Sovereign Network Homes (202424745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424745

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident has been a sole tenant of the landlord since December 2023. He lives in a one-bedroom flat in a sheltered housing scheme. There is a flat above and one beneath him. 
3. On 11 December 2023 the resident first reported to the landlord that he thought the neighbour above (neighbour A) was nocturnal as he continued to disturb his sleep. He reported the neighbour below had been screaming (neighbour B) on 13 December 2023. He later supplied us with evidence of a report he made of physical assault and that he had been threatened by neighbour A’s son on 2 January 2024. Further ASB reports were made about both neighbours to the landlord. 
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 July 2024. He said the landlord had failed to manage the building. He asserted he had been subjected to racist attacks and physical assaults. He also cited the issues caused by constant screaming and ASB from elderly residents around him. This had been ongoing since he had moved in without the landlord taking any real action despite him sending in multiple reports. He said the landlord had ignored him when he asked what it was doing about the behaviour, or he was told mediation was taking place. The resident said the constant change of staff further impacted the failings.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 July 2024. It said it had recurring staffing issues between late December 2023 – June 2024 which impacted its service. However, there was cover and residents were kept informed. It believed the building had been adequately managed despite the issues. It stated the resident’s complaint highlighted that the staff needed more ASB training and this was imminent.
6. The landlord noted the resident reported racist abuse to it and the police on 2 January 2024. It said it had not been advised of any action the police were taking. The landlord had interviewed neighbour A about this, and he had reported counter allegations. The landlord said the resident sent further emails with allegations of racial abuse and noise nuisance. The landlord was satisfied it spoke with the neighbours following the resident’s reports. However, it could not see evidence it wrote to them regarding the allegations and breach of tenancy. The landlord had previously provided log sheets to the resident. It asked him to use the Noise App but had not seen evidence he had done so. The landlord apologised it had not managed the ASB as it should have.
7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 5 August 2024. He said there was a gross failing on the landlord’s part. He was subject to ongoing racist abuse and harassment from neighbour A who has a history of this behaviour, and the landlord had failed to act. He asked for his complaint to be reviewed urgently.
8. The landlord issued its final response letter on 10 September 2024. It partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident £155. It calculated this as 31 weeks of high impact of the resident’s time and trouble at £5 per week. The landlord reiterated the steps it took following the resident’s allegation of racist abuse on 2 January 2024. It recognised it had not proactively dealt with this or managed it as it should have. The landlord said if proven to be true the behaviour would represent a breach of tenancy, and it would take appropriate action. The landlord asked the resident to keep log sheets and make recordings via the Noise App. It was sorry the resident did not feel supported.
9. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. He told us he has been living in constant fear, anxiety, and feels suicidal. As a resolution he would like the landlord to move him out of the sheltered housing scheme into a general needs property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to what the landlord had a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to prior to our involvement. The resident’s escalation request related to neighbour A, therefore the landlord only responded to this.
11. The resident also raised concerns that the reported issues have affected his health. It is beyond our expertise to determine the cause of any deterioration in his health. In our view, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

