Sovereign Network Group (202318094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318094

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 reports of water coming into the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident lived at the property, which is a 2 bedroom flat, since December 2021. She moved out on 5 June 2023. The landlord does not have a copy of the tenancy agreement. The resident told us that she paid around £625 a month for her rent, (around £144 a week). The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident submitted a complaint on 25 April 2022 and said:
1. There was water coming into the property.
2. There had been 2 previous leaks which the landlord had not taken seriously.
3. Her new carpet was soaked through.
She reported water coming into the property again on 21 September 2022. Works were completed to resolve this. She reported the same issue in December 2022. The landlord completed works that same month which resolved the problem.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 24 May 2023. It said it had visited the property and raised works to fix the issues. The resident had declined its goodwill gesture of £150. As such, it would escalate her complaint to stage 2.
After the resident moved out of the property, she provided a doctor’s letter. This said that she had experienced breathing issues since March 2023 and had found mould in the property on moving out.
On 3 August 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2. It said as follows:
1. The time to rectify the leaks had not been acceptable. This had led to damage to the property and poor living conditions. As such, the resident had to spent time staying with friends and family.
2. Its lack of response to the requests for an inspection had resulted in further damage. If the inspection had been completed sooner, damage would have been reduced. The factors that the resident believed affected her health would have been resolved.
3. It signposted her on how to make a public liability claim in respect of her health.
4. It offered £750 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 19 August 2023 as follows:
1. She had taken time off work to stay home for appointments (some of which the landlord did not attend).
2. She had been caused “significant distress”.
3. She had not been able to use her bedroom, particularly over the December 2022 period.
4. The landlord’s offer of compensation was “insulting” given the level of disruption and damage to her health. She had breathing problems starting in March 2023, likely caused by mould which she had found on moving out.
The resident advised us in March 2025 that she was looking for at least £4,000 compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident feels she has developed a physical illness as a result of mould in the property. The courts are best placed for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased information on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, this can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, where there is evidence of a service failure we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
The landlord has said that there have been a number of leaks impacting areas in the block, including other residents. It is not for us to say if the instances of water coming into the property experienced by the resident was from 1 source or different sources. This is because we don’t have the expertise to determine the cause of water coming into the property. Instead, we will look at how the landlord responded to the individual reports of water coming into the property in line with its relevant policies.

Response to the resident’s reports of water coming into the property

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says as follows:
1. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. An example of an emergency would be severe flooding, water running into electrics, or a major roof leak causing internal damage.
2. It aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 38 days.
3. It will do all it can to complete the repair on the first visit. Follow–on works may be completed within 6 months.
4. In certain circumstances, it will compensate residents where there’s been a loss of a room or facilities.
The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. It will not consider compensation for personal injury or stress, damage to personal possessions or loss of earnings.
2. If part of a property is not usable as a result of delayed repairs, the resident may be entitled to compensation. Its guideline for loss of use of a bedroom is £25 per week.
For clarity, the separate reports of water coming into the property have been considered below:

10 to 16 November 2021

The resident said within her complaint dated 25 April 2022 that there had been a leak in November 2021. As such, her carpet near the front door had been soaked through.
Following this report, a contractor attended and resealed the bath. The resident said that the water coming into the property had been resolved by 16 November 2021.
In respect of this issue, the landlord demonstrated it acted appropriately by resolving the issue within 6 days. This was in line with its non-emergency repair timeframe (within 38 days).
However, we have identified failures in how the landlord responded to the report, as follows:
1. It lacked detailed record keeping. It could not evidence the cause of the water coming into the property or what repair it had carried out. The only information provided to us about this work came from the resident. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should have had comprehensive records of its actions and investigations.
2. There is no evidence that the landlord offered to provide the resident with a dehumidifier to help dry the carpet. This was a missed opportunity to support the resident and put things right.

28 January to March 2022

On 28 January 2022 the resident reported that her lounge floor was wet from water coming into the property. She believed the water to be from her upstairs neighbour’s toilet leaking.
The landlord raised a job to supply a dehumidifier to the resident on 2 February 2022. It collected this from the resident around 16 February 2022 as the resident said she had nowhere to store it. Following this, it replaced the affected carpet in March 2022.
In respect of this instance of water coming into the property, the landlord demonstrated it acted appropriately as follows:
1. It provided the resident with a dehumidifier for around 2 weeks to assist with drying the carpet.
2. It replaced the affected carpet.
However, we have found the following failures in how the landlord responded:
1. It did not provide any evidence to show that it had attended the neighbour’s property to identify the cause of the water coming into the property.
2. It did not provide any evidence to show that it had carried out a repair in the neighbour’s property.
3. There is no evidence that it had checked if the leak had been resolved.
4. It did not provide any information to the resident about its investigation or repairs carried out.

