Sovereign Network Group — case 202404566

Decision Case ID 202404566 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sovereign Network Group Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 10 February 2026 Background The resident lives on the third floor of a building that has a single lift which was out of service for about 9 weeks. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication, the delayed lift repair and its response to a request for temporary accommodation. The resident’sson has a health condition that can cause him to refuse to move.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: A lift repair. The resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a lift repair. We found the landlord responsible for service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of a lift repair The landlord attempted to repair the lift the lift within the 90 days, as per its repairs policy, but failed to permanently repair the issue.

The resident has told us that there are still intermittent lift breakdowns. The landlord also failed to evidence it had done enough to safeguard the vulnerable resident. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint The landlord acknowledged its delayed stage 2 complaint response. It provided clear evidence that all complaint issues raised by the resident were addressed at both stages of its complaints procedure. However, it failed to identify that it had created a 3-stage process which was non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a head of service. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. It provides us with documentary evidence of the apology by the due date. No later than 10 March 2026 2 What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident and offer to complete an assessment of her household’s needs. This must be done by appropriate professionals and a risk assessment carried out.

This will help it understand what actions it needs to take in relation to emergency evacuation’s and help it plan for temporary accommodation, should this be required. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence by the due date. No later than 10 March 2026 3 What the landlord must do The landlord must review the lifts repair history from 2024 to date to identify the number of breakdowns, the reasons for them and measures in place to reduce future faults. It should also consider whether the lift is fit for purpose and provide a written update to all residents with its findings.

The landlord must share this review with us by the due date. No later than 24 March 2026 4 What the landlord must do The landlord must carry out a review of this case to identify any additional learning and improvement, specifically in relation to how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents and has due regard to its obligations to ensure similar situations do not occur going forward. As part of this it should review its temporary accommodation policy and establish if it should be updated.

The landlord must provide evidence of this by the due date. No later than 24 March 2026 5 Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence by the due date that it has paid directly to the resident £500 (inclusive of the £180 previously awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures identified in this report. No later than 10 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 18 February 2024 The resident complained to her landlord about the delayed lift repair and how it was affecting her vulnerable household.

She included her local councillor in the correspondence. The resident also raised additional issues which do not form part of this investigation. 19 February 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, stating that it was arranging temporary accommodation due to safeguarding concerns. The landlord explained that the delay in repairing the lift was caused by the need for replacement parts. 26 February 2024 The resident complained again about the lift repair, saying the landlord had failed to safeguard its vulnerable residents and had communicated poorly.

She also said the contractors had lied to her and given incorrect information about when the repair would be completed. As a resolution, she asked for accurate updates on the repair and compensation for the disruption caused to residents in the building. 11 March 2024 The landlord treated this as a new complaint and issued a stage 1 complaint response, where it provided a timeline of the repairs, explained that the delay was due to waiting for parts, and apologised for the inconvenience.

The landlord had said: it had sent 6 text messages, around 2 per week to keep residents updated. It clarified the most recent text it had sent, said the repair would be completed on 15 March 2024. it declined the resident’s request for temporary accommodation because it had no record of any household vulnerabilities. there was not enough evidence to determine whether the resident had been given incorrect information about the lift repair. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence so it could assess any household vulnerabilities and noted that she had recently declined a home visit for this purpose.

12 March 2024 The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and its failure to provide temporary accommodation. She said the landlord was wrong to claim it was unaware of her son’s vulnerabilities, as he had been assessed by its occupational therapist for property adaptations around 2022. The resident said the social work department were in regular contact with the landlord. She said she had given the landlord a copy of her sons health assessment record.

23 April 2024 In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that a complaints backlog caused its delayed reply and apologised. It investigated whether it should have known sooner about the son’s vulnerabilities, stating: it only became aware of how his condition affected him during the stage 2 investigation, when social services said he may at times be unable to move. it understood the difficulties caused by having no lift and apologised. its 2023 occupational therapy report did not mention mobility issues.

the unsuccessful grant application meant his condition was not shared with other departments or followed up. it had not received the documents the resident said she submitted, so it could not make decisions about temporary accommodation. The landlord said each affected resident would receive £80 for repair delays, plus £80 for the impact on her household and £20 for the late stage 2 response. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us.

