Sovereign Network Group (202308787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308787

Sovereign Network Homes

25 March 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 subject access request.
2. Response to the resident’s communication with its contact centre.
3. Handling of its concerns about the resident’s conduct of his tenancy.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation by staff.
5. Response to the presence of asbestos in the boiler.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom house. In an email to us on 14 March 2025 the resident advised he had moved to another property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has “mobility problems.” The resident requested that his representative act on his behalf in his complaint to the landlord and this Service. The resident and representative are referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report except where it has been necessary to distinguish between them.
On 19 February 2020 the boiler was checked and recommended for replacement. The notes stated it was still working and there were no issues. A central heating and boiler survey carried out on 22 November 2022 noted that the boiler had an asbestos seal which “limited its capacity for maintenance.” In December 2022 the landlord decommissioned the boiler and replaced it as a responsive repair.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord completed a tenancy fraud checklist because it had experienced difficulties gaining access to carry out an electrical inspection.
During his communication with the landlord on 29 March 2023 the resident reported that his neighbour had made racist comments about him to another resident. He advised he had gone to his neighbour’s property to discuss this with him.
As part of its investigation the landlord carried out a home visit to the resident on 30 March 2023. On 4 April 2023 the landlord issued a tenancy caution to the resident for his behaviour during the visit. The resident objected to the caution, stating that the Locality Officer (LO) had argued with and bullied him. The landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had made further appointments to visit him on 17 and 25 April 2023. However, the resident declined to provide access.
During a phone call with the landlord on 20 April 2023 the resident complained about staff conduct and the organisation which he described as a “white company.”
On 26 April 2023 the landlord issued a further tenancy caution to the resident.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. Its response followed its conversation with the resident on 2 May 2023.
2. It had been trying to contact the resident for a “number of months” to carry out an electrical inspection.
3. During its visit to the area a neighbour advised they had reason to believe the resident was not living at the property and was subletting. The resident witnessed the conversation on his video doorbell.
4. The resident had been abroad following a death in his family and had been gone longer than initially hoped. The resident understood it had to investigate allegations of subletting.
5. When the resident returned he visited his neighbour to discuss the report they had made to the landlord. It visited the resident to discuss the situation.
6. The resident had said he tried to report issues with the same neighbour in 2021 but was told the landlord would not take any action. He felt the landlord had treated him differently.
7. It was satisfied with its investigation and said it had dealt with the allegations against the resident as it would expect. It noted it was difficult to comment on historical reports. However, it apologised if the resident felt he was treated differently.
8. The complaint was not upheld however, it agreed to:
  1. Pass the subletting case to another officer.
  2. Carry out a desk top review before a further visit was booked. If it decided another visit was still required it would clarify exactly what information it needed to prove that the resident had not been subletting to bring matter to a close.
On 12 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord because he did not feel it had replied to his actual complaint. He advised that he wanted to make a freedom of information request to obtain all the information the landlord held on him. He also expressed his dissatisfaction that it had taken the landlord 6 years to replace the boiler which was “filled with asbestos” and condemned by the gas engineer “year after year.”
On 12 May 2023 the resident sent a further email to the landlord to set out the terms of his complaint, the main points were:
1. Its stage 1 response did not correspond with his original complaints.
2. While he accepted it must investigate potential subletting he felt “this was malicious.”
3. When the resident complained about his neighbour making racist comments about him he was “immediately dismissed.” The landlord advised it was a police matter and that it did not get involved in neighbour disputes.
4. When the resident knocked on his neighbour’s door to discuss their report to the landlord it immediately investigated. It visited him the following day, on 30 March 2023.
5. The resident requested that it apologise to him and explain why it did not investigate his complaint.
6. He felt he was bullied by the LO during the visit. The subsequent written warning was unjustified because the LO was verbally aggressive towards him, bullying him and “giving him orders.” He asked for the warning to be removed from his records.
7. The landlord made another appointment to visit on 17 April 2023. The resident contacted the landlord to request that it be conducted by a different LO. This was agreed and the visit cancelled. However, the LO issued a second written warning due to his failure to attend the appointment with her. He requested that this warning also be removed from his records.
8. He requested a “better explanation” of how it conducted the investigation into alleged subletting. He was concerned that the landlord asked his neighbour personal questions about him.
9. He felt the landlord treated him differently because of his ethnicity.
10. It had addressed the issue of the boiler but did not explain why it considered the asbestos posed no risk to him.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It had not received further information from the resident therefore its response was based on information he had provided previously.
2. The resident’s complaint about his communication with its contact centre on 29 March 2023 was upheld.
3. It was not aware of any evidence of intimidation or harassment caused by the LO and apologised if the resident felt this way. The LO was no longer dealing with the case. The complaint was not upheld.
4. It was satisfied with its stage 1 response. It apologised if the resident felt harassed but it had to investigate potential tenancy breaches. It had concluded its investigation and had closed the case. The complaint was not upheld.
5. Where the resident had mentioned a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request it believed he was referring to a Subject Access Request (SAR) which was different. It had sent a SAR form to the resident on 16 May 2023. The complaint was not upheld.
6. Boilers were replaced when they became faulty. The insulation panels of the boiler contained asbestos however, servicing still took place.
7. On 19 February 2020 the boiler was checked and recommended for replacement. It noted it was still working and there were no issues. It was added to its planned replacement programme. However, this was cancelled on 2 July 2021 due to COVID-19.
8. On 15 November 2022 the boiler was checked and recommended for replacement.
9. On 2 December 2022 the boiler was replaced as responsive repair because its planned programme did not recommence.
10. Although the boiler contained asbestos there was never a danger to the resident and it was removed by its contractors. The complaint was not upheld.
On 9 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express their dissatisfaction that it had issued the response without waiting for them to provide further information as agreed.
On 21 July 2023 the landlord provided a further stage 2 and final response, as follows:
1. The incident where his neighbour made racist comments about him to another resident happened “at some point” last year but was not reported at the time.
2. It was first put on notice of the incident on 29 March 2023 during the resident’s telephone call with the landlord.
3. It investigated the complaint. However, due to the passage of time, vagueness of what was said and lack of witnesses it was unable to take further action. It had given all parties advice about not contacting each other. It advised that because racism was a hate crime such concerns should also be reported to the police.
4. There was no evidence to support the resident’s view that its investigation into potential subletting was malicious.
5. It had a diverse workforce and was committed to creating a positive and inclusive workplace with well trained staff. All staff undertook equalities, diversity and inclusion training.
6. It apologised if the resident felt it should have taken more interest in his allegations. There was clear recent evidence he had been “threatening and intimidating” to his neighbour. However, his complaint was historic and was reported to the police but not to the landlord.
7. The resident was also threatening and intimidating to the LO who was concerned for her own welfare as well as for that of the neighbours. His behaviour was not acceptable and therefore the warning was appropriate.
8. There was no evidence the resident was “bullied” by the LO.
9. It was satisfied its actions to investigate allegations of subletting and threats to his neighbour were in accordance with its procedures. He was treated no differently to any other resident in those circumstances.
10. It partially upheld the complaint.
11. It confirmed that asbestos was only dangerous when disturbed and fragmented as fibres could become airbourne. The asbestos in the old boiler was sealed so fibres could not be released and therefore there was no risk.
On 5 September 2023 the resident called us to advise that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asserted that the landlord failed to investigate his complaint properly or hold a meeting with his representative. The complaint became one we could investigate on 4 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s response to his SAR sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
The resident may wish to contact the ICO for assistance with his complaint about this matter. Further information can be found here Contact us | ICO.

