Sanctuary Housing Association (202428716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428716

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in 2012. The property is a 1-bedroom second-floor flat situated in a communal block comprised of 8 flats. The resident updated her health and vulnerability records with the landlord in May 2025 but did not disclose any vulnerabilities.
Between 3 July 2023 and 3 July 2024, the resident made 7 reports to the landlord regarding ASB from her neighbour. The reports specifically related to the neighbour shouting, banging and screaming in the early hours of the morning. At the time of these reports, the resident said she believed her neighbour was experiencing mental health difficulties.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2024. She said she had lived in the property for 12 years and had made “numerous” noise complaints about her neighbour during this time. She asked the landlord why the noise had been “allowed to go on for so long”. She said she was “constantly” complaining about ASB and reporting issues to the police, ambulance service and mental health team.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 26 August 2024. She reiterated her concerns following the complaint she had made on 4 July 2024.
On 16 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It said it was satisfied that the resident’s ASB reports had been investigated correctly and were being dealt with appropriately, and therefore it was unable to uphold the complaint. It said:
1. It could see the resident had reported noise “sporadically” over the last few years, which she had attributed to the neighbour’s mental health issues.
2. Following a report of ASB from the resident on 12 March 2024, it understood she did not wish to pursue an ASB case due to her neighbour’s mental health difficulties, about which she had contacted the mental health team.
3. It had not been able to complete a risk assessment or action plan with the resident as she did not wish to be contacted.
4. The resident’s emails and online reports did not give sufficient information for potential court action.
5. It had sent diary sheets to the resident, as well as to other residents in the block. It was “vital” that it received these back as it had “limited options to deal with the issues” without this evidence and their “co-operation”.
6. The ASB reports were still being dealt with by the housing team and the offer of a professional witness remained open to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2024. She said the stage 1 response had not detailed her complaint correctly. She stated her correspondence with the landlord on 12 March 2024 was intended to be an ASB report as she had rung “the ASB line”.
On 24 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint on the basis that it had delayed in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. It did not uphold the other elements of the complaint. It said:
1. The resident’s reports had been recorded, investigated and responded to in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure. It had spoken with all parties involved and provided appropriate information, advice and support.
2. It was keen to ensure all informal enforcement actions to resolve the issues had been explored before it could consider legal action.
3. If it were to submit a case to its legal team and the courts, it would have to submit a “strong and evidence-based case”. It referred to the advice given in its stage 1 letter regarding the completion of diary sheets.
4. It was “not able to progress much further” with the case without any evidence.
5. The ASB case remained open, and the resident should continue to report all incidents of ASB.
6. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request and offered £50 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 October 2024. She said the ASB had become “progressively worse” and was affecting her mental health as a result. She said she felt “uneasy” in her own home which was impacting her enjoyment of it. She said that during a visit from the landlord on 18 October 2024, she gave it diary sheets which were not considered in the stage 2 response. As an outcome, the resident said she would like the landlord to consider evicting her neighbour, on the basis that alternative accommodation may be more suitable for managing the neighbour’s mental health needs.
The landlord received further diary sheets from the resident on 3 December 2024, which detailed 4 incidents in November 2024 of her neighbour shouting, banging and screaming. The resident also made a further 5 reports of ASB between 4 December 2024 and 8 January 2025 regarding her neighbour.
In communication with the landlord in February 2025, the resident said it had been quieter and she had not heard any noise. The landlord closed the ASB case in March 2025 after a period of monitoring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports impacted her mental health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident said she had experienced issues related to ASB since moving into the property in 2012. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner to give landlords a fair opportunity to investigate and address issues while they remain ‘live’. This is important because relevant evidence that may have existed at the time may no longer be available. Accordingly, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from July 2023, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with both the Scheme and the landlord’s complaints policy.