She asked for measures to ensure temporary accommodation would be provided during any future lift failures and sought further compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of a lift repair Finding Maladministration What we have not considered The resident complained to us that the landlord’s handling of the lift repair caused her stress. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

We have not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s handling of a lift repair The landlord acknowledged it was responsible for the communal lift repair as set out in its tenancy agreement. Its repair policy states it would attend an emergency repair within 4 hours and make it safe. It said an emergency repair was a risk to health or safety. Although it does not specifically mention it, a lift breakdown is a potential health and safety concern, especially for vulnerable residents.

This is particularly important in the absence of a clear evacuation plan. The landlord has been unable to evidence when it attended following the first breakdown in February 2024. This demonstrated a failure to keep a record of reported issues and the action it took. It is fair to assume the report was made prior to this date and we have relied on this for the purposes of our investigation. The resident’s key concerns were the time taken to complete the repair, her request for temporary accommodation due to vulnerabilities, and the landlord’s communication.

Although we have no record of the initial service request we have seen a landlord’s note that it had ordered new parts for the lift on 13 February 2024. We can safely say the lift was out of order from at least 13 February 2024 to 16 April 2024. The landlord told us that parts were needed and that this took longer than planned. After the first repair in March 2024, it found an electrical fault which caused further delay. The landlord did not identify all faults at the start and told us there were access issues and a need for scaffolding, which added delay.

While this was frustrating for the resident, it was understandable that faults became clear at different times. This was because the initial repair led to new issues being found. The landlord could not have known of these until work had begun. The repair took about 64 days to complete, which was within the 90 days allowed in the landlord’s repair policy for a complex repair. We understand it was inconvenient for the resident that the lift was out of service for such a long period.

While there were delays, these were beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord sent regular updates to residents via text message between February and April 2024. This was positive to see and showed a proactive approach. We also saw evidence that the landlord gave timely responses to the resident about the lift repair. Although the changing situation would have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident, we saw the landlord make its best efforts to communicate updates once it became aware of them.

The resident told us that the landlord did not permanently repair the lift, with further repairs reported from May 2024. We have not investigated those breakdowns, as they fall outside the timeline of this investigation, but it was a concern that the lift continued to fail. We have considered the impact on the resident’s vulnerable household and how the landlord sought to support them during periods of the lift not working. Given the resident’s circumstances and their household vulnerabilities, they had to continue managing their situation not knowing when the lift would be working.

There was some disagreement about when the landlord became aware of these vulnerabilities. However, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating how the landlord supported the resident at any point during this ongoing issue. Temporary accommodation The resident said the landlord should have been aware of her household vulnerabilities prior to the 13 February 2024. She said there had been a previous assessment conducted by an occupational therapist. The landlord has referred to a 2023 report where the resident was seeking a grant to enclose the kitchen.

This was because her son’s condition meant he was unaware of danger and had burnt himself on the cooker. The landlord explained that as the grant application was unsuccessful there had been no notes or flags put onto its systems. It is unclear what the landlord’s safeguarding policy was at the time, however no mobility issues were noted in the report. As such it is understandable why this specific information was not noted or flagged on its systems. The resident said that social services had been involved with her son and the landlord should have had a note of her sons vulnerabilities.

The landlord said that social services told them while during the complaint process that her son, at times, refuses to move. The landlord cannot be held responsible for another organisation not sharing information. The landlord said in its complaint response that it was only made aware of the resident’s sons refusal to move at times during its stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord’s actions around recording her sons vulnerabilities were reasonable and it has suggested his vulnerabilities have now been flagged on its systems.

The landlord’s call notes show it told the resident her safeguarding concerns would be passed to the team who dealt with lifts, but this action was not evidenced. It did however tell her on 19 February 2024 that due to safeguarding concerns it was looking to move her family to temporary accommodation that day. This would have raised the resident’s expectations and they would have been reasonable in assuming a temporary move would be imminent. The landlord’s complaint response of 11 March 2024 acknowledged it had received numerous emails from the resident chasing its commitment to provide temporary accommodation.

