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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202344212)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344212

Sanctuary Housing Association

20 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of water in the communal lift pit.
    2. Request for a service charge refund.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a third-floor flat managed by the landlord, a housing association. A single communal lift serves the building. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The earliest record of water in the lift pit was noted during a routine service on 7 March 2023. At that time, no immediate safety concerns were raised, and the lift remained in operation.
  3. The resident made a further report of water ingress in October 2023. Following this report, the lift was isolated on 25 October 2023 and taken out of service.
  4. The resident complained on 14 December 2023, expressing frustration that the lift had been out of order for over a month while he continued paying more than £200 per month in service charges without receiving the benefit of the lift. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord, and it issued an interim response on 27 December 2023, confirming that the issue had been escalated and promising an update to the complaint within 10 working days.
  5. On 11 January 2024, the resident submitted a further complaint, stating at the lack of a lift service was unreasonable. He said that he believed the landlord had put him (and others) at risk, as he said there was a possibility of electrocution or serious harm and asked for compensation. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 19 February 2024. It acknowledged the delays in its response and the repairs to the lift and confirmed a target completion date of 11 March 2023. It offered £125 in compensation as a gesture of goodwill, made up of: £50 for the delay in repairs, £25 for the delays in the complaint response and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 February 2024. He said that if the contractor had checked the lift properly, it would have identified that there was a water leak. The landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process on 16 March 2024. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused, as well as the delay in completing the repair. It offered £500 in compensation as a goodwill gesture, £100 per month for the 5 months during the lift downtime. It is unclear whether this was in addition to the £125 compensation offered at stage 1.
  7. The resident contacted our Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and asked for a service charge refund and compensation, totalling £2,100 (£210 per month service charge refund and £210 per month in compensation).

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident requested a refund of service charges for the period the lift was out of service. Under paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The question of whether a refund of service charges is due is outside of our jurisdiction to consider and is a matter for the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT). The landlord correctly signposted the resident to the FTT in its stage 2 complaint response.

Scope of our investigation

  1. The resident has requested compensation based on reported alleged negligence from the landlord, citing stress and anxiety, which he said was worsened by the landlord’s handling of the lift issues. Claims for personal injury are matters of liability. Such decisions are best made either by an insurer or a court. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lift and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response framed the compensation payment of £500 as redress for the inconvenience of paying for a service of paying (the lift) that was not in use. Our assessment focuses on whether the amount of compensation was reasonable for the loss of amenity and distress and inconvenience caused, not whether the service charge itself should be refunded.

The resident’s reports of water in the communal lift pit

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms that a lift breakdown is classified as an emergency repair, to be attended within 24 hours. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended to service the lift from March 2023 onwards. The service records identified repeated water ingress in the lift pit, with no effective investigation into the root cause, despite clear recommendations, including the May 2023 service note to “identify the source of the water ingress”. There is no evidence that these recommendations were acted upon, and the recurring issue persisted.
  2. The lift remained operational between the March 2023 to October 2023 services, but the underlying problem was not effectively addressed until the resident’s report in October 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the September 2023 service found no issues; this does not accurately reflect the service record, which shows that water was identified in the lift pit during the inspection.
  3. Following the resident’s October 2023 report, the lift was isolated and remained out of service until 20 March 2024. Although isolating the lift was necessary for safety reasons, the duration the lift was isolated was excessive, particularly as it was the only one servicing the building. The absence of a contingency plan meant alternative arrangements for residents were limited. The landlord did, however, offer a wellbeing service during this period, demonstrating a consideration of the impact on residents.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the delay in completing the work due to the repairs and parts that were required to repair the leak and return the lift to operational. The landlord offered £500 in compensation which is considered reasonable given the disruption and loss of amenity experienced. Although the compensation was described as covering inconvenience and service charges, the payment adequately compensates the resident for the inconvenience caused during the lift outage. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to complaints within policy timescales and inform residents of any delays or extensions, including reasons for the delay and revised timescales agreed with the resident.
  2. For stage 1 complaints, the Code allows an extension of up to 10 additional working days where necessary.
  3. The resident submitted his complaint on 14 December 2023. An interim response was issued on 27 December 2023, acknowledging the complaint and indicating a resolution would be provided within 10 working days. This time frame was not met.
  4. The resident submitted a further complaint on 11 January 2024, following an interim update from the landlord on 10 January 2024. The interim response did not provide a precise date for when a complete stage 1 response would be issued, which caused confusion and led the resident to escalate the matter.
  5. The stage 1 response was issued on 19 February 2024, nearly 2 months after the initial complaint, exceeding the 10-working-day timescale specified in the landlord’s Complaints Policy and extending the resident’s complaints process.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £25 compensation. While this went some way to recognising the inconvenience caused, it was not proportionate to the length of the delay. In addition, the landlord did not explain what steps it would take to prevent similar delays in the future. For these reasons we have found service failure and have ordered the landlord to pay £75 compensation (inclusive of the £25 compensation offered at stage 1) to more proportionately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. We noted that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not explicitly state whether the increased £500 compensation offer was in addition to the £125 offered at stage 1, or, in replacement of it. Clear communication of compensation offers is important to avoid confusion or uncertainty for residents. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure it is clear in its offers of compensation in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the request for a refund of service charges was ruled outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the reports of water in the communal lift pit.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    2. Paid the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing the stage 1 response – this is inclusive of the £25 offered at stage 1 and should be deducted from the total if already paid. The money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money owed.
    3. Reviewed its complaint handling in this case and ensured that future complaints are responded to within the policy timescale. Where timescales cannot be met, explanations must be provided and extensions agreed with residents.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £500 as offered at stage 2 if it has not already been done. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the money has or will be paid.
    2. Review the wording of its compensation offers to ensure they are presented as redress for loss of amenity, distress or inconvenience and do not create ambiguity with requests for service charge refunds. It should specify whether compensation offers are ‘in addition to’ or ‘in replacement of’ previous offers to avoid any uncertainty.
  2. The landlord should inform us of its intentions regarding the recommendations within 4 weeks.