As part of her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that her desired outcome is for the landlord to take robust action in response to her reports of ASB. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to require a landlord to take legal action or otherwise against its tenants. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to establish whether ASB occurred or who is responsible, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take “swift and effective” action to address ASB, including “working collaboratively with partner agencies to ensure a joined-up approach can be taken”. In addressing ASB, it will “utilise all the tools available in a prompt and proportionate manner, based on the circumstances of the case”.
The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out how it will respond to reports of ASB dependent on severity. It says it will complete a vulnerability assessment matrix (VAM) and categorise the case as red or green when an initial report of ASB is received. It will respond to reports of serious ‘red’ incidents within 1 working day and less serious ‘green’ incidents within 5 working days.
The ASB procedure states there are “several key activities” which form part of the landlord’s ASB investigations, including interviewing complainants, interviewing alleged perpetrators, speaking with witnesses, considering whether diary sheets are required, and reviewing evidence. It will complete an “action sheet” which should be provided to the complainant, and will update all parties (where appropriate) throughout the investigation. It states most cases will be reviewed fortnightly, but this may be extended to monthly, in agreement with the complainant.
On 18 September 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance involving screaming and shouting from her neighbour during the early hours. She also expressed concern about her neighbour’s mental health and said she had contacted the police. Despite this, the landlord did not open an ASB case, noting the incident was “not dealt with as ASB”. Given the nature of the report, the landlord should have opened a case to maintain oversight of the situation. It would also have been good practice for it to engage with the police and relevant mental health services. Its failure to do so was a missed an opportunity to address the issues early, contributing to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The resident made a further report of noise nuisance from her neighbour on 3 October 2023, stating the noise had woken her in the early hours and left her feeling “worn out”. The landlord completed a VAM and categorised the case as ‘green’, requiring a response within 5 working days. However, it failed to open a case or respond within its policy timescales. This was unsatisfactory and resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord, causing her avoidable time and trouble.
On 2 November 2023, the resident made another report, stating her neighbour had woken her in the early hours by shouting, screaming and running their washing machine. She said she was not getting any rest and could not “take much more”. The landlord appropriately opened an ASB case at this point, but we find this should have been done sooner given the ongoing impact on the resident, as this may have reduced her distress and uncertainty.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 20 November 2023 to address the ASB reports, which was proportionate and in line with its ASB procedure. It discussed the reports and the terms of the neighbour’s tenancy. However, it apparently did not follow this up in writing, which was inconsistent with its procedure. There is also no evidence to suggest it updated the resident following this visit. While the landlord would have been limited in the level of information it could share for reasons of data protection, the lack of communication left the resident unclear about the action being taken and led her to chase the landlord for updates. This added to her time and effort in resolving the issues.
The landlord opened further ASB cases for noise nuisance in February 2024 and July 2024, both within its policy timescales, which was appropriate. However, it was unable to complete a VAM or complainant interview with the resident due to her request to be contacted by letter only. Upon opening the case, the landlord was unable to discuss or agree actions with the resident due to her contact preferences. However, it did not issue an action plan letter outlining its intended actions and the resident’s responsibilities, as required by its ASB procedure. This was unsatisfactory.
Throughout the timeline of our investigation, the resident repeatedly raised concerns that her neighbour’s behaviour and the associated noise disturbances may have been linked to mental health difficulties, with the first concerns reported in September 2023. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the mental health team until 6 months later, following further ASB reports. On 8 March 2024, the landlord reviewed the ASB case and noted it had “raised issues” with the mental health team on 3 March 2024. While this was appropriate, earlier contact would have been reasonable given the ongoing concerns. The absence of records from 3 March 2024 also indicates poor record keeping.