25 April to 6 May 2022

The resident reported another instance of water coming into the property within her complaint on 25 April 2022. She said that her new carpet was soaked through. She asked the landlord to do a full investigation.
The landlord arranged an emergency repair on 27 April 2022. This was carried out the same day. The contractor isolated the water in the neighbour’s bathroom so that it could investigate the source of the leak. It booked follow– on repair works in the neighbour’s bathroom for 5 May 2022.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 3 May 2022 and acknowledged that it had not fully investigated or repaired the leak in the neighbour’s property. It outlined the steps it had taken and the work it had arranged. It asked what damage had been caused in the resident’s property so it could put this right. The landlord followed through with this and raised a job on 5 May 2022 to make good damage to the resident’s skirting boards.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 6 May 2022 that she had not experienced water coming into the property since 25 April 2022. She said that the carpet smelt due to getting wet. She asked to know the cause of the leak and what work had been done. She was concerned about potential damage to the flooring as the landlord had not done a full investigation. She asked the landlord to fully assess the damage.
The landlord responded that same day. It said that works to the neighbour’s property were still being done. This included a new shower screen, shower bar and toilet repairs. At the resident’s request, it carried out an inspection of her property to assess the damage on 15 June 2022.
The resident told the landlord on 26 June 2022 that the inspection had found that the lino in the bathroom and washing cupboard would need to be replaced. She asked for an update on this.
The landlord advised her on 28 June 2022 that the water supply to the neighbour’s toilet was still isolated. The parts needed were on order and it would keep her updated. It apologised for the disruption caused.
In respect of this instance of water coming into the property, the landlord demonstrated it acted appropriately as follows:
1. It responded to the resident’s report within 2 days. This was within its repair response timeframe.
2. Despite the water coming into the property not meeting the definition of an emergency repair, the landlord subsequently treated it as such. This demonstrated that it had taken the report seriously.
3. It carried out a repair the day of the resident’s request.
4. It booked follow–on repair works in the neighbour’s bathroom within the timeframe of its repairs policy.
5. It acknowledged and apologised that it had not previously fully investigated or repaired the leak in the neighbour’s property. It provided details of the work it had arranged.
6. It asked about damage caused in the resident’s property so it could put this right. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach and that it was committed to put things right. The landlord followed through with this and inspected her property to identify damage.
7. The landlord responded on the same day to the resident’s request to know what work was being done in the neighbour’s property.
8. It recognised that disruption had been caused to the resident and apologised.
However, in addition to the positive response by the landlord, there is no evidence it provided the outcome of the inspection of damage to the resident’s property. A such, it missed an opportunity to be transparent about what had been identified and how it would put this right.

21 to 30 September 2022

There was a gap in correspondence until 21 September 2022 when the resident reported another instance of water coming into the property. The following day the landlord raised an urgent job to arrange for her carpets to be dried.
The resident reported the issue again on 26 September 2022. The landlord told her that it had booked an emergency job in the property next door as this was the suspected source of the leak. A contractor attended the neighbour’s property on 7 October 2022. The landlord noted internally on 28 October 2022 that it did not have a record of the outcome of this visit.
The landlord’s notes show on 1 November 2022 that a job had been booked to replace the resident’s flooring, even though the leak coming into the property had not been resolved. It raised an emergency job the following day to locate and rectify the leak in the neighbour’s property.
This emergency visit had taken place by the following day and no issues were found in the neighbour’s property. As such, the landlord requested a full investigation. It noted that the property below the resident had also reported water coming into the property.
The landlord told the resident that the investigation had been booked for 12 December 2022. Work to her flooring had been arranged for 6 January 2023.
In respect of this water coming into the property, the landlord demonstrated it acted appropriately as follows:
1. It responded to the resident’s report the following day.
2. A contractor attended the neighbour’s property within the response timeframe for a non-emergency repair.
3. The landlord raised an emergency job to locate and rectify the leak in the neighbour’s property. This was appropriate despite the leak not meeting its definition of an emergency repair.
4. As no issues had been found in the neighbour’s property, the landlord arranged a full investigation.
We have identified the following failures in how the landlord responded to this instance of water coming into the property as follows:
1. Despite raising a job to dry the carpets, there is no evidence that this took place.
2. The landlord did not have a record of what the outcome of the contractor’s visit to the neighbour’s property had been.
3. The landlord had arranged to replace the resident’s flooring even though the water coming into the property had not been resolved. It did, however, realise its error.