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that it may replace a feature or element within its responsive repair service. It can be generated from contact with a resident or other interested party, identifying an issue that it had an obligation to repair.
Its Tenancy Fraud Policy says that to prevent tenancy fraud it will carry out visits to check the property condition and the residents living there.
Its Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy sets out that it will treat all reports the same. It will:
1. Investigate and respond to reports “quickly and thoroughly.”
2. Consider abuse towards its staff as ASB.
3. Investigate any prejudice or hate incidents motivated by a resident’s race.
4. Issue warnings and cautions to deter future ASB.
Its Complaints Policy states that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. A senior manager, overseen by a director, will review the complaint at stage 2.

Scope of the investigation.

In the resident’s email to the landlord of 12 May 2023 the resident complained that it had taken 6 years to replace his boiler. This investigation has focussed on the more recent events that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s communication with its contact centre.

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 confirmed that the resident called its contact centre on 29 March 2023. The first call was made at 2.23pm when the resident asked to speak to his LO regarding a letter he had received. He asked to speak to them “urgently” regarding a neighbour complaint.
The resident called again at 3.52pm to request a repair to his shower screen and the landlord raised a job. During the call the resident asked if his LO was free to talk to him. The call handler transferred the call to the LO at which point its call recording stopped due to the transfer.
The evidence provided to us by both parties is unclear as to what part of the resident’s complaint this information relates to. In its complaint response the landlord confirmed that it upheld the complaint. However, it did not say why, what had gone wrong or what it would do differently.
The landlord’s lack of clarity amounts to service failure because it was of short duration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of its concerns about the resident’s conduct of his tenancy.

