From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Sovereign Network Group (202400099)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400099

Sovereign Network Group

5 May 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:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband are joint tenants under an assured shorthold tenancy. They live in a three-bedroom house with their 2 children. Their son lives with autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and her daughter has obsessive-compulsive disorder and a respiratory condition.
  2. We previously determined a complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, other repairs and its complaint handling in case 202224092 in February 2024. We found the landlord responsible for severe maladministration due to its multiple failings that included unreasonable delay to works, poor communication, and failure to have reasonable regard to the resident’s household needs or health hazards. We found that as of early 2024, its remedial work was outstanding, and the resident’s family continued to experience damp and mould in their home.
  3. While awaiting our determination, the landlord completed investigations at the property in November 2023 in response to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould. Its inspection found that the damp and mould was ‘severe’ and that it required a full structural survey. The resident raised a new complaint on 4 December 2023 that the work to resolve the damp living conditions remained outstanding. She raised concerns about the adequacy of its inspection and its communication with her. The resident described ongoing distress and health impacts to her daughter. 
  4. On 22 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that works were ongoing to seek to resolve damp and mould, however considered that it had done all that was possible within a reasonable timeframe. It accepted that it was responsible for communication failings.
  5. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 29 February 2024. She raised the time it had taken to find an effective solution to the damp and mouldy living conditions that she described as worsening. She also raised failures in the landlord’s communication. 
  6. The Ombudsman’s orders in case 202224092 at the end of February 2024 required the landlord to identify any outstanding repairs contributing to the cause of damp and mould and prepare an action plan. The landlord completed some investigations and repairs in March 2024. 
  7. On 15 April 2024 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It apologised for service failings concerning its communications, delays to its works and complaint handling. It offered the resident compensation of £2,570. It acknowledged having caused difficult impacts to the family and gave details for the resident to consider a personal injury claim.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us for investigation. In June 2024, the landlord completed further roofing works and plastering and redecoration to remedy damage caused by damp. In August 2024 it installed a window vent and completed a repair to the gutters. The resident reported at the end of 2024 that she continued to experience internal damp and mould. The landlord noted guttering defects and the need to further investigate the cause of damp. It completed additional works January to March 2025, including air vents, a new radiator and mould treatment. It also identified work to the walls, loft insulation and tiling. The resident told us that she continues to experience damp and seeks as a remedy the resolution of these living conditions and compensation for the impact to her family

