Sovereign Network Group — case 202334016

Decision Case ID 202334016 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sovereign Network Group Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 27 November 2025 Background The resident lived in a new build development, which was not adopted by the local authority at the time of her complaint. The resident was concerned about the lack of street signs and streetlights on the development. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage.

We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage. We found 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 the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage The landlord’s initial communication was poor.

In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged this, apologised and explained it put actions in place to improve. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 in line with its complaints policy timescale. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its 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.

No later than 06 January 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 24 February 2023 The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy it did not get back to her about her concerns with the street lighting and street signs. 28 February 2023 The landlord logged the resident’s complaint and said it would update her once it knew who would respond. 3 March 2023 The resident called the landlord for an update on her complaint. It said there was no update.

6 March 2023 The landlord wrote to the resident and said it followed her complaint up with the developer. It said it aimed to respond by the end of the week. 14 March 2023 The resident contacted the landlord because it did not get back to her. It apologised and said the developer did not respond and it was trying to get an update. 21 April 2023 The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay and said it worked with the developer to address her issues. It said: the utility company would connect the streetlights imminently the developer considered there were sufficient street signs, and it would not be installing more it apologised for its poor communication and said it put actions in place to improve its service.

14 June 2023 The resident escalated her complaint because she was not happy with the developer’s response. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the same day. 22 August 2023 The landlord asked the resident if she was happy for it to close her complaint. She said she wanted to wait until it resolved the issues. 18 December 2023 The landlord apologised for the delay and told the resident it would send its stage 2 closure letter shortly. She did not agree for it to close her complaint because she said not all the streetlights were working.

She said she wanted an apology, explanation and a plan of action from the developer to ensure this did not happen again. 22 December 2023 The landlord sent its stage 2 response: it confirmed the developer installed the street signs and apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to her and other people who were unable to locate her flat it apologised all the streetlights were not working and for the delay but said it obtained temporary lighting. It gave the resident its most recent update from the developer about the actions it needs to take to connect the remaining streetlights including timescales involved.

It also said the developer would not be installing further street lighting it said it reviewed its contract with the developer and checked the approved planning permission to confirm it installed the street signs and lights in line with it it said it regularly chased the developer for updates, escalated the issues and updated the resident where it could. It said it learnt lessons going forward for future phases of the development. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained unhappy and referred her complaint to us.

She was unhappy the landlord closed her complaint without resolving the issue and with the delay in getting the streetlights working. 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 concerns about streetlighting and signage Finding Reasonable redress The resident said the number of lamp posts did not provide enough street lighting. She said the lack of street lighting enabled anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) and she wanted the developer to install more. We cannot order the developer to install more streetlights. Our role is not to investigate the terms of the contractual relationship between the developer and the landlord.

However, we have looked at how it handled her concerns overall. On 12 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report the streetlights were not on and there was no street sign. She did not receive a response and contacted it again in January and February 2023. Its lack of response caused her time and trouble complaining on 24 February 2023. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord made enquiries with the developer and chased it to confirm when the street lighting would be live and if it would install a street sign.

It made the developer aware of the resident’s ASB concerns and raised this regularly in its board meetings, which was good practice. As a result, the developer installed temporary street lighting in September 2023 and street signs in June 2023. In December 2023 at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, only half of the permanent streetlights worked because of technical issues. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay and said because of its contract it could not make the developer work faster.

It said the delay was unacceptable and it had learnt from this complaint for future developments. This was positive as we encourage landlords to learn from complaints. Overall, the landlord was proactive in its handling of the resident’s concerns. It could have referred her to the developer and taken no further action, but it worked with the developer to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. It gave her detailed information on the technical issues with the streetlights and a plan of action, which was reasonable.

Its updates were not frequent, which may have caused frustration. However, the developer’s responses and technical issues were out of its control. The landlord’s initial lack of response caused the resident time and trouble in complaining. When we identify a failure, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

In line with its compensation guidance, it acknowledged its initial poor communication, explained what went wrong, apologised and identified ways to improve, which was positive. At the resident’s request, it also obtained an apology letter from the developer and provided an action plan. In view of this, we found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about street lighting and signage. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request.

This is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code). The landlord did not respond to the resident in line with its complaints policy. It took 37 working days to respond at stage 1, and 137 working days to respond at stage 2. The resident did not agree to the landlord closing her complaint until it resolved all her concerns. However, in accordance with the Code it must provide a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it completes the outstanding actions to address the issue.

Due to the delays in the landlord sending its stage 1 and 2 response and its failure to acknowledge this in its complaint responses, we found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for service failures which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory with no concerns identified.

Communication The landlord’s initial communication was poor but its communication following the resident’s complaint was reasonable. It updated her when it could and gave her extracts of updates from the developer.