Sanctuary Housing Association (202447306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447306

Sanctuary Housing Association

19 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 leaseholder 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 response to the leaseholder’s request:
1. To replace the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end.
2. To repair a leak from the roof.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

The complaint concerns 2 leasehold properties (flat A and flat B) owned by the leaseholder. Both properties are flats which are situated in a block of 4. The landlord is the freeholder.
The leaseholder does not live in the properties. Private tenants occupy the properties. The leaseholder describes the tenants as vulnerable.
On 10 October 2024 the leaseholder made a complaint to the landlord regarding the repairs service she had received. In summary the leaseholder said:
1. In respect of the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end:
  1. Despite reporting that the gutters, fascia, soffits and gable end on the block required repair or replacement in May 2024 the landlord had not completed the work.
  2. The landlord had informed her that approval for the work to go ahead was pending.
  3. She had chased the landlord on multiple occasions to request that the work was completed.
  4. Damp was appearing in the properties as water was able to penetrate through the brickwork due to the faulty guttering.
2. In respect of the roof:
  1. When it rained water leaked into the properties through the roof.
3. She was concerned for the health and safety of the tenants who lived in flat A and flat B due to the outstanding repair issues as they were both vulnerable.
4. She would like compensation in recognition of the poor repairs service received and for the time and trouble she had experienced in pursuing the matter.
On 1 November 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response following a chaser from the leaseholder on 16 October 2024. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had attempted to call the leaseholder to speak about the complaint however had been unsuccessful.
2. In respect of the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end:
  1. A work order was raised on 16 June 2024 to address the guttering.
  2. The quote was forwarded to its Homeownership Team on 17 July 2025 for approval.
  3. The leaseholder contacted it on 10 and 16 October 2024 for an update on the repair as no update had been provided.
  4. It would closely monitor and track the outstanding work to ensure that it went ahead as planned and was completed to the leaseholder’s satisfaction. It would be in touch with the leaseholder in due course to discuss next steps.
3. In respect of the roof:
  1. A work order was raised on 18 October 2024 when the quote for the repair was received.
  2. The work order had a timescale of 60 days. The works therefore had to be completed by 18 December 2024. It noted that roof repairs were weather dependent and prone to delays.
4. It upheld the complaint due to the delay in addressing the guttering. It therefore apologised and awarded £75 compensation comprising:
  1. £25 for the delay in addressing the guttering.
  2. £50 for “any trouble or inconvenience [the] matter caused and the time it [would] take to complete the works”.
On 6 November 2024 the leaseholder requested to escalate the complaint as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. In summary she said:
1. In respect of the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end:
  1. She reported the repair to the guttering and gable end on 3 May 2024. In response the landlord attended the block to clean the gutters. As this did not address the issue with the guttering she reported the repair again – date not given.
  2. In early June 2024 the landlord attended the block to inspect the guttering.
  3. The inspection was repeated in July 2024 as the report following the first inspection was lost.
  4. The quote for the guttering had only recently been approved after she had chased the landlord multiple times.
  5. The properties had experienced water ingress and damp due to the condition of the guttering.
2. In respect of the roof:
  1. On 30 September 2024 she was contacted by the tenant of flat B. The tenant reported that water had poured through the bedroom ceiling onto their granddaughter while they were sleeping. On receipt of the information she contacted the landlord to request an emergency repair.
  2. Despite an appointment being scheduled for 1 October 2024 to repair the roof an operative did not attend. On chasing the landlord she learned that the operative had attended the wrong address.
  3. The appointment was rescheduled for 3 October 2024. During the appointment no works were completed.
  4. On 18 October 2024 an operative attended the block to see if they could complete a temporary repair however they were not successful.
  5. The tenant of flat B had recently reported that they could no longer use the light in the bedroom due to water ingress into the electrics.
  6. It was unacceptable to wait until 18 December 2024 for a repair to fix the roof to be completed.
3. She had chased the landlord on multiple occasions to get updates however it had not been responsive.
4. She was concerned for the wellbeing of the tenants in flat A and flat B.
5. She would like to know if the landlord would pay for the internal make good works to remedy the damage caused by the repair issues.
On 5 December 2024 the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s request to escalate the complaint following a chaser on 29 November 2024.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder to confirm that its stage 2 response would be delayed. It confirmed that the response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 30 January 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end:
  1. The leaseholder contacted it on 28 May 2024 to report an issue with the guttering. In response it raised a work order to attend the block.
  2. Its records showed that following the leaseholder’s contact in May 2024 the leaseholder had experienced “disruption and delays” by it in addressing the repair issue to the guttering.
  3. In November 2024 it started the process to obtain 3 quotes for the works required to address the guttering.
  4. The work to address the guttering would be included within a Section 20 consultation. All leaseholders would hear from it regarding the Section 20 process including the tender, evaluation and proposed works. Once the consultation had been completed and a contractor chosen the works would start.
  5. It would monitor the guttering works until completion.
  6. It was sorry for the disruption caused in relation to the guttering works. It acknowledged that its handling of the works was “not up to the standard [it] would expect”.
2. In respect of the roof:
  1. The leaseholder contacted it on 30 September 2024 to report a roof leak coming through the bedroom ceiling of flat B. In response it raised an emergency repair for 1 October 2024 however the contractor went to the wrong address.
  2. The contractor attended on 2 October 2024. Following the visit there were delays in obtaining the approval needed for the works identified to repair the roof.
  3. It would monitor the roof repairs until completion.
  4. It was sorry for the disruption caused in relation to the roof repair.
3. Its records showed that it did not actively contact the leaseholder with updates in relation to the gutter and roof repairs. It acknowledged its communication could have been better.
4. If the leaseholder provided it with a quotation for the make good works to the properties it would consider whether reimbursement was due.
5. Its records showed that it delayed in recording the leaseholder’s complaint at stage 1 and it did not reply to her request to escalate on 6 November 2024. It therefore apologised.
6. It would like to offer the leaseholder a revised offer of compensation of £500 which included:
  1. £75 for poor complaint handling at stage 1.
  2. £425 for overall time and trouble.
On 5 February 2025 the leaseholder replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response. In summary the leaseholder said:
1. It was unclear why the landlord was now progressing the guttering replacement via a Section 20 consultation.
2. There was no logic in providing the landlord with quotes for the make good works for the properties until the repairs to the guttering and roof had been completed.
3. It was unsatisfactory that the repairs were outstanding. She reiterated that the situation was impacting on the tenants who were vulnerable.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policy on homeowner repairs sets out that it is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the homeowner’s home and block in a good state of repair. This includes the roof, drains, gutters and outside pipes. This is confirmed in the lease for both properties.
As the leaseholder’s complaint concerned repair issues the landlord was responsible for it was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request to replace the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end

