Sovereign Network Group (202430171)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430171

Sovereign Network Group

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak through around his living room window causing damp.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the 2-bedroom flat, situated in a multi-storey block, since April 2022. The property was a new build at the time of the events concerned in this report.
In November 2023, the resident reported a leak coming through his window. The landlord investigated this in January 2024 and identified a problem with the communal roof. It considered this was likely due to a problem (defect) with the construction of the building. So, it took photographs in May 2024 to support a potential claim to put the defect right.
The resident complained by phone on 1 August 2024 and followed up again 4 times over the next few weeks. He said:
1. He had been waiting for the roof to be repaired since November 2023 and had made multiple contacts about it but had yet to receive a solution.
2. He had not received a response to his complaint within the given timeframe.
3. The ongoing leak was affecting the quality of his life because of the inconvenience of dealing with it.
4. He wanted the landlord to confirm when the repair would be completed.
On 9 September 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. A claim had been submitted to the National Housing-Building Council (NHBC) but it had not progressed due to a system error at their end.
2. It had resubmitted the claim and someone from NHBC would be in touch with him directly.
3. It apologised for not informing him about the problem and how it was addressing it until now.
Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the resident asked to escalate his complaint in mid-September 2024. He said his reason was because the landlord had not given him a timeline for when the repairs would happen. The resident explained that he was worried about the potential damage to his home whenever it rained.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 October 2024. It said:
1. The NHBC were currently investigating the claim and it was awaiting advice from them for the next steps.
2. It would ensure that the roof was repaired as soon as possible, irrespective of the NHBC’s decision.
3. It identified several failings in its handling of the complaint, including the time it took to log it.

The landlord offered £225 compensation, made up of £75 for the lack of communication about the claim and £150 for the complaint handling failings. It also apologised and confirmed that it had shared feedback with a senior member of staff. It also committed updating him about the claim.

The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with how long it was taking to complete the repair. Since then, the landlord completed the roof repair at its own expense in early 2025. The resident advised that he is now seeking more compensation for the worry and inconvenience he was caused. He would also like the landlord to improve its repairs service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns as he explained them and which the landlord reasonably had the opportunity to consider through its complaint’s procedure. The resident advised us that he lost earnings because he was worried about leaving his flat when it was raining. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident informed the landlord that he was seeking compensation for loss of earnings. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The resident may wish to make a fresh complaint about any new issues or impacts that arose after the complaints process ended. Alternatively, he may consider making a claim against the landlord’s public liability insurance.

Leak around window

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Usually, we measure the timeliness of a landlord’s response against the timescales set in its repairs policy. However, as the landlord explained in its complaint responses, the resident’s building was covered by an NHBC warranty. It correctly described this as being like an insurance policy.
Generally, before NHBC accept a claim, they assess the reported defect. NHBC may then complete the repairs. They may also reclaim costs from the original developer of the property if found to be due to poor workmanship. In this situation, therefore, the landlord would not necessarily be expected to complete repairs or ensure they are completed within a certain timeframe, unless there was good reason to. It would though be reasonable for a landlord to monitor any such repairs and chase them up when necessary.
According to the available records, the resident first reported a leak coming through his window in early November 2023, although the exact date is unknown. This was inspected on 14 November 2023 and a works order raised to repair the lintel above the window, for which scaffolding was required. It is apparent from the records around this time that the landlord was considering that the issue may be caused by a fault with the construction of the building. It is also clear that it was considering the potential to make a claim under the NHBC warranty. Even so, the records show it completed a repair to the window both inside and outside of the resident’s flat on 22 November 2023. This was a quick response, in our view, given the fact that scaffolding was needed. It was also within the landlord’s 38-day timescale in which its repair policy stated it aimed to complete non-urgent repairs within. The evidence therefore shows that initially the landlord responded appropriately and met its repair obligations.
After the window repair, the records show that the landlord decided that it needed to investigate the issue further and may need to extend the scaffolding already in place. It is unclear what prompted this. However, the available records suggest that the landlord suspected the leak may be caused by a defect with the roof. In February 2024, there were also reports of a leak through the roof into a communal area. The landlord inspected this from ground level, along with the property developer, in mid-March 2024. It recorded that it was unclear where the leak was from coming from. The landlord then completed a further inspection of the resident’s flat on 30 May 2024. This was when it took photographs of the damage with the intention of making a claim.
Clearly the issue was complex, both in terms of diagnosing the fault and in establishing liability for repairing it. Therefore, the fact that the landlord had not addressed the problem by the time the resident complained 10 months after his initial report is not itself an indication of a failing. In such cases, we would expect to see evidence that the landlord was taking all reasonable steps to progress the matter. We also highlighted the importance of effective communication in cases where a landlord was not responsible for a repair or defect in our spotlight report on new builds, published in September 2020.
Between January and May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for updates over 10 times. In some of these calls he advised that he was worried when it rained because of the potential for further damage. On 29 April 2024 he also reported that the damage to the plasterwork had worsened. Except for the 2 inspections referred to above, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord carried out any other investigations. The records also show that the landlord provided little by way of updates or explanations to the resident during this time. And this continued after the last inspection and until the resident made a formal complaint in August 2024. This was clearly inappropriate and would understandably have added to the resident’s distress over the ongoing situation. The landlord did not provide any reasons or explanations for its actions (or lack of) over this period in its responses. We have also seen no obvious reason to account for this in the records. This is therefore a failing which the landlord did not take accountability for.
The landlord said in its responses that it submitted a claim to the NHBC but this was not processed due to a system error on their part. We have not seen direct evidence showing when the initial claim was made. Other evidence available, though, indicates that the claim was submitted in early August 2024. It is not apparent from the evidence if this action was prompted by the resident making a complaint, or because the landlord was ready to make the claim. Either way, the fact the landlord cannot evidence it was progressing the matter in the 2 months after the last inspection is a further failing. It was appropriate therefore for the landlord to apologise in its responses for the overall delay in the claim progressing. To put things right, it was also reasonable that it resubmitted the claim to the NHBC.
The main reason the resident gave for escalating his complaint on 18 September 2024 was because the landlord was unable to provide a timeline for completing the repairs. He said he was worried to leave his home in case it rained. The landlord’s response, that the issue was outside of its control because of the pending claim, was reasonable. Had it completed repairs it may have invalidated the claim. The landlord did provide reassurance that, whatever the outcome of the claim, the defect would be repaired. It also advised it had asked the NHBC to prioritise the case, which we have seen evidence that it did. These were appropriate actions in the circumstances.
After the complaints process ended, the records show that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 October 2024. This was after a heavy downpour of rain. The operative who attended noted that the resident now had water damage “all over his ceiling”, there was mould, and that the resident was using buckets to contain the leaks. Clearly the situation had deteriorated over the 11 months since the resident’s initial report.
It is beyond the scope of this investigation to consider if the landlord responded appropriately to this further report. However, had it committed to giving regular updates on the claim/repairs in its complaint’s responses. We would therefore expect to see evidence that it provided regular and meaningful updates. Ensuring actions to put right a complaint are followed to completion is also a requirement of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There were no records, that we have seen, that the landlord updated the resident on the situation until 19 December 2024. This is when it advised him it was seeking quotes to complete the roof repair itself. It also arranged mould treatments. It is a failing and a departure from the Code that the landlord is unable to show that it kept the resident updated.
While the landlord took some appropriate actions to put right the complaint, this investigation has identified further failings. We have, therefore, found that the amount of compensation it awarded of £75 was not proportionate to the impact of its failures to:
1. Keep the resident updated on the position of the repair/claim between January and December 2024.
2. Demonstrate it was proactively seeking a solution, particularly between January and May 2024.
3. Follow through on its commitment to keep him updated as an outcome to his complaint.
The landlord is ordered to pay compensation above its original offer that reflects the worry and inconvenience the resident was caused from the intermittent leak. Our award has been made in line with our guidance on remedies for cases where there has been a prolonged, but no lasting impact.
We recognise the landlord said it would consider learning from the resident’s complaint in its final response. However, we have ordered it to show us what specific actions it has already taken or will take to improve its handling and communication of cases relating to defects and NHBC claims.

Associated complaint

The Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time the resident complained adhered to the timescales and principles of the Code. This included a requirement to:
1. Respond promptly and within defined timescales of 10 working-days at stage 1 and 20 working-days at stage 2.
2. Address all aspects of a complaint and provide clear reasons for a decision.
3. Explain what actions it will take to put things right and when these will happen and ensure they are completed.
The landlord failed to meet the standards of the Code because it:
1. Exceeded the stage 1 timescale by 17 working-days.
2. Failed to address the resident’s complaint that the roof repair had been outstanding since November 2023.
3. Could not demonstrate that it kept him updated.
Appropriately, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to escalate and respond to his complaint within the appropriate timescale. It also said that the stage 1 did not address the complaint fully. While it took some accountability for its failings, we have identified a further failing in the quality of its response. We have therefore found service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident. However, we have not ordered it to pay more compensation. Our reason is because the amount awarded of £150 is reasonable and in line with what our guidance on remedies recommends is paid for low impact failings.
Previously, we made a wider order for the landlord to review its complaints handling practice (202225299). This included the timeliness and quality of its responses. Following its review, it advised us that it was providing training to improve its staff awareness of its complaints process and the Code. It also said training was being given in complaint writing. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas. However, we expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak around his living room window causing damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must send evidence to the Ombudsman it has:
1. Sent a written apology to the resident for:
  1. The delays and poor communication with him about the repairs/claim to the roof.
  2. Not addressing all the resident’s concerns in the complaint responses.
2. Paid compensation of £550, made up of:
  1. £400 for the delays in progressing its investigation and claim.
  2. £150 for the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation of £225 offered during the complaints process, this may be deducted, leaving £325 to pay.

Explain what learning it has taken or has already implemented from the resident’s case. This should include any improvements it has or will make where a defect and/or claim to NHBC is or may be warranted to help avoid delays and better communication with residents.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider providing the resident with details about how he may be able to claim for his loss of earnings. This may include signposting him to its public liability insurer.