On 22 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was investigating allegations that he was subletting the property. It appropriately confirmed this was in line with its approach to suspected tenancy fraud. Its visit to the resident on 30 March 2023 was in line with its Tenancy Fraud Policy. The landlord’s reasons for the subletting investigation as set out in its stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023 were reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 advised that it was not aware the resident would be out of the country or that it his absence would be extended. This is disputed by the resident. In his complaint to us dated 5 September 2023 he said he had told the repairs team when he had to reschedule a repairs appointment. He thought this would be enough.
We do not doubt the resident’s account. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The landlord’s file note of the resident’s call to his LO on 29 March 2023 notes that he told her his neighbour had made racist comments about him to another resident. Earlier that day he had gone round to confront his neighbour about it. The LO advised him to stay away from his neighbour and not to confront him in future. He was advised to call the police to report any further concerns or complaints.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will respond to reports of ASB “quickly and thoroughly.” It did not adhere to its ASB policy because it failed to investigate the complaint and instead signposted him to the police.
Both parties agree that during the landlord’s visit to the resident on 30 March 2023 they discussed the resident’s approach to his neighbour the previous day. The landlord’s file note says that the neighbour had called it to report that the resident had behaved aggressively towards them. The landlord asked why the resident had called his neighbour a “paedophile.” The resident said he believed he was and that this was based on a historical incident which took place in 2021. The LO asked the resident to leave his neighbour alone.
The file note refers to the LO trying to keep the conversation “on track” because the resident “talked over her constantly” saying the neighbour was racist. Once again the LO advised the resident to make a report to the police “if he felt he needed to.” This was the second time the landlord missed an opportunity to gather further information about the resident’s complaint as part of an investigation. It therefore did not follow its ASB policy. While this was a failure there is no evidence that this was due to the resident’s ethnicity.
The landlord’s complaint responses compounded the resident’s frustration and distress. This is because they failed to identify that the resident’s report of racist comments made by his neighbour was recent.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023 the landlord said it could not comment on previous reports made in 2021 due to the passing of time. Its stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 stated that when the resident called his LO on 29 March 2023 he raised an incident involving his neighbour and a tree which had occurred the previous year. He also reported that his neighbour was being racist towards him.
It said that the incident involving racist comments “appeared” to have occurred “at some point last year” and was not reported at the time. It then pasted a copy of the LO’s file note of their call with the resident on 29 March 2023. As set out above there is no suggestion that this was a historical incident and it is therefore unclear why the landlord believed this to be the case.
It went on to say it investigated the incident however, there is no evidence that it did so and what steps it took. Furthermore, the evidence shows that on 29 and 30 March 2023 the LO signposted the resident to the police as an alternative means of resolution rather than in addition to its own investigation. Therefore, its response was inappropriate causing further distress to the resident.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation by staff.

The LO visited the resident on 30 March 2023. The landlord’s second stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 contained a copy of the file note of the visit. It said the resident began talking over her and became particularly agitated during discussions about his neighbour. During the visit the resident said he would not leave his neighbour alone at which point the LO told him that “he must leave him alone.” The resident said he would not and left the property to go to his neighbour’s saying he could go there if he wanted to. He declined to return to the property and the LO activated her personal alarm because she feared the situation may escalate. She also called the police.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 12 May 2023 he stated that the visit became heated because he felt the allegations of subletting were “malicious.” He felt that the LO had already reached conclusions about him and was bullying him. She had “ordered” him to stay away from his neighbour. The LO had become “argumentative” and “refused” to leave his property. He said that during the visit the LO had said she was satisfied that he was living in the property but had then changed her mind and kept the investigation open. He felt she was discriminating against his “race and ethnicity.”
On 4 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to issue a tenancy caution. The landlord has not provided a copy of the letter which is a record keeping failure. In his email to the landlord of 12 May 2023 the resident said the warning was unjustified because of the LO’s behaviour towards him.
The landlord’s final complaint response of 21 July 2023 acknowledged that the resident and LO had a different version of events. However, based on the LO’s file note it was satisfied the situation became volatile because of his actions. There was no evidence the LO had bullied him. Furthermore, she was concerned about her own wellbeing because the resident was so “threatening.” It was satisfied that the tenancy caution was reasonable.
The landlord and resident have provided us with different accounts of what took place during the visit. As we were not party to those events it is not appropriate for us to make a determination on that point. However, based on the landlord’s assertion its decision to issue a tenancy caution was in line with its ASB policy. Its response was therefore appropriate.
A further letter was issued on 5 April 2023 to advise that the LO proposed to visit the resident on 17 April. The resident asserts that he contacted the landlord to request that another LO be allocated to the case and the appointment cancelled. The landlord’s file note dated 14 April states that the resident called to say he would not let the LO into the property. An internal email was sent to the LO that day to advise that the resident had declined to give her access going forwards.
On 17 April 2023 the LO wrote to the resident. It said that because he had advised he would refuse entry on 17 April 2023 a further appointment had been made for 25 April 2023. The landlord’s file note shows that during a telephone call with the resident on 20 April 2023 he said he would only allow access if it had a warrant.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to issue a second tenancy caution. It said that when it attended on 25 April 2023 the resident was not at home. However, there was a “strong” smell of cannabis when another male opened the door which was a breach of tenancy. It expressed concern that this was the second appointment the resident had missed and said it would visit again on 4 May 2023.
The landlord and resident have provided us with different accounts of what took place during the phone call. As we were not party to the call it is not appropriate for us to make a determination on that point.
The letter makes it clear there was a breach of tenancy for the cannabis use therefore the caution was appropriate. However, it does not set out whether the warning was also for the missed appointments.
Furthermore, its stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 said there had been examples of further intimidation towards staff. It therefore concluded that the warning was warranted. This was inappropriate because the letter does not refer to the resident’s behaviour towards staff. The lack of clarity around the caution was inappropriate causing distress to the resident.
Although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint its stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023 confirmed that the case had been passed to another officer. Given the events set out above it was appropriate that it used its discretion to do so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2023 said it would carry out a desktop review of the case and decide “exactly” what information it needed to bring the matter to a close. However, there is no evidence that the desk top review was carried out and communicated to the resident which was inappropriate. This caused him distress and uncertainty.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the presence of asbestos in the boiler.

