. The resident was expected to look into resolving the fly issue. As a social housing provider, it had a level of responsibility, but she also had responsibilities. As a non-profit organisation, it did not have the resources to deal with every issue raised.
   5. It had investigated several complaints in the last few weeks. She had made various comments but had not provided evidence to support them. Given this, she should keep evidence of issues moving forward and that would then allow it to challenge inaccuracies in reports and feedback received.
9. The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to us saying she wanted the landlord to remove the flies and resolve the drainage smell. In her further correspondence to us, she has mentioned other ongoing issues, including a cesspit overflow leading to water contamination. She has told us that the situation has affected her and her children’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. This investigation has only considered the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses detailed above. We understand that matters have moved on with the reported issues since the landlord’s final response, and these have been the subject of further complaints. We understand the resident is unhappy about various issues, but some of these have already been investigated by us or are awaiting allocation for separate investigation by us.
11. The resident submits that, if the landlord had dealt with the reported issues differently in 2023, they would not have developed to the point they are now. We have explained that we cannot apply hindsight to this complaint and must consider what we would reasonably have expected the landlord to do at that time. We appreciate there is a 2-year gap between her original reports and now. A more recent complaint might be able to take a view on the appropriateness of the landlord’s overall response in respect of the present situation. However, that is not appropriate to do within this investigation. Therefore, no further comments are made within this report about the cesspit, water contamination, or any other issues outside of the reports of 15 September and 2 October 2023.
12. The resident has told us she believes the landlord has falsified reports, told its contractors what to say, and/or that contractors have lied about what they witnessed. It is not for us to determine the authenticity of reports, if a contractor has lied, or that the landlord has directed them to say something. We must be fair in our assessment, cannot speculate, and can only rely on the evidence available. Where evidence is unavailable, we have considered what are good industry practices, and our own expectations and experiences, in the handling of this matter.
13. The resident has told us that the matters complained of have negatively affected her and her family members’ health. We do not doubt her comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

14. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency as situations where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a property is not secure, or damage that is rapidly getting worse. An example of an emergency repair would be no power in the property or an uncontrollable flood. It sets out an emergency response time of 4 hours to make safe. It sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing leaks and for keeping in repair and working order installations for the supply of water.
15. The repairs policy says the resident is responsible for clearing blocked sinks, toilets and baths where the blockage is in the property or was caused by misuse or lack of care. The resident is responsible for pest control except where this is caused by a design fault with the property. The resident is also responsible for minor repairs.
16. The landlord’s pest policy defines wasps, bees, fleas, bed bugs, mice, rats, cockroaches, feral pigeons, and ants as pests. The policy says it is not responsible for pests within the property unless there is a rat, mice or pharaoh ant infestation, or an infestation in several connected properties of a block, estate, or communal area. It says residents are expected to seek advice and take action in the first instance. It is only responsible where pests could cause a statutory nuisance, when it may deliver treatments or, if there are any defects to the property allowing pests to get inside, carry out proofing works to stop access.
17. The landlord has accepted that, while it logged the resident’s reports as an emergency due to the mention of upsurges and an uncontrollable leak, its contractor did not attend within the policy timeframe. It has apologised for this. We accept this was a service failing. However, as the landlord has highlighted, while it classed the reports as emergency, there was no evidence on attendance of issues which would be classified as an emergency under its policy. We have not seen evidence to dispute this. This means that, while there was a failing in its delayed attendance, there was no adverse or significant impact of this.
18. The resident reported drainage issues which we would expect the landlord to investigate. Its repair attendance log shows 2 visits took place where visual examinations were conducted. It further checked the pump pit as the resident felt that was the source of the smell and confirmed that everything was working as it should. It noted additional steps that could be taken if the resident made further reports. When the operatives were unable to find any obvious or external evidence of a leak, an upsurge, or defects, they carried out a CCTV survey to look for hidden causes. This is what we would expect.
19. The CCTV survey did not show any faults, blockages, or the presence of flies in the drainage system. Therefore, we would not expect the landlord to carry out any repairs at that stage without first identifying a fault it was responsible for. The resident said the flies were present in the property during the contractors’ visits. However, the contractor did not note the presence of flies during visits. In fact, they noted that they could not evidence flies within the drains even with the CCTV survey.  While we appreciate what the resident has said, we must be fair in our assessment and can only rely on the evidence available. It is, therefore, not possible for us to conclude that flies were present during these visits.
20. Having said that, the landlord’s pest policy does not include drain flies in its definition. It also says the resident is responsible for addressing this within the property. She argued that the flies were caused by a defect in the drainage system, thereby making it the landlord’s responsibility. As noted above, the landlord’s investigations did not establish a fault or defect with the drains. It set out steps the resident could take if she did not agree with its stance. We have not seen that any evidence was produced to support that the flies were caused by a defect the landlord was responsible for repairing. Therefore, under the landlord’s pest policy it would have been the resident’s responsibility to address this issue.
21. The resident told us that she reported the manhole cover after she tripped over it. The report logged by the landlord notes that she flagged this as a trip hazard, but it does not note that she told it of her fall. It attended and secured the manhole cover on 9 October 2023. We asked if she had injured herself between her reporting it and the landlord making it secure. She confirmed that she had not.
22. It is unfortunate that it was the trip that alerted her to this issue, particularly as she has told us that she was injured. However, we cannot reasonably hold the landlord responsible for an issue that was not reported to it as a repair before then. When it was reported, the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe. The resident said the manhole cover still does not sit flush as there were wider issues with the garden levelling. She has confirmed that she logged a report about this with the landlord after this complaint. If she still has any remaining concerns, these should be raised with the landlord in the first instance (if they have not been already) as we are unable to consider it until the landlord has first had an opportunity to address it.
23. Overall, we have found the landlord handled the reports as we would expect. It has apologised for not meeting its advised timescale and we are satisfied there was no material impact of this. It investigated the reported issues, and signposted the resident to where she could get further help. It confirmed that it would be willing to revisit the issue and carry out repairs if it was found to be its responsibility. As a social landlord, it is accountable for its public expenditure. As such, we would not expect it to have carried out extensive investigations at that time. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.