Between August 2024 and January 2025, the frequency of ASB reports increased, with the resident reporting 13 incidents of noise nuisance. However, there is no evidence that this prompted the landlord to re-engage with the neighbour or her mental health team, which was unsatisfactory. Aside from a letter issued on 10 December 2024 to the neighbour, no further contact was made after 24 July 2024 to address the ongoing noise reports. This response was not proportionate. The landlord should have sought to engage with the neighbour and any relevant partner agencies once the increase in reports became clear, particularly following the resident’s request on 22 August 2024. There is no evidence it did so or considered doing so, which was neither fair nor reasonable and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
At both stages of its complaints process, the landlord advised the resident that the evidence available to it at the time was insufficient to warrant enforcement action against her neighbour. While this was understandably frustrating for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to set out its limitations. We acknowledge that managing ASB without physical evidence can be challenging, but landlords are expected to support residents in gathering it. Although the landlord took some positive steps – such as offering a professional witness and requesting diary sheets – we consider it did not go far enough.
In October 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it required evidence of the reported noise and offered use of the Noise App. This was appropriate and aligned with the approach of its evidence-led ASB procedure. However, the resident said she could not use an app, and there is no evidence that the landlord offered alternative options at that time, which was unreasonable. 10 months later, in August 2024, the landlord advised her to contact Environmental Health, who may have been able to provide noise monitoring equipment. It is unclear why this advice was not given sooner or why a referral was not made on her behalf. This delay may have affected the resident’s ability to collect evidence to support her reports.
The landlord also failed to speak with witnesses in a timely manner. On 3 October 2023, the resident reported her neighbour had been screaming and shouting in the communal stairwell. At a similar time, the landlord’s records refer to her providing it with a list of other affected neighbours. While the landlord said it would contact them, there is no evidence it did so until September 2024 – 11 months later – when it issued a letter to the block. This was an unreasonable delay in following up information that could have aided its investigation.
At the landlord’s request, the resident completed diary sheets, which the landlord logged as received on 6 October 2024 and 29 November 2024. On these sheets, the resident had recorded 6 incidents of noise nuisance, noting she found the noise “unnerving” and it had caused her to feel “stressed and anxious”. While the landlord’s records show the diary sheets were logged on the ASB case, there is no evidence they were reviewed or that any actions resulted from them. This was unreasonable, given the resident’s time and effort in completing the diary sheets and the significant impact she had described.
The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out informal actions it will consider in “preventing and resolving” ASB. These include mediation, signposting to support services, verbal or written warnings, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, and Environmental Health referrals. While it is acknowledged that the resident was referred to a mediator and advised to contact Environmental Health, there is no evidence the landlord considered any of its other informal tools and powers. Given it had said there was insufficient evidence to pursue enforcement action, these would have been sensible options to consider. Alternatively, if it had considered and precluded them, it would have been good practice for it to document this. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to possibly resolve the matter sooner.
In the circumstances of the case, we find there was a clear lack of effective partnership working. The landlord did not proactively engage with the neighbour’s mental health team or arrange any partnership meetings to discuss the case so a joined-up approach could be taken. It also failed to engage with the police or request information on occasions when the resident reported contacting them, which limited its understanding of the situation. Responsibility for reporting concerns to partner agencies was largely left to the resident, which was inappropriate. As a result, the landlord missed various opportunities to intervene and potentially resolve the issues at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s ASB procedure also refers to the involvement of external agencies in reviewing cases such as through the community trigger process (now known as the ASB case review). In its complaint responses, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of her right to request an ASB case review, providing the relevant threshold had been met. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to ensure the resident was aware of her ability to have her case independently reviewed. Proactively sharing this information would also have demonstrated an open and transparent approach.
The landlord’s lack of effective communication with the resident contributed to its overall failings. Although the resident regularly reported issues, contact from the landlord to her was sporadic and often only followed multiple prompts. As a result, the resident expended significant time and trouble chasing updates and was often left uncertain about the status of her case. While it may have been challenging for the landlord to meet its fortnightly contact standard, in line with its ASB procedure, due to her preference for written communication, it should have clearly set expectations and continued to provide regular action plan letters. Between July 2024 and March 2025, when the most recent ASB case was open, the landlord sent only 1 action plan letter, which was following a visit requested by the resident. Its failure to maintain communication and accommodate her stated preferences meant it did not comply with her reasonable adjustments, which was unreasonable.
