Sovereign Network Group — case 202423694

Decision Case ID 202423694 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sovereign Network Group Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 20 January 2026 Background The property is a flat within a block. The resident has 2 young children and 1 has asthma. She initially reported a leak under her kitchen sink which was causing a smell in February 2024 and pursued a resolution via the landlord’s complaints process. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and a sewage smell.

The resident’s complaints. Our decision (determination) We found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, and a sewage smell. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord acted reasonably by identifying that it had failed to communicate well, there were delays, and it had not identified the cause of the reported problems despite multiple visits.

However, there were further delays and poor communication in its handling of ongoing reports of a smell, and it failed to demonstrate that it offered a permanent solution. The landlord failed to offer suitable compensation to put right the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint between April and August 2024. It did not address the resident’s second complaint fully, and refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2, which was not appropriate in the circumstances.

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 17 February 2026 2 Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould, and a sewage smell. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. These figures include the landlord’s previous offer of £200.

This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 17 February 2026 3 Action order The landlord should contact the resident to address her concerns about additional costs due to the sewage smell in the property, and that the smell remained unresolved until she moved out in June 2025. It should confirm what evidence it would require to consider her request for reimbursement. No later than 17 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 5 April 2024 Following her initial reports of a possible leak and smell behind her kitchen unit in February 2024, the resident raised a complaint.

An operative had visited but was not able to complete work. She said the damp was impacting her son’s asthma and she wanted compensation for constantly using her extractor fan to ventilate the property. 12 August 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It apologised and upheld the complaint due to poor communication and the delay in assessing and rectifying the damp. It recognised that it did not attend appointments in a timely manner. It had booked to attend on 15 August 2024 to assess the damp and mould.

It offered £25 compensation, including £11.60 toward the cost of running the fan. 15 August 2024 The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It found a leak which required another appointment. She was unhappy that there had been multiple visits, but it had only just identified the problem. She did not accept £25 compensation and maintained the situation impacted her son’s health. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £50 for the inconvenience caused by the need for a further appointment.

The resident did not accept this and escalated the complaint. 9 September 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary: It confirmed that it found a leak on the kitchen waste pipe but needed both a plumber and carpenter to be able to access the area and renew the pipe. It had booked this for 25 September 2024. It upheld the complaint as the issue remained unresolved. It apologised for the length of time taken and failing to identify the cause during multiple appointments.

It offered £200 compensation, comprised of £75 for delays, and £125 for the stress, inconvenience, and impact of the situation. 3 September 2024 The resident continued to pursue her concerns about the smell. The landlord completed work to the waste pipe, and found the smell was caused by a valve to the stack pipe in the loft. It needed to access a neighbouring property. November to December 2024 complaint The resident raised a separate complaint and said the smell was ongoing, and the landlord had not communicated with her or completed work.

She said she could not use her kitchen or living room due to the sewage smell, needed to spend money on takeaways, and had additional energy costs due to needing to open windows and ventilate the property. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the complaint, and that it had not communicated effectively. It could not share details of repairs related to other properties but had acted in line with policy timescales. It had booked the soil pipe repair and had also raised a job to assess the drainage.

Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 10 December 2024, the landlord said that it should not have opened a new complaint as she had previously completed its internal complaints process and she should contact us for further investigation. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident initially referred her complaint to us due to the length of time taken to identify the leak despite multiple appointments, and that the smell had been ongoing since February 2024 without a resolution.

She was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord as this did not account for additional expenses and that she was unable to use her kitchen and living room as a result of the smell. The landlord said the resident moved from the property in June 2025. 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and a sewage smell Finding Maladministration What we have not considered The resident said the situation has impacted her and her children’s health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.

This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and a sewage smell In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to external walls, kitchen and bathroom fixtures and pipework. Its repairs policy says that it aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 38 days.

It aims to respond to reports of damp and mould within 10 days, or 3 days where a customer has young children. The resident initially reported a possible leak, mould, and a bad smell from behind her kitchen units on 3 February 2024. She explained that she continued to experience the sewage smell until she moved out in June 2025. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

There were approximately 6 visits to the property between 6 February 2024 and 3 September 2024. The landlord acted reasonably by attending to investigate on 6 February 2024, the same day as it raised the initial job, treating the mould, and reportedly filling a hole in the external wall that could be causing mould behind the units. Following her further reports on 27 March 2024, it attended on 3 and 11 April 2024, which was within a reasonable timeframe. Notes from the visit on 11 April 2024 recognised that there was a smell.

However, while operatives reported cleaning mould, those visits did not identify the cause of the smell or the damp. The landlord raised a further work order to inspect behind the units, treat the area and install vents on 14 May 2024. However, it failed to attend until 15 August 2024, 66 working days later. There is no evidence to show that it communicated with the resident effectively during this time. Once it established that there was a leak from the waste pipe on 15 August 2024, it acted reasonably by completing the work on 3 September 2024.

