Sovereign Network Homes (202416841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416841

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes)

30 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s decant (temporary move away from her property).
2. The repairs at the resident’s property.
3. The resident’s request to reimburse her energy bills.
4. The resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
5. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
From the records provided, it appears the resident first raised a legal disrepair claim to the landlord in September 2021. The landlord completed inspection reports in relation to the disrepair claim on 13 October 2021 and 8 November 2022. The report provided in 2022 stated that the resident’s claim was related to damp and mould, defective windows, leaks from the property above, and issues with he roof above the living room window and external brickwork. It concluded that the water ingress was associated with the flat above. It noted recurring mould and blistered paint which it suspected was a result of excessive condensation and defects to the fabric of the building. It provided a schedule of works required to resolve the issues.
The schedule of works included a number of repairs both internally and externally. The schedule showed that works were required in every room in the property. It said the leak from the property above needed to be traced.
The landlord said its contractors requested a decant for the resident on 6 March 2023 due to the amount and size of the furniture in the property.
On 15 March 2023, an independent survey inspection report was provided in relation to a disrepair claim. The report concluded that the landlord was in breach of the implied covenant to repair. It had identified hazards of excess cold, mould, dampness, domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse, entry by intruders, and poor ventilation. A schedule of works was included. Similar to the previous report, works were required in every room and to the exterior of the property.
The resident was decanted on 15 June 2023. The landlord said the decant would need to be for at least 6 weeks due to the extent of the works and the drying out time needed.
The resident’s solicitor advised the landlord on 6 July 2023 that there was no heating or hot water at the decant address. On 18 July 2023 the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord again to advise that she had been without gas for 2 weeks. They said the resident had been contacting the landlord on a daily basis in relation to the issue. They asked for it to be urgently looked into by the landlord due to the time it had been ongoing. The landlord attended and addressed the issue on 19 July 2023. However, the resident made further reports in relation to the heating and hot water during her decant.
The landlord started repairs at the resident’s property on 9 August 2023. It then failed its post inspection which took place on 13 September 2023. This was due to outstanding internal works. It said a further post inspection took place on 9 November 2023 and all repairs were completed by 4 December 2023.
During the visit to her property on 9 November 2023, the resident reported the heating system was leaking. The landlord said it checked the system on 29 November 2023 and there were no leaks but there was a fault with the boiler which it attended to on 5 December 2023. It said the resident did not provide access for this appointment. It completed the outstanding repair on 23 December 2023.
The resident returned to her property on 30 November 2023 and raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2023. She said there had been repair problems and issues with topping up the gas meter while living at her decant property. The resident said she had moved back to her permanent property, but the landlord had still not completed all the repairs. She said the gas central heating was not working, her furniture had been damaged and left in a pile in her living room, and there were no keys for the back door. The resident said the property was not ready to move back into and there was dust and dirt everywhere. She asked for compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. She said it had impacted her mental and physical health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 December 2023 and outlined the action it had taken in relation to her concerns. In relation to the reports of contractors damaging her belongings, it said the resident signed a disclaimer saying the landlord would not be held responsible for any loss or damage of personal belongings. It said it encouraged residents to have contents insurance but if she did not then she could contact its liability insurance team to assist her further.
The landlord concluded that there was a delay in completing the disrepair works. It said the delays were due to both lack of communication and failings by its contractor. It outlined the lessons learned and action taken. It offered £300 in compensation which was for the delays and issues with heating in her property until 12 December 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2024. She felt she had been unfairly treated and said some of the repairs the landlord had listed remained incomplete. She said she wanted to claim for the meter readings at the permanent address for the duration of the decant. She said she was now in debt due to her electricity and gas bills.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 February 2024. It asked the resident to provide her gas and electric bills from when she was decanted from the property. The landlord confirmed that it would review the bills and make a decision on reimbursement. It said it felt the compensation it offered at stage 1 of the complaints process was accurate and it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord did not complete the repairs to the front living room windows, they were still faulty, and she could not use them. She said the landlord did not reimburse her for her energy bills, despite providing the evidence. She also referred to other issues she was experiencing in the property which included damp and mould, pests, and potential subsidence. The resident said she had a respiratory condition and that her living conditions had impacted her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