The resident did not provide us with an update at the time of our investigation. However, in July 2025, the landlord confirmed it had received no further reports of noise nuisance since closing the ASB case in March 2025.
Overall, we find that the landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure appropriately and did not make full use of the informal tools available to it. It also did not engage effectively with partner agencies to help resolve the issues. Poor communication and the failure to accommodate the resident’s reasonable adjustments added to the landlord’s overall failings. This had a significant impact on the resident, resulting in prolonged distress and inconvenience. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out “compensation scales” which calculate awards considering “both the impact that the service failure has had, and the effort the customer has needed to make for the issue to be resolved”. It categorises these into “low effort, low impact,” “high effort, low impact”, “low effort, high impact” and “high effort, high impact”. It offers varying payments of up to £400 dependent on these categories.
The landlord did not offer any compensation for its handling of the resident’s ASB reports as part of its complaint responses. We find this was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. We consider a payment of £400 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance, and our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will recognise an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, as a complaint. It will not consider issues that occurred more than 12 months ago. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord has provided evidence which shows that on 14 December 2023, the resident contacted it requesting a reply to the “numerous complaints” of ASB she had made. It is acknowledged that residents and landlords may sometimes refer to reports of ASB as ‘complaints’, which can cause confusion. However, the resident said the ASB had not been resolved, and she made a request for a written reply to provide to the Ombudsman. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it responded to her request, which is unsatisfactory. Given that the resident had referred to the Ombudsman in her correspondence, it would have been reasonable for it to interpret this as an expression of dissatisfaction. In line with its complaints policy, the issue should have been logged and handled as a formal complaint. The landlord did not do this, which was not fair or reasonable.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 July 2024. This was again not logged as a formal complaint, which was unsatisfactory and prolonged the complaints process. This caused the resident additional time and effort as she had to chase the landlord twice (on 29 July 2024 and 14 August 2024). This led her to making a further complaint, 8 weeks later, on 28 August 2024 to try to get the issues resolved. The landlord acknowledged this complaint 8 working days later, on 9 September 2024. While it is acknowledged this was only 3 days outside of its policy timescales, it did result in the resident chasing the landlord on 5 September 2024 regarding her complaint. This shows that the delay caused her some distress and inconvenience.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 26 September 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this, which led to her chasing it 3 times to ensure it had received her request. Had the landlord acknowledged her complaint within its policy timescales, it would have avoided additional distress, uncertainty, time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord recognised its error and apologised for this, and offered redress in its final response, which was appropriate.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not adequately review the stage 1 response and assess where things had gone wrong at this stage. In doing so, it failed to uphold other elements of the resident’s complaint, which was inconsistent with the evidence. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
As a result of not acknowledging the full extent of its failings, the landlord also did not offer adequate redress in its final response. It made no offer of compensation at stage 2 for the substantive issue, which was insufficient. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble it had caused.
The landlord offered £50 at stage 2 in recognition of the delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out “compensation scales” specifically for poor complaint handling. It calculates awards considering “effort” and “impact”. It has 3 compensation categories for complaint handling offering varying payments up to £250. It was appropriate that the landlord considered its own complaint handling and addressed any delays accordingly at stage 2. However, we find its compensation offer to be insufficient given the additional complaint handling failures identified in this report, which would fall into the higher end of the categories set out in its compensation guidance.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with landlord’s compensation guidance and our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50 for complaint handling, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £550, which comprises:
  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  3. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
3. Write to the resident to provide her with the details and criteria for her local authority’s ASB case review process.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a review of its handling of matters in this case to improve its future service delivery. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be sent to this Service, and should identify:
1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again.
2. Any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures required to ensure ASB reports are accurately recorded, appropriately investigated, and addressed in a reasonable and timely manner.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts complaint handling refresher training with its staff, if it has not done so recently.