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Our previous determination of 28 February 2024 in case 202224092 ordered the landlord to pay financial redress to reflect the detriment caused up to early 2024. Therefore, when assessing any detriment to the resident arising from any failure of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould works, we have considered the period after our previous investigation. The earlier period was reviewed as background context only, and the end of 2023 onwards assessed as relevant solely on review of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The resident said this situation had a negative effect on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. When the period for this investigation began in late February 2024, the landlord was aware that damp and mould issues had been ongoing in the resident’s home since 2022. Its own survey in late 2023 described the damp and mould as ‘severe’. It was aware that the household had multiple needs that required sensitivity and adjustments when arranging works. The landlord completed minor roofing works in early February 2024 but was still due to complete investigations into water ingress when we ordered it to identify repairs and an action plan.
  2. The landlord was required by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
  3. In the early part of March 2024, the landlord arranged for roofing contractors to carry out investigations and later works. It identified multiple defects in the roofing structure, causing leaks into both children’s bedrooms. It also noted that vents were needed to improve air circulation and the external wall repointing. It completed roofing works on 28 March 2024 and mould treatment in early April 2024. At the point of its final complaint response, it said it was due to fit vents and complete repointing by the middle of April 2024. Following our determination, the landlord took appropriate and timely steps to progress its investigations and works.
  4. The landlord appropriately reflected on the extent of its overall delay in identifying works to the roofing structure in its final complaint response. It accepted that its surveyor had failed in late 2023 to diagnose defects which led to its overall delay and the resident living with damp and mould.
  5. The landlord also acknowledged that it had failed to return calls to the resident and provide proactive updates about its plan of action, causing her time and trouble chasing it. It was appropriate that it reflected on and acknowledged these communication failings. Our review of its records showed that its efforts at updating the resident were inconsistent. While there was evidence of some calls and contact, other actions or findings were either not communicated to the resident or only communicated after the event. A significant number of steps were taken in March and April 2024 across a relatively short period that required co-ordination with and updating of the resident. This would, in ordinary circumstances, require a proactive communication plan or strategy. There is no evidence of one. This was soon after we found severe maladministration (including for communication) and is therefore of concern. The landlord’s failure to put measures in place to ensure effective communication meant that the resident was unfairly burdened by having to chase the landlord. 
  6. Our prior determination of 28 February 2024 found that the landlord failed to appropriately reflect upon the needs of the family and the interim impact of and risks from their living conditions. The records we reviewed showed no evidence that it took steps to consider what adjustments were required to how it provided its services or any available mitigation measures. For example, the landlord was aware that the resident’s daughter was staying away from her home and this was placing strain on family life and the household’s wellbeing. There is no evidence that it considered what support it could offer pending its works, such as temporary accommodation. It was aware of the need for prior notice and sensitivity when arranging works to help the resident support her vulnerable children, who found its attendance distressing. However, only weeks after it was found responsible for serious failings on this point, it attended the property in mid-March 2024 without any prior notice. The resident was put to further inconvenience and trouble, reminding the landlord of her household’s needs and the adjustments required. These were concerning repetitions of failings that exacerbated the distress experienced by a vulnerable family.
  7. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had caused distress to the resident’s family and offered financial redress specifically for this and the impact of the resident’s daughter staying away from her home. However, there is no evidence showing that it identified appropriate internal learning or remedial steps to ensure engagement with its duties to ensure a safe home pending works or to have regard to household needs.
  8. There is no evidence that the landlord put appropriate steps in place to post-monitor its works to ensure that all causes of damp and mould were resolved. We note that it monitored the works while in progress and signed these off as completed. It also checked with the resident after a period of rain very shortly after completion of its roofing repairs. However, there was no evidence that it considered whether it was appropriate to monitor for potential recurrence of damp for any longer period of time. Considering the longstanding nature of the issues at the property that extended to the ground floor it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a longer period of monitoring, for example by extending the monitoring to the next cold and damp season. This would enable it to take swifter responsive steps to further investigate and respond and prevent the onus being placed on the resident to re-report issues. The landlord’s failure to appropriately post-monitor put the resident to further time and trouble and she continued to live with further damp conditions. Its failure to monitor works was highlighted in our prior determination. It is of concern that the landlord failed to put identified learning into practice by appropriate post-monitoring.
  9. The landlord’s final complaint response of 15 April 2024 did not identify the extent of the failings noted above concerning post-monitoring and consideration of the needs of and risks to the household. However, it did demonstrate detailed consideration of the detriment that its failings had caused up to that date. It offered a daily sum for the separation of the family and compensation specific to its delay, distress caused, impacts to health, and poor communications. It offered a total sum of £2,320 that we consider was an amount proportionate to the likely impact over the relevant period. Its offer showed appropriate regard to the particular impact to the family.
  10. However, by not identifying the extent of its failings, it did not assess and implement appropriate learning to ensure that they did not recur. This was particularly important in a case where it had caused severe detriment to the resident’s family. It failed to take appropriate steps to seek to resolve damp and mould at the resident’s home, leaving her to experience the distress of these conditions returning and once again chasing and contacting it for action. Her distress was exacerbated by this occurring as a repeat of the failings she had previously experienced. The vulnerability of the family and the impact that the situation caused them were a further aggravating factor.
  11. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of works concerning damp and mould. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay additional compensation to the resident of £650 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial.
  12. We note that the resident reports ongoing damp living conditions and concerns about the adequacy of works completed in recent months aimed at tackling the issue. Certain works identified as required to manage the risk of damp, for example, loft insulation and the ‘double-skimming’ of walls, are incomplete. The landlord’s prior handling of the issues has impacted the resident’s trust and assurance in its ability to ensure that her home is safe for her family. We consider it reasonable in these circumstances to order the landlord to instruct an independent expert inspection of the property to assess any ongoing damp and mould and carry out any identified works.
  13. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its damp and mould handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint process were delayed past the timeframe required by its policy. In line with the timescales for responses set by our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), its policy said that it would aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Its response to the resident at stage 1 was issued 40 working days late, and at stage 2, 12 working days late.
  2. The landlord’s delay at stage 1 was significant. During this time, the repeatedly chased it for an update about her complaint and raised concern about the delay. This did not prompt the landlord to engage with her, apologise for its ongoing delay, give an updated timescale, or take steps to consider the prioritisation of her complaint. It took steps to respond only after she made a request to escalate her complaint. Its lack of engagement or appropriate communication about the status of her complaint put the resident to repeat time and trouble chasing the process.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to engage reasonably with the substance of the resident’s complaint. It failed to demonstrate that it had completed a reasonable consideration of its own records or assessed its actions against its relevant obligations. For example, it deflected responsibility to its contractors despite being directly responsible to the resident in accordance with the legal obligations. It found that it had done everything possible to resolve the damp and mould in her home within relevant timescales, despite this conclusion being inconsistent with its records.
  4. The landlord accepted in its final response that it had made mistakes at stage 1 and had failed to go through the resident’s points or engage to understand her concerns better. It was appropriate that it acknowledged this complaint handling failing to her and offered an apology. It also identified its delay at both complaint stages and learning to progress to a senior level in its complaint handling service. The landlord offered £250 to reflect its complaint handling failings. This was a proportionate level of compensation to address the impact of its accepted failure to provide the complaint handling standards expected by its policy and our Code. The amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guide for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.
  5. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works concerning damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of its staff for the failings identified in this report and their effect on her.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation of £650 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that the resident likely experienced from its handling of works concerning damp and mould.