5 to 21 December 2022

The resident reported water coming into the property on 5 December 2022. The landlord responded the same day and apologised. It said it was aware of leaks affecting a number of areas of the building. It was investigating and had asked for an update.
Around 9 December 2022, the landlord asked for the leak investigation to be done sooner than 6 January 2023. It also requested the resident be provided with a dehumidifier. It asked for an inspection of the resident’s property to see the damage caused.
The investigation of the leak took place on 19 December 2022 at the resident’s property. The following day the resident told the landlord that the contractor had not returned as it had said. She said the contractor had found that the leak was not coming from her water supply. She said that her bedroom carpet was completely soaked.
That same day, the landlord chased the contractor and asked why they had not returned. It noted that there were no notes from the inspection or to say if a return visit was needed. It apologised to the resident. It said it had queried the issue and would update her as soon as possible.
The resident told the landlord that she was going away over Christmas and was concerned her belongings would be damaged. The landlord advised the same day that it was trying to bring the visit for 5 January 2023 forward. It suggested she move her belongings and use old towels to soak up water. The resident said that she could not move her bed and did not have old towels.
That same day the landlord requested an emergency repair. This took place the following day. It found that the upstairs neighbour’s toilet inlet was leaking.
In respect of this water coming into the property, the landlord demonstrated it acted appropriately as follows:
1. It responded to the resident’s report the same day.
2. It moved the leak investigation forward.
3. It requested that the resident be provided with a dehumidifier.
4. It requested an inspection of the property to look at the damage caused.
5. It responded to the resident’s concerns about why a contractor had not attended on 20 December 2022, the same day she raised this.
6. In response to the resident’s concerns about damage over Christmas, it said it was trying to bring the visit for 5 January 2023 forward. It provided her with practical steps she could take to reduce the possible damage to items.
7. It requested an emergency repair. This took place within 24 hours and found the source of the water coming into the property was identified.
We have found the following failures in how the landlord responded to this instance of water coming into the property:
1. There was a communication failure between the contractor and landlord. The landlord did not have any notes from the contractor’s inspection of 19 December 2022. It did not know if the contractor would be returning to the resident’s property.
2. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns that she could not move her bed and did not have old towels.
3. There is no record of any repair being carried out following the contractor attending the neighbour’s property on 23 December 2022.
Despite it not being clear what work was carried out on 23 December 2022, the resident confirmed that there have been no further water coming into the property since then. She said she had not been able to stay in her bedroom during the times of the water coming into the property due to the wet carpet, the smell and fear of becoming ill. She said the landlord had only provided a dehumidifier on 1 occasion.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord visited the resident to discuss her complaint. She requested around £1500 compensation due to not being able to use her bedroom and the inconvenience of taking time off work. She subsequently said that the landlord should award her £40 a day and she would settle the matter for £2000.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1. It said that it had attended the property and raised the works for the plasterboard, skirting and other minor repairs. During its visit to the resident, it had offered £150 as a goodwill gesture. The resident had declined this.
The resident moved out of the property on 5 June 2023. She provided a doctor’s letter dated 8 June 2023 saying that she had been experiencing breathing issues since March 2023 and had found mould in the property on moving out.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 3 August 2023 and said as follows:
1. The timescales for it to rectify the leaks had not been acceptable. This had led to further damage to the property and poor living conditions.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had not been able to use the bedroom for an extended period and had stayed with friends and family.
3. Its lack of response to the repeated requests for an inspection had caused further damage. If the inspection had been done sooner there would have been less damage. This would have also resolved the issues the resident believed had impacted her health.
4. It could not consider the resident’s health concerns via compensation. This would need to be dealt via a public liability claim. It attached information for the resident to pursue this.
5. It offered £750 compensation for the effect on the resident.

