Sovereign Network Group — case 202421481

Decision Case ID 202421481 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sovereign Network Group Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 17 October 2025 Background The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since April 2022. What the complaint is about The landlord’s: Handling of a query about the resident’s rent account. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a query about the resident’s rent account.

Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of a query resident’s rent account The landlord did not demonstrate it fully investigated the resident’s query or explain why it was unable to do so. The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord did not demonstrate it investigated at stage 1. This meant the resident did not have access to the landlord’s full complaint process. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 14 November 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200. This comprises: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of a query about her rent account. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

14 November 2025 3 Information order The landlord must set out in writing: How it investigated the other 2 payment references the resident provided. The findings of its investigation. 14 November 2025 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 27 July 2024 The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her rent account. She said she made rent payments using 6 different payment references and there was a lot of money missing from her rent account. 29 July 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.

12 August 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It asked the resident to provide bank statements to show the payments she thought were missing. Between 12 and 14 August 2024 The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said she already provided information and was unhappy the landlord had not located the missing payments. 1 October 2024 The landlord sent its final response. It did not uphold the complaint but apologised its stage 1 response was short and lacked empathy.

The landlord said it investigated a payment reference the resident provided. It said the reference was incorrect and payments made using it were rejected or credited to the resident’s rent account. The landlord said it believed the resident’s rent account was accurate. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation and believed it owed her money. 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 query about the resident’s rent account. Finding Maladministration The resident told the landlord she made payments that were not credited to her rent account. The landlord met with the resident. Its meeting notes show the resident provided 3 references she used to make payment (‘payment refences’) and the landlord asked her to send bank statements.

The resident subsequently sent the statements, however, the evidence provided by the landlord does not show it acknowledged receipt. The landlord identified one reference was for another resident’s account. It said 12 payments were made using this reference and were rejected. The landlord arranged for one payment (£300) that was not rejected to be credited to the resident’s rent account. The landlord said it emailed this information to the resident. It has not provided a record of this communication.

In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided no evidence it had investigated the resident’s query. Instead, it asked the resident to provide her bank statements and details of the payments she believed were missing. The resident had already sent the statements. If the landlord required additional information, it should have requested this before sending its stage 1 response. The resident told the landlord several times she had sent the bank statements. The landlord responded and said it could not look through 50 pages of statements.

It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for further information. However, the landlord did not clarify its requirements until 3 months after its original request. At this stage the resident had already provided the statements and was understandably frustrated. The tone of the landlord’s response was not constructive. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out how it had investigated the incorrect payment reference and confirmed the money had been returned to the resident or credited to her rent account.

It acknowledged the situation was distressing. However, the resident said she used 6 payment references and the landlord only explained how it had investigated one of these. The landlord failed to demonstrate it investigated all of the resident’s query or explain why it was unable to do so. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s conclusion that it believed her rent account was accurate. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling Finding Service failure The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets the timeframes for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and send a response at stage 1 and stage 2.

The landlord complied with these requirements. The landlord’s stage 1 response asked for additional information. It did not demonstrate it had investigated the resident’s complaint. As a result, the first investigation took place at stage 2. The failure to investigate at stage 1, meant the resident did not have access to the full complaints process. Learning When a landlord conducts an investigation of a rent account it should explain how it investigated and arrived at its findings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to provide her bank statements despite having already received them. This indicates a recordkeeping failing. Communication The landlord did not explain how it would investigate the resident’s rent account query and any limitations on the investigation.