It said this had been declined due to it having no record of any household vulnerabilities. We have seen no evidence this outcome was communicated to the resident prior to this date. This failed to demonstrate a transparent and customer-focused approach, as well as clear communication. The resident was left chasing a decision for almost a month, which caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to her. The landlord requested proof of vulnerabilities in February 2024, as per the available evidence.

This was after it said it would provide temporary accommodation. Although we understand it needed to ensure it was able to place them in suitable temporary accommodation, it would have been more appropriate for it to have done this prior to making the commitment. We found no evidence in the landlord’s policies or procedures showing what evidence staff must gather or how they should do so. Its lack of a clear, fit‑for‑purpose policy prevented a transparent process, contributed to the poor service, and impacted the relationship between the resident and landlord.

The landlord’s attempt to visit the resident and assess the situation was declined by her on grounds that the landlord was unqualified to complete such an assessment. It would have been appropriate for it to have sent a health professional when the resident told it she was not comfortable with an unqualified person making the assessment. Failing that, more could have been done to explain the need for the landlord to attend and what it entailed. This may have helped it take measures to safeguard the child.

The landlord told us it does not use temporary accommodation application forms, relying instead on internal assessments.The landlord provided no evidence of communication between departments or completed forms mentioned in its policy, leaving its decision making unclear. This lack of evidence and an unclear policy fail to demonstrate a fair and transparent approach. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised that the situation would have been difficult for the household, as it was now aware of the vulnerabilities.

It said its decision was based on the fact it had obtained evidence that, although the child at times would refuse to walk, he did not have mobility issues. It said it would circulate the child’s vulnerabilities to its other departments for future incident’s and that it had placed a warning flag on its systems. It offered £180 discretionary compensation for failing to recognise this earlier. While the offer showed a willingness to address failures, there is no evidence to show the landlord accurately assessed the situation at the time.

It is also unclear what actions it has taken in relation to emergency evacuations for the resident. It has instead relied on a report from social services which we have not seen. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have evidenced it conducted its own risk assessment considering the potential seriousness of the situation. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected its resident with no permanent impact.

In ordering £450in compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to take forward its commitment for temporary accommodation. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales set out in the Code. It will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days.

It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord provided a response within these time scales for the initial complaint and the further complaint at stage 1. It failed to evidence it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation and provided its stage 2 complaint response 9 days beyond what is permitted in its complaints procedure. In its response it answered all aspects of the complaint and acknowledged this failure.

The £20 compensation offered for the inconvenience caused was insufficient as it had not identified all its service failures. Although it explained the late stage 2 complaint response was due to a backlog it would have been appropriate for it to have requested an extension. This would have shown good complaints management and kept the resident informed. The Code says a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long and delay access to the Ombudsman.

The landlord created a complaint reference for the initial complaint so it is clear it was treating this as a formal complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge in its complaint responses that it had created a 3-stage process and was therefore not compliant with the Code. This was not a reasonable response. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up £50 to £100 are appropriate to put thingsright where there was minor failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.

In ordering £50 in compensation, we have considered the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failures to adhere to the Code. Learning The landlord has shown learning and published a safeguarding policy in 2025. In its policy it states it would take the most effective, reasonable and proportionate course of action, taking into consideration the vulnerability of those involved and the level of risk. This step should help it reduce the risk of further failures. The policy does not consider temporary accommodation which is why a specific order has been made above.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) This investigation identified issues which were based on examples of poor record keeping. Our Spotlight report on knowledge information management explains the importance of landlords keeping accurate, accessible, and well‑managed records to support effective decision making. It highlights that poor record keeping can lead to service failures, unclear accountability, and poor outcomes for residents, particularly those who are vulnerable.

The landlord’s failure to record details of all appointments and actions it had taken meant it was unable to monitor compliance with the policy timescales. Failures may have been avoided if the landlord had sufficient record keeping in place, in line with our Spotlight report. Communication The landlord’s communication around the temporary accommodation procedure was poor and not transparent to the resident. Our orders should help it improve its communication by creating a clear process.