It can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks or damp as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, based on the available evidence, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise poor communication, that it had not resolved the problems in a timely manner, or located the cause despite multiple appointments.

Events after 3 September 2024 The landlord identified that the air admittance valve (AAV) to the soil stack pipe running through the building was the likely cause of the sewage smell in the resident’s property on 3 September 2024. Its internal communication indicates that it may have completed work to replace the AAV to the soil stack around 16 December 2024. This was 74 working days after it identified the problem which was significantly outside of its repair timescales. While it may not have been able to share specific details about the neighbouring property with the resident, it has not provided evidence to show the attempts made to gain access, or that the delay was outside of its control.

The landlord also arranged to inspect the drainage on 27 November 2024. The operative reported no smell during the visit, but that there could be a leak hidden behind the kitchen units. Despite this, we have not seen further evidence to show that it appropriately investigated these concerns further. We note that during an inspection on 2 January 2025, operatives identified that there was no mould behind the units, but the smell was coming from the stack pipe AAV, and it had already raised a job to replace it.

At this time, the landlord’s records indicate that it had already replaced the AAV, suggesting that this had not resolved the problem, and it missed an opportunity to investigate further. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the action it was taking, and she needed to spend time chasing updates during this period, indicating that it did not learn from its previous communication failures. It did not recognise the delay in progressing works, or the impact on the resident within its further stage 1 complaint response on 27 November 2024 and has failed to put things right.

Summary Our remedies guidance states that compensation figures between £100 to £600 may be reasonable to put right instances of maladministration which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s offer of £200 for its initial failings between February and September 2024 went some way to put right the the multiple visits and delays in identifying the cause of the problems, as well as costs associated with running extractor fans. However, there were further failings in the landlord’s communication, unexplained delays in completing identified work to resolve the smell, and failures to offer a permanent solution following the initial complaint.

We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, bringing the total to £400. Complaint The handling of the complaints Finding Maladministration The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.

The resident’s first complaint The landlord took 89 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 (5 April 2024 to 12 August 2024). This was not compliant with the Code or its own policies. The landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the complaint (up to 15 working days). It did not communicate about the complaint until 9 August 2024, a significant time later. While it apologised for its delayed communication in its stage 1 response, it did not offer suitable redress or recognise the impact of its delayed response on the resident.

The landlord took 17 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process (from 15 August 2024 to 9 September 2024). This was within the 20-working day timescale set out in the Code and its policies. At the time of its response on 9 September 2024, the landlord had already attended to repair the waste pipe and established that the smell was coming from the stack pipe on 3 September 2024. This was detailed within its repair records. It could have done more to offer an accurate, up to date response at the time.

The resident’s second complaint The resident continued to pursue further concerns about the smell in the property from 18 September 2024 and set out her reasons for ongoing dissatisfaction around 8 November 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 27 November 2024. While this was within 15 working days, it did not acknowledge the complaint until the same day it responded, and the resident needed to chase a response prior to this. The landlord’s stage 1 response was brief and did not provide any meaningful information about the reasons for any delay, or any reassurance as to how it would resolve her concerns.

The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a complaint. In her communication to us and the landlord, the resident outlined that the smell impacted her and her children’s use of the open plan kitchen living room space, and she spent money on energy due to needing to keep windows open, takeaways as she was not able to use the kitchen, and additional activities outside the home. We have limited evidence to support the extent of the smell made the property unusable.

However, the landlord should have addressed her concerns within its complaint response at the time, and it was a failing that it did not. We have included an order above for the landlord to address this. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 10 December 2024. On 17 December 2024, the landlord explained that it should not have raised a separate complaint, as it had previously responded to her previous complaint regarding the sewage smell at stage 2. It said the next step was to approach the Ombudsman.

While it can be reasonable for a landlord not to investigate matters that have previously been considered under its complaints policy, this approach was inappropriate in this case. The previous stage 2 response on 9 September 2024 primarily addressed the resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould, not the ongoing sewage smell. In addition, her second complaint was primarily about the delay in taking action to resolve the sewage smell since 3 September 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed her ongoing concerns through both stages of its complaints process, as it had not previously done so.

Summary We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. It failed to offer suitable redress for the delays in its handling of the initial stage 1 complaint and missed the opportunity to address and resolve ongoing concerns via its complaints process, leaving these unaddressed. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord provided suitable contact and repair records related to the resident’s property.

However, it did not provide evidence to us of the attempts made to complete the work to the AAV valve or demonstrate that the delay was beyond its control. Communication The landlord recognised that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident but did not show that it had learnt from the initial complaint, as its communication failures continued. The landlord should ensure that it takes reasonable steps to learn from failings identified as part of a complaint. Complaint handling The landlord should ensure that it does not incorrectly apply the exclusion grounds set out in the Code.

If a resident raises a complaint about additional failings following a stage 2 complaint response, it should consider addressing these as a new complaint through its complaints process.