Conclusion

It is not disputed that there have been a number of instances of water coming into the property into the resident’s property. It has also not been disputed by the landlord that it is responsible for tracing and resolving the cause of the water coming into the property.
In its stage 1 response the landlord summarised the remedial works it had arranged. It offered a goodwill gesture of £150. We have seen internal correspondence from the landlord where it considered financial redress before its stage 1 response. It had noted that £150 may not be sufficient and it may need to “top this up”. Despite this, it did not do so. Nor did it consider if discretionary compensation was appropriate. This was unresonable.
The resident said that on moving out, she had found mould in the carpet. Following this, she provided a doctor’s letter saying that she had breathing issues since March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of any health issues experienced by the resident until 8 June 2023. There is also no evidence that the resident had reported mould at any point before she moved out. However given the known frequency of the water coming into the property, the landlord did not show that it had looked for mould during its investigations of damage in the property. This was a missed opportunity to consider potential hazards caused by the water coming into the property.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was more thorough and showed that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. The response did not acknowledge all of its failures, as we have found above. However, the landlord did acknowledge the main failures in identifying and rectifying the causes of water coming into the property and the effect on the resident. It was appropriate for it to offer compensation, although it should have done so an earlier stage.
When failures are identified, 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 Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord offered a total of £900 financial redress (£150 as a goodwill gesture and £750 compensation). This is at the top end of the scale for what we would expect a landlord to offer where there has been maladministration, which had a significant impact on a resident.
Although the resident raised the issues of loss of earnings and the impact on her health, the landlord acted in line with its compensation policy. which says that it does not offer compensation in these circumstances. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to how to make a personal injury claim.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award discretionary compensation of £25 per week, for the loss of use of part of the property. Considering the timescales of the reports, the resident experienced water coming into the property for a total of around 15 weeks. Using the landlord’s compensation policy for loss of part of a property, this would give a figure of £375 (£25 x 15 weeks). The landlord’s total offer of compensation as redress was more than double this amount.
We are able to consider redress by way of a percentage of rent when a resident has lost use of part of their property. In this case, over the 15 weeks, the resident would have paid around £2,160 in rent. The landlord’s financial redress of £900 equates to around 42% of her rent over this period. This is a significant proportion of her rent and a total which we consider reasonable in these circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged that it had taken too long overall for the causes of the water coming into the property to be resolved. However, it did generally respond in line with its repairs timeframe after each report. There were also times when it responded to the reports as an emergency even though they did not meet the definition of such a repair. This demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s reports seriously and considered the cumulative impact of the different issues on her.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 response was poor (complaint handling has been considered separately), its consideration of the effect of its failures on the resident within its stage 2 response were reasonable. When considered together, the landlord’s total offer of financial redress of £900 was reasonable in the circumstances. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water coming into the property, in that it put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If extra time is needed at ether stage, it will keep the resident informed.
The resident made a complaint on 25 April 2022. As the landlord had not responded by 31 March 2023, around 11 months later, she asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord said it would respond at stage 1. Despite this assurance, it did not do so. The resident chased a response again on 21 April and 2 May 2023.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 24 May 2023. This was 13 months after the complaint. The response was brief and focused on the visit from 9 May 2023. It did not investigate the resident’s concerns that she had raised within her complaint going back to 2021. The landlord also failed to acknowledge that its response had been delayed or apologise for the effect of this on the resident. There is no evidence that it considered discretionary compensation despite acknowledging in its records that a goodwill gesture may not be enough.
The resident had told the landlord during its visit on 9 May 2023, that she would not accept the £150 goodwill gesture. As such, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had escalated her complaint.
It responded at stage 2 on 3 August 2023. This was 50 working days after it had escalated the matter. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay. It did not apologise for this or consider the effect of this on the resident.
In total the internal complaints process took around 15 months. This was significantly outside of its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). As well as causing the resident frustration, she spent time chasing the complaint. The delay also prevented her from referring her case to us sooner for investigation and a resolution.
The landlord failed to consider its complaint handling within either of its responses. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the Code. Due to the significant delays at both stages, the lack of acknowledgment, apology or redress for this and the lack of a thorough investigation at stage 1, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handing.
We have ordered £350 compensation to acknowledge the effect of this on the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance were there were failures which adversely affected a resident and where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.
Similar failures in the landlord’s complaint handling were found by us in an unrelated case (202225299). As part of that investigation we ordered the landlord in August 2024 to carry out a Senior Management review of its complaint handling. The landlord provided us with a detailed review in November 2024. This set out its shortcomings and the steps it was taking to improve complaint responses and timeliness. As such, we have not ordered a further review into the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water coming into the property into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order and recommendations

Order

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay £350 compensation to the resident. This is to acknowledge the effect on her of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reoffer the £150 goodwill payment to the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord reoffer £750 compensation previously offered to the resident.