Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sanctuary Housing Association (202340788)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340788

Sanctuary Housing Association

11 August 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 repairs to the resident’s shower.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor of a high rise building which the resident occupies with his wife. The resident has told the landlord and this Service that he is living with a disability, a vascular condition affecting his legs.
  2. In March 2023 following a referral from an Occupational Therapist, the landlord installed an electric over the bath shower at the resident’s property. The resident first reported issues with the shower on 9 October 2023. He said the water was coming out “scolding hot”. The landlord inspected the shower the following day and reported no issues. However, the resident disagreed so the landlord arranged for the company which originally installed the shower to provide a second opinion. On 30 November 2023 the company replaced the shower under warranty. Later that day, the resident told the landlord the same issue was still present. The landlord’s operative inspected again and found there was a problem with the cold water pressure in the building. Following this, the landlord arranged further investigations by specialist contractors.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2023 in which he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair. The resident told the landlord he could not use the shower for over a month since he uses a bath aid to sit on and could not move away quick enough when the water became too hot. The resident said this was depressing and degrading and he requested compensation from the landlord. In later emails to the landlord, the resident also said he had to miss work because of the issues.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 17 January 2024. It said it had received a quotation from a contractor which was pending approval and promised to monitor this. The landlord said it would not compensate the resident for any loss of wages, but it would offer a gesture of goodwill payment once the necessary repairs were completed. It also said it requested for one of its managers to call the resident.
  5. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 26 January 2024. He said the landlord had promised him the repairs would be completed that week, but it was already Friday and he was yet to receive an update.
  6. On 11 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed the repairs were completed on 28 February 2024 and apologised for the amount of time this had taken. It acknowledged its communication was poor and offered £875 compensation made up of:
    1. £200 for partial loss of bathroom calculated at 15% of the rental cost for 14 weeks
    2. £200 for loss of enjoyment of the home in November and December 2023
    3. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience
    4. £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1
    5. £50 for the delays at stage 2 of its complaint process

The landlord further explained it would not compensate the resident for loss of wages as the tenancy agreement requires him to provide access to the property for repairs. It also explained it would not pay compensation for loss of enjoyment of the home past December 2023 as it had offered the resident alternative accommodation in January which he turned down.

  1. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. He felt this did not reflect that he was left without a working shower for 5 months. The resident also said he was seeking compensation for wages he lost as a result of having to facilitate multiple repair appointments. The complaint became one this Service could investigate on 28 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said the issues made his existing medical condition worse and affected his mental wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. This Service also acknowledges the resident’s comments to the landlord that its actions amounted to abuse and neglect due to his disability. Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act 2010. Any allegation of discrimination by the landlord is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation and whether it considered its legal equality duties.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s shower