The records show that on 28 May 2024, following contact from the leaseholder earlier that month, a work order was completed to clear the “guttering on [the] gable end” as it was leaking.
On 16 June 2024 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report that the work that it had completed in May 2024 had not resolved the issue with the guttering. She noted that the “soffit [was] rotten, the gable end [had] a hole, the downspout [had] clips missing and the gutter [was] hanging down”. In response the landlord attended the block on 27 June 2024.
Following the appointment on 27 June 2024 the landlord sent an internal email on 16 July 2024 to request approval for “100% gutter replacement of [the block]”. Within the email the landlord noted that the leaseholder had requested that the gutters, fascia and soffits were replaced rather than repaired. It noted that it had offered to “repair where needed” but the leaseholder had declined this option.
In an internal email dated 18 July 2024 the landlord confirmed that the work to replace the guttering and other items would “require formal consultation before [it could] proceed” and therefore it should start the Section 20 process.
Despite the landlord’s email regarding the need for formal consultation we cannot see that this action was pursued at that time. This is unsatisfactory. From the records we cannot see why the Section 20 consultation was not started, or any later decision confirming the works could be progressed without a Section 20 consultation. This suggests a lack of oversight by the landlord.
The records show that the leaseholder began contacting the landlord in early autumn 2024 for an update on the works. In response the landlord made internal enquiries in order to progress matters. While it was appropriate that the landlord sought to progress the works, as it identified that the works were outstanding, it is unsatisfactory that this was only done as a result of intervention from the leaseholder. We note that the records from this time show that no action to progress a Section 20 consultation had been undertaken from July 2024.
In an update to us in early August 2025 the landlord confirmed that a Section 20 consultation had not been issued for the guttering. It explained that the guttering and other items were due to be repaired during an appointment on 7 August 2025 instead. It confirmed that following the repair it would arrange a stock condition survey of the block to determine if the gutters and other items should be replaced. If replacement was considered appropriate it would then issue a Section 20 consultation for the works.
It is unsatisfactory that works to address the guttering and other items were outstanding for a period of 15 months since the resident first reported the problem. This is a significantly protracted period of time. The chronology of the issue demonstrates that this was as a result of the landlord’s poor handling of the matter. While the repair work was outstanding this will have caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder, in addition to time and trouble in chasing the repair.
During the period under investigation we have not identified that the landlord completed any temporary repairs while it sought to progress replacement of the guttering and other items. This is unsatisfactory. A temporary repair may have been appropriate to protect the properties in the block from issues such as water damage, damp and mould.
The landlord awarded a total of £500 compensation for time and trouble in respect of the issues subject of the complaint. The landlord did not offer a breakdown of how this applied across the 2 repair issues (guttering and roof). We have therefore assumed that the amount was spilt evenly and £250 was for the guttering and £250 was for the roof.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation where there has been a service failure due to its action or inaction. While it was appropriate that the landlord engaged its compensation policy, as it had identified a service failure, in our opinion £250 compensation does not amount to reasonable redress for the part of the complaint about the guttering and related issues. This is because it does not reflect the significant length of time the repair issue was outstanding, including after the end of the complaint procedure, the missed opportunities to address the issue at a much earlier time and therefore the impact on the resident.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s request to repair the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end. This is because the landlord significantly delayed in completing the repair due to its poor handling of the matter.

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s request to repair a leak from the roof

The records show that on 30 September 2024 the leaseholder contacted the landlord to report a “roof leak – water coming through the bedroom ceiling of [flat B] – unable to contain”. In response the landlord raised an work order for an emergency repair. This was in line with its repair policy which sets out that a water leak coming through the ceiling is an example of an emergency repair which must be attended and made safe within 24 hours.
Despite an appointment being scheduled for 1 October 2024, this did not go ahead as the contractor went to the wrong address.
The emergency appointment was promptly rescheduled and attended on 3 October 2024, not 2 October as noted by the landlord in its stage 2 response. The invoice following the appointment confirmed that a “roof inspection” was completed. Following the appointment the contractor provided the landlord with a quote for a full repair to the roof.
There is no evidence of a temporary repair being undertaken on 3 October 2024 or shortly thereafter. This is unsatisfactory. A temporary repair may have been appropriate to protect the properties in the block from water penetration or other risks.
On 22 October 2024 the landlord sent an internal email to request approval for the works to repair the roof. From the records we understand that approval for the works was given on 2 December 2024. This was a period of approximately 6 weeks which is a protracted period of time. It is not clear why approval was not given at a much earlier time.
Despite approval being given for the works in early December 2024, the landlord has confirmed that the roof repairs were due to be completed on 6 August 2025. Between December 2024 and August 2025 