We acknowledge that the situation affecting her property has been very distressing for the resident and we note her comments about the effect on her physical and mental health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly to those with respiratory conditions. The Ombudsman can consider this general risk, but it is outside our remit to assess whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused specific damage to the resident’s health and wellbeing. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to decide. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.
In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to additional issues in her property which she raised after the landlord’s final response. These include concerns about the structural integrity of her home, a fire escape, and holes in the bathroom where pests could enter. As these complaints were made after the stage 2 response, the landlord would not have had an opportunity to respond via its internal complaints process. As such, we will not consider them in this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord regarding the issues which have not exhausted its complaints procedure, if she wants to. Once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, she may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

The landlord’s policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergencies within 4 hours. It states that for routine repairs, it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment. It said this would be within 3 weeks and it should complete them within 1 calendar month.
The landlord’s decants procedure states that tenants should liaise with their own utility companies for connections and disconnections. It states that residents can claim for any costs incurred if proof is provided. The procedure does not expand on what costs this could be. As such, we assume it is any additional costs incurred as result of the landlord or its contractors’ actions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a resident raises concerns about damage caused within their home based upon a perceived negligence, it will explain that it has public liability indemnity insurance cover in place. It says that should be explored before it will consider awarding compensation.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It says where it is unable to meet the target timescales, it will contact the complainant, explain the reasons for the delay, and provide a new target response date.

The landlord’s handling of the decant.

In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident said that when she moved into the decant property, there was a debt on the meter which meant that when she topped it up all the money went on the debt. She said the landlord did not resolve the issue and she could not have a hot bath for 6 weeks. The resident said there were also repair issues upon moving into the decant property which included issues with the toilet, TV, washing machine, and low pressure from the taps.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s account. However, the landlord’s records do not refer to all of those repairs. The landlord has stated that there were no issues in the decant property other than the gas card issue. The records show works orders raised on 16 June 2023, 11 July 2023, and 25 October 2023 while the resident was living in the decant property. The records do not detail what was raised on 23 June 2023. On 11 July 2023, the notes simply state “void works electrical. The order raised on 25 October 2023 was raised as an emergency to resolve a seized stopcock and to get the water back on.
Based on the evidence, it was not appropriate for the landlord to state that there were no repair issues within the decant property. The landlord had a responsibility to prove that it acted reasonably and due to the limited information documents about the works orders we cannot confirm it has done so. It is a failing that the landlord’s records do not sufficiently show what repairs the resident reported and what action the landlord took at the time. Whilst it is not clear from the evidence exactly what repairs were carried out at the decant property, it is clear there were some repair issues, which would have caused the resident inconvenience.
If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reflects on its record keeping processes. It should ensure there is a clear audit trail for complaints which provides details of when contact was made, what was said, and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
On 18 July 2023, the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord to advise that she had been without gas for 2 weeks. They said the initial issue with the gas card had been resolved, but the code connected to the card was not being recognised in any shop. They said the resident had been contacting the landlord on a daily basis with no response. On 19 July 2023, the landlord said it provided the resident with the correct gas top up code and that it had previously provided her with the wrong information. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it was first informed of the issue on 6 July 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apologise for its delays and acknowledge the likely detriment caused to the resident. In light of the failures, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered compensation too.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported no hot water on 25 July 2023, the repair was marked as cancelled. On 26 July 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to say it understood she was having issues with the gas meter and that it had attempted to call her. The landlord’s notes on 1 August 2023 stated that it had spoken to the resident the previous week about her request for it to continue topping up the gas. It said the call was terminated due to her inappropriate language. On 31 October 2023, the records show a further report of no heating and hot water, it was also marked as cancelled. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded why it had cancelled the repairs and if any repairs needed to be rebooked. It was not reasonable for it to leave the resident with no gas supply at the decant property.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident reported issues with her heating and hot water on 27 July 2023. As evidenced above, the records show this was reported 2 days prior to that. It said it agreed to top up the meter despite it being the resident’s responsibility. It said it topped up the meter again on 27 October 2023 when the resident reported issues with the gas card. It said its contractors attended on 31 October 2023 and said the boiler had locked out due to the gas running out. It said it was left reset and working following the gas being topped up. In view of the problems the resident had experienced, it was reasonable for the landlord to top up the meter although under normal circumstances the resident would be responsible for this.
The resident said following the initial issues with the card, the landlord had agreed to top up the card on a fortnightly basis. We have not seen evidence which confirms this specific agreement and therefore, we have not identified any failings in relation to it. The landlord confirmed that it had agreed to top up the card on some occasions and it appears that the landlord topping up the card reasonably resolved the matter.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing the disrepair works which led to the extended time for the resident staying in the decant. However, it did not acknowledge the failings in its delays in initially resolving the issues with the gas card. Nor did it show it had considered the likely detriment caused to the resident as a result. It also did not acknowledge that there were repairs raised in the decant property and its records do not sufficiently evidence what action was taken in relation to them. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant.
To put things right for the resident, the landlord must pay £200 compensation to the resident to account for the following:
1. £100 for the failure to acknowledge the repairs raised in the decant property and the failure to evidence that it handled these repairs appropriately.
2. £100 for the delays in resolving the gas card issues for the resident upon moving in until 19 July 2023 and for the time she was without hot water and heating in the decant property.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs at the resident’s property.