The ordered compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any arrears.

  1. Write to the resident offering to complete an assessment of her household’s needs in line with its provision and services for supporting its vulnerable residents.
  2. Appoint an independent surveyor not employed by the landlord and ensure that an appointment goes ahead to inspect the property. The landlord may wish to appoint an independent RICs surveyor. See more information below on the survey order.
  3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

The survey order

  1. The survey must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The surveyor must be independent of the landlord. 
  2. The survey report must include photographs and must comment on:
    1. Whether there are any prescribed hazards in the property and specifically any category 1 hazards – this includes whether the property is currently fit for human habitation for the resident and her family.
    2. The causes of damp and mould in the property or reasons why no conclusions can be drawn.
    3. Any defects and repairs that must be completed.
    4. Any remedial works that must be completed, including additional exploratory works.
    5. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is required due to the condition of the property or because of any works.
  3. The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the surveyor provides a copy of the report within 10 working days of the inspection date. The landlord must provide a copy to the Ombudsman and the resident within 5 working days of receipt. It must indicate whether it will offer temporary alternative accommodation to the resident at this time.
  4. Within 28 days of the date it receives the survey, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure that all repairs, remedial and other works, exploratory works and works to ensure the property is fit for human habitation are raised and provide start dates to the resident and us. If it is unable to do this, it must set out its reasons why, together with documentary evidence and an explanation of when it can book/arrange works.

The works

  1. The landlord must use its best endeavours to start the work within the deadlines set. The landlord must provide evidence of the works being started no later than 12 weeks of the date of this determination. If it has not started the works in this time, it must explain to the Ombudsman why and provide documentary evidence to support its reasons. It must set out when it will start them.

Temporary accommodation, removals and expenses

  1. If the landlord agrees to offer temporary alternative accommodation, it must arrange this 14 days before the work is due to begin. It must arrange for storage (at its cost) and removals where necessary. It must agree on any sustenance expenses with the resident (if any).