12. The ASB procedure states when a resident makes a report the landlord will:
    1. Complete a risk assessment.
    2. Complete an action plan including a contact agreement.
    3. Send out an acknowledgement letter with log sheets if necessary.
    4. Assess the risk, either high or low. High risk relates to a threat of physical harm and reported hate crimes.
    5. In the case of high risk, contact the resident no later than the next working day.
    6. If there is risk to the resident see if there is a need for security devices.
    7. Reassess the severity of the case with any new evidence.
    8. Contact agencies such as the police.
    9. Review high level cases weekly and monthly by a line manager.
    10. Support the resident, do what it promised and update on progress against the action plan. 
    11. Keep records of all contacts with the resident.
13. We have not seen evidence the landlord completed these actions. There is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment, and therefore, no evidence it initially gave the resident’s situation due consideration. It did not evidence it assessed any vulnerabilities or support needs, or whether it was necessary to put in place any protective security measures for the resident. By not producing an action plan, the landlord failed to set out clear expectations of how it would conduct the investigation. It was not clear on what it could and could not do. These are the building blocks in an ASB case and set out the parameters for the landlord and resident.
14. It appears the resident first reported racist abuse on 2 January 2024. We have not seen evidence the landlord acted in line with its ASB procedure and contacted the resident the next working day. The landlord’s records show it visited the resident and neighbour A on 5 January 2024.
15. The landlord’s ASB procedure states that any staff member can take ASB reports, and the procedure should be followed. Most reports will be made through its contact centre. We recognise the resident lives in a sheltered housing scheme, where the landlord is regularly present. This creates more opportunities for informal interactions between the parties. However, in line with its policy, all contact needs to be documented, and the procedure followed. There were a number of interactions the landlord referred to but did not provide us with records of. For example, a conversation held between it and the resident on 31 May 2024, contact in early June 2024, and a meeting held on 11 July 2024. The resident supplied us with a second email sent in the evening of 2 January 2024 which was when he reported he had been physically assaulted and threatened by neighbour A’s son. We did not receive this evidence from the landlord.
16. The landlord is expected to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Whilst the landlord has provided some records, and it was evident that communication took place. It appears this may not have been properly recorded as it was not provided to the Ombudsman for use in this investigation.
17. Taking legal action against a tenant is not something we would expect a landlord to do without sufficient evidence. For a landlord to take action against a tenant for acts of ASB, a landlord must be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This is in the interests of all parties including the landlord, the resident, and the neighbour accused of ASB, who the landlord is obligated to treat as fairly as others. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord communicated this to the resident. The resident obviously did not feel he was being kept informed of the cases progress as he repeatedly asked the landlord what action it planned to take. We have not seen evidence the landlord sufficiently kept the resident informed of whether it was or was not going to act. Had the landlord completed its action plan this would have given it a framework for both parties to work to.
18. The landlord recognised failings in its final response letter. In both its complaint responses it said it had not been advised of any action the police were taking. We have not seen any evidence it liaised with the police to establish if they were taking any action. Therefore, this was a passive response from the landlord which does not reflect the aims and objectives of its ASB policy. We have not seen evidence the landlord proactively liaised with the police. This was an integral piece of the investigation. If the police were prosecuting neighbour A or his son and the allegations true, the landlord recognised it would have grounds to enforce his tenancy. Yet it did not evidence it contacted the police to find this out.
19. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it promised it would ensure it was proactive in picking up on the resident’s concerns and manage them in line with the ASB procedure. In its final response letter, however, it recognised that it still did not deal with his claims proactively and did not address them in the manner it should have. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint offering £155 compensation. The complaints process is an opportunity to put right the landlord’s failings. The landlord did not resolve the problems it identified in its stage 1 response.
20. The landlord’s offer of £5 per week for the 31 weeks for the high impact on the resident’s time and trouble did not fully recognise the impact on the resident. The resident advised how distressing this time was for him. We have looked at the landlord’s compensation policy and believe it would be fairer and more appropriate to make the award for his distress for this period. The landlord’s policy allows £20 per week for this.
21. The Ombudsman appreciates that for the most part, the landlord was responsive to the resident. It advised the resident how to provide the evidence it needed, visited the neighbours, and in its stage 1 response, recognised its staff could benefit from ASB training. It is recognised that mediation was also explored.
22. In our view, however, the landlord’s final offer of compensation did not adequately address the detriment to the resident. It is clear that this had quite an impact on the resident. As such and in accordance with the Scheme we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
23. The landlord has been ordered below to put things right by offering an apology and increasing the compensation previously awarded by a further £465. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states it will award £20 per week for high level distress, therefore £20 per week for 31 weeks (£620). The landlord has additionally been ordered to review the ASB training it offered. We have recommended the landlord carries out record keeping training for scheme managers to ensure similar issues are avoided in the future.
24. The resident told us that as a resolution, he would like the landlord to rehouse him. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that we will not order a remedy that would put things right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals, or that would mean the resident would receive preferential treatment over others equally waiting for a move. This could move other applicants down the list who may have greater priority for a move ahead of the resident. As such, we have not ordered the landlord to do this.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.

Orders

26. The landlord is to pay the resident total compensation of £620. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £155 if it has already paid this to the resident the landlord is to pay £465.
27. The landlord is to review whether the ASB training it provided after the stage 1 response was adequate. It is to provide a summary to us. If it was found it be inadequate, the landlord is to set out its plan to remedy this.
28. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

29. It is recommended that the landlord carries out record keeping training for scheme managers to ensure similar issues are avoided in the future.