During his emails to the landlord on 12 May 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the length of time taken by the landlord to replace his boiler. He also asked it to explain why the presence of asbestos posed no risk to him.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 appropriately set out when the boilers were replaced and that the asbestos did not pose a risk to him. During February 2020 it was recommended the boiler be replaced however, this did not take place until 2 December 2022. It confirmed that the delay was due to COVID-19 which was reasonable.
Its second stage 2 complaint response, issued on 21 July 2023, confirmed why the presence of asbestos in the boiler was not a risk to the resident. The landlord’s explanation was appropriate.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 20 April 2023. On 24 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint which it said would be allocated. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023 which was appropriately within time.
The landlord’s response covered the issues raised in the resident’s email of 20 April 2023. However, it said it had discussed the complaint with the resident on 2 May 2023. We have not been provided with a file note setting out the conversation which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord responded to the issues raised by the resident during the call.
The resident’s view was that it did not. On 12 May 2023 he emailed the landlord to express his ongoing dissatisfaction with its response. He sent a further email on the same day to set out what he referred to as the terms of his complaint.
Because we have not seen a copy of the file note from the conversation on 2 May 2023 it is not possible to determine whether the issues referred to the email of 12 May 2023 were new issues not previously raised at stage 1.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of his stage 2 complaint. On 26 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say he would send the terms of the complaint with suggested resolutions the following week which ended 2 June 2023. The landlord replied on 30 May 2023 to confirm it was happy to receive any further information to complete the stage 2 response.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on the 2 June 2023 to say they had been absent from work and would provide the information the following week. The landlord replied on 5 June 2023, attaching its response dated 31 May 2023. It said it was “conscious of time” and in the absence of any further information it had issued its response. This was based on the information provided by the resident on 12 May 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 the landlord apologised if its decision had not been communicated to the resident.
The landlord failed to wait until the 2 June 2023, only waiting 1 day, before issuing its response. In its stage 2 complaint response of 21 July 2023 the landlord said it was concerned about meeting its deadline. However, the response was not due until 10 June 2023 and so it still had time. If it were concerned about timescales it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted the resident. They could have discussed the situation including a possible extension.
The resident’s frustration was evident in his email to the landlord of 9 June 2023. He suggested that rather than refer his complaint to us, it could review its response.
The landlord issued an additional stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. This was 49 working days after the complaint was originally made and 29 working days over target. It is unclear why it took so long and therefore the delay was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to all points of the complaint. The landlord’s first stage 2 complaint response dated 31 May 2023 failed to provide information relating to the risk posed by the presence of asbestos in the boiler which was inappropriate. However, it is noted that the landlord put this right by providing a response in its second stage 2 response dated 21 July 2023.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that stage 2 responses will be issued by a senior manager. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were issued by locality managers. There was no escalation to a more senior member of staff therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its policy.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. It has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his subject access request is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s communication with its contact centre.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its concerns about the resident’s conduct of his tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation by staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the presence of asbestos in the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s communication with its contact centre.
  2. £250 for the distress caused by its failures in its handling of its concerns about the resident’s conduct of his tenancy.
  3. £100 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of harassment and intimidation by staff.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.