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord had a responsibility to keep in repair the installations for the supply of water, including baths and sanitary conveniences.
  2. Following the initial report of the issues by the resident on 9 October 2023 the landlord arranged for an operative to attend within 24 hours. While the operative found no issues, the resident disagreed, and the landlord arranged for the company which originally installed the shower to provide a second opinion. It is unclear from the evidence when it did so.
  3. On 16 November 2023 the landlord was dealing with another emergency repair at the resident’s property, and it noted there were intermittent issues with the electric shower. The landlord’s records confirm an electrician was due to attend to investigate this further.
  4. The landlord confirmed the shower was replaced under warranty on 30 November 2023. That same day the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed he was still experiencing the same issue with the shower stream becoming too hot.
  5. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out the timescales in which it will respond to repair requests as follows:
    1. for emergency repairs, it will attend and make safe the property within 24 hours
    2. for appointed (non-emergency) repairs, it aims to complete them within 45 days or with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with vulnerabilities
  6. However, the repair handbook confirms the landlord will carry out non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 days. This means the information provided to residents in its handbook is inconsistent with the landlord’s policy. In any event, as the landlord recognised the resident is vulnerable, the shorter timescale of 28 days applied in this case.
  7. The repairs and maintenance policy defines emergency repairs as ones which are necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident, including no water supply. While a partial loss of water supply is classed as a non-emergency repair. The landlord’s policy also provides flexibility for vulnerable residents and says it will take into account their needs and the severity of the situation to identify appropriate action.
  8. The landlord complied with its policy by inspecting the issues within 24 hours from the resident’s first report on 9 October 2023. While it found no issues, it was reasonable for it to arrange further investigations when the resident said he was still affected. However, the landlord has not supplied any evidence which would explain why it took until 30 November 2023 for it to arrange the next step which was the shower replacement. This failure to follow up within the timescales set out by the policy was unreasonable.
  9. Following the resident’s report of the issue persisting after the shower was replaced, the landlord initially said it was unable to respond as an emergency. However, it upgraded the status of the repair to emergency 3 days later and said this was because the resident had no bathing facilities which posed a potential health and safety risk. While this demonstrated the landlord’s flexibility in responding to the repair, it is unclear why it took 3 days for it to identify the resident’s needs when it had a record of these from the outset.
  10. The landlord’s operative attended on 5 December 2025 and confirmed the issue was likely related to the communal cold water pump and required a commercial plumber to investigate further. The landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect this on 7 December 2023 and confirmed a new industrial pump was needed.
  11. The landlord placed an urgent order for an external contractor who attended the following day. They confirmed the landlord needed to arrange for a mini circuit breaker (MCB) to be fitted before the necessary parts of the pump could be replaced to restore the cold water pressure.
  12. We recognise that repairs where multiple external contractors are needed can be difficult for the landlord to coordinate and there are often factors beyond its control which can cause delays, such as the contractors’ availability. However, its repairs and maintenance policy confirms that in those cases the landlord will keep residents informed of the progress of the repair and provide an update as to when the work will be completed.
  13. The resident called the landlord on 12 December 2023 and it told him it was awaiting quotes. However, it wasn’t until 19 December 2023 when the resident called again that the landlord actioned the recommendation from the visit on 8 December 2023 and placed an order for an electrician to replace the MCB. It is not clear from the evidence why it took 11 days for it to do so.
  14. The landlord’s records show the MCB requirements were investigated on 21 December 2023 and it received a quotation for the works required on 9 January 2024. There is no evidence the landlord proactively updated the resident on the next steps until 5 January 2024. Not updating the resident for over 2 weeks, especially since the landlord was aware of the impact the delay had on him was not in line with its repairs and maintenance policy and therefore unreasonable.
  15. On 11 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that the work had been authorised and it hoped to resolve the issues the following week. The landlord also offered the resident the use of a disabled shower at another scheme within the area. While we understand the resident ultimately declined this offer as he said it was not convenient for him, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest alternatives in an attempt to mitigate the ongoing impact on the resident.
  16. On 17 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint in which it confirmed the quotes were still pending approval. It became clear the information the resident was given the week before was incorrect and the repairs would take longer. One of the landlord’s managers called the resident the following day and apologised for the delay and confirmed works would take place early the next week. The resident said the landlord also spoke about the possibility of temporarily moving him to a hotel but he did not want to move from the comfort of his own home, given the works were planned for the following week.
  17. By 26 January 2024 the landlord had still not started the works, and the resident called daily to chase progress of the repairs. On 29 January 2024 the contractors attended and replaced the MCB. This was 2 weeks after the original date the landlord had promised the resident and there is no evidence it kept him updated of the changes which was unreasonable.
  18. On 2 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord unhappy the issue was still unresolved while he was paying full rent. There is no evidence of the landlord’s response to his email. The resident called again on 8 February 2024 chasing the repairs and the landlord told him a commercial plumber was needed. On 13 February 2024 the landlord noted it already had a quote to replace the affected parts of the pump, and the contractor was awaiting confirmation the MCB had been replaced to continue. At this point, it had been 2 weeks since the MCB was replaced with no progress. This was a failing which caused an unnecessary delay.
  19. Throughout this time there were several calls between the landlord and the resident in which he stressed the urgency of the repair and the effect it had on him. However, it wasn’t until 20 February 2024 that the landlord raised the quote on its system which was unreasonable as it caused a further delay which could have been avoided had the landlord managed the repair proactively.
  20. On 28 February 2024 the pump was replaced but the resident confirmed the issue still persisted. It is unclear from the evidence why this was the case, however on 4 March 2024 the resident confirmed his shower was finally working as it should.
  21. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord admitted the time it took to complete the repair and the communication with the resident was not up to its standard. It apologised for the impact this had caused the resident and offered compensation. It also confirmed it had discussed the issues with its repairs team and reminded them of the importance of ensuring necessary repairs are raised and any delays are notified to its residents. In its submission to this Service, the landlord also confirmed it had adopted new processes to improve its working practices around communication.
  22. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  23. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will award a maximum of 30% of the rent if the whole bathroom is unusable. However, in cases where it is only part of the bathroom which is unusable, it will adjust the percentage to reflect this. In this case, the landlord awarded 15% for 14 weeks to reflect the resident was without full use of the bathroom facilities during this time. It calculated this to be £200 which was in line with its compensation policy. The £400 award for trouble and inconvenience also reflected the maximum amount under its compensation policy for situations where the resident suffered excessive delays and needed to make a lot of effort for the issue to be resolved. While there is no reference to loss of enjoyment awards in the landlord’s compensation policy, the additional £200 brought the overall award to £800. This amount is in line with our guidance for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  24. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that in cases where a resident has any rent arrears the compensation will be paid directly into their rent account. This is reflected in the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord confirmed this applied to the compensation it awarded the resident which he disputed. Following which, the landlord agreed to pay the resident £500 and allocated the remaining amount to his rent account. The landlord’s flexibility in the application of its policy was reasonable and it demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
  25. The landlord also confirmed it would not compensate the resident any wages he lost as a result of him having to arrange access for the landlord to attend the property as its complaints policy confirmed this type of loss was not covered. It also referred to the resident’s obligations in the tenancy agreement which require him to grant access to the property for repairs at all reasonable times. This response by the landlord was reasonable as it had addressed the inconvenience to the resident by awarding appropriate compensation.
  26. In conclusion, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the delays it caused. The landlord also put things right by completing the necessary repairs and offering proportionate compensation which is important in putting things right. Additionally, it demonstrated it had learnt from the outcomes of the complaint and put in place measures to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. Therefore we have found that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s shower.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified its handling of the repairs to the resident’s shower.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord is recommended to review its repairs handbook and repairs and maintenance policy to ensure the timescales for repairs are consistent across both documents.