The landlord has stated that the reason for the decant was due to the size and amount of furniture in the property. While this may have been one reason, there is no evidence of the landlord considering the hazards recorded in the inspection reports and whether the property was habitable. The independent inspection report dated 15 March 2023 stated that the resident’s permanent property was not habitable. It said the landlord was in breach of the implied covenant to repair. It had identified hazards of excess cold, mould, dampness, domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse, entry by intruders, and poor ventilation.
It took 3 months from the date of the report for the resident to be decanted on 15 June 2023. The landlord said the delay was due to difficulties in sourcing a suitable property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to outline how it had considered the risks to the resident in the 3 months when she was still living in her property. This could have included looking at whether there were any temporary repairs it could do to make the property habitable. The landlord could also have offered the resident the option of a hotel while it was trying to source a temporary property. There is no evidence of it doing so.
The landlord did not dispute in its stage 1 response that there were delays in completing the disrepair works at the resident’s permanent address. It said the delays were due to a lack of communication and failings of its contractor. It said it held weekly meetings with its contractor to discuss performance and used examples such as the resident’s to identify lessons learnt. It said all of the issues and failings were fed back to its contractor and repairs services manager. The landlord confirmed this was to improve its services moving forward. It offered £300 in recognition of its failings.
The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair, learn from outcomes, and put it right. The £300 offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there have been failings causing distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time, but there may be no permanent impact. However, in her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that the landlord had not completed all the repairs. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had completed all repairs by 4 December 2023.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified with the resident which repairs she was referring to. It would then have been able to investigate and confirm what action it had taken in relation to them. The landlord said it carried out a post inspection on 9 November 2023, the landlord has not provided any report from this. As it had not completed all the repairs at that point, it would have been reasonable for it to complete a further inspection after 4 December 2023.
It appears the key repairs the resident was referring to at the time were the windows and bathroom. She said the landlord should have replaced them as part of the disrepair works. The resident said they were contributing to the damp and mould in the property. The inspection report and schedule of works dated 15 March 2023 stated that the windows should be renewed. The repairs to the bathroom included renewing the ceiling, the flooring, the bath, and basin panels. It also included renewing the extractor fan and a new sealant around the bathtub.
The resident has stated that the windows remain in disrepair and that the damp and mould in her property had become unbearable. Given the time which has passed, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property and provide an action plan with defined timescales for any identified repairs. This should include whether the windows require renewal and take into account any other repair concerns raised by the resident.
The landlord offered £300 in compensation.
1. It awarded £120 for the delays at medium impact (12weeks x £10 per week)
2. £120 for distress at medium impact (12 weeks x £10 per week)
3. £60 for time and trouble at high impact (12 weeks x £5 per week)
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the repairs in the resident’s permanent property. Following the report on 15 March 2023, the landlord took 3 months to decant the resident. In that time, the landlord did not show what action it took, if any, to mitigate the risks posed to the resident. The landlord also did not sufficiently evidence that it had completed all the repairs in the property before the resident moved back. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in repeatedly raising the issues.
To put things right for the resident, an order has been made for the landlord to apologise for the above failings. It must also carry out an inspection of the property and provide an action plan for any identified repairs. This should also include consideration to risks posed by the repairs and the resident’s vulnerabilities. We also order the landlord to pay an additional £200 in compensation which is broken down as:
1. £100 for the lack of action taken to mitigate the risks in the 3 months from the date of the inspection report to the time it decanted the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and as such, no attempt has been made to put things right.
2. £100 for the failure to clarify any outstanding repairs with the resident and to evidence that it had completed all the agreed repairs within its internal complaints process. This is in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident as it did not satisfactorily respond to this aspect of her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reimburse her energy bills.

In her stage 2 escalation request, the resident asked for the landlord to deal with her electricity and gas bills in her permanent address. The resident said that her gas and electricity bill had increased from £73 to approximately £700. She said the landlord was liable for that. In its stage 2 response, the landlord asked the resident to provide the bills for the period she was referring to. It said following that, it would make a decision on reimbursement. It said without further evidence it would not be able to make a payment or decision on the matter.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with it’s decants procedure which states that residents can claim any costs incurred during a decant if proof is provided. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the costs before agreeing reimbursement. However, the resident sent an email to the landlord on 15 March 2024 in which she said she had attached the requested bills. To date, it does not appear the landlord reviewed the bills or provided its decision on reimbursement. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has stated that it had not received any further evidence from the resident. This conflicts with the evidence provided on 15 March 2024. If the bills were not attached to the email, the landlord could have asked the resident to resend them.
An order has been made for the landlord to review the bills provided by the resident. It should then provide its position on reimbursing her, in line with its compensation policy. Given the time take to review the information provided, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reimburse her energy bills.
The landlord must pay the resident £100 in compensation for the failure to consider the resident’s gas and electrics bills and the likely impact caused to the resident as a result. This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance suggests awards in this range for service failures where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but has not fully done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.

In her formal complaint, the resident reported damage to her furniture on her return to her permanent property. She said it had been left in a pile in her living room. She said she had photos of the damages.
In its complaint response, the landlord appropriately referred to the disclaimer which the resident signed on the day of the decant. The disclaimer stated that the landlord and its contractor would not be held responsible for any loss or damage of personal belongings. It also signposted the resident to her contents insurance. It said that she could contact its liability insurance team if she did not have contents insurance and wished to make a claim. This was a reasonable response which was in line with its policy and best practice.
Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of such claims and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process. The landlord is a separate organisation from the insurer, and it is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide insurance details so the resident could make a claim. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess insurance claims, so we would not comment on the outcome of the resident’s claim to the insurer if she makes one.
Overall, we have found that the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for damaged belongings was appropriate. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided in 10 working days, this was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2024 and the landlord did not provide a stage 2 acknowledgement until 26 January 2024, 14 working days later. As per its complaints procedure, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. In its stage 2 acknowledgement it said the resident should expect a response by 26 February 2024. Altogether, the landlord provided it stage 2 response 35 working days after the resident’s stage 2 escalation.
In line with its complaints policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the reasons for its delay. There is also no evidence of it acknowledging the delays or considering the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
In her formal complaint the resident stated that her home was dusty and dirty on her return from the decant. The landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge this, which was a failing. As stated earlier, evidence from a post inspection may have assisted the landlord’s investigation, as would discussing it further with the resident. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s report could appear dismissive and did not sufficiently address the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
To conclude, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in his handling of her complaint and this report. It should also pay £50 in compensation for its failure to follow its policy at stage 2 and £50 for its failure to respond to the reports of dust and dirt in the property. These amounts are awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which would not have a permanent impact but were not appropriately acknowledged or put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reimburse her energy bills.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise for the additional failures identified in this investigation. This should include failures to evidence its actions around its handling of the decant, its handling of the repairs and outstanding issues reported in the resident’s permanent property, and its failure to consider the gas and electric bills provided. It should also consider the handling of the complaint and the likely impact to the resident in not addressing all of her concerns. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must carry out an inspection of the resident’s property. This should include whether the windows require renewal and any other concerns the resident has had regarding the condition of the property when she returned from the decant. Once completed, it must share the report with both the resident and the Ombudsman. If repairs are identified, it must put together an action plan with defined timescales for carrying out the repairs. It should also complete a risk assessment noting the resident’s vulnerabilities and any potential hazards in the property.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £900 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £300 it offered at stage 1, if it has not already been paid to the resident and is broken down as follows:
1. £200 for its failures related to the decant.
2. £200 for the failures related to repairs at the property. This is in addition to the £300 previously offered by the landlord.
3. £100 for the failure related to the resident’s request to reimburse her energy bills.
4. £100 for the failures related to the handling of the complaint.
The landlord must review the bills provided by the resident and provide its position on whether she will receive any reimbursement for the time in which she was decanted.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its record keeping in this case and how it hindered this investigation. If it has not already done so, it should consider any changes it could make to improve its record keeping. This should include dates when repairs were carried out, more detailed records concerning what has been done at each repair visit and providing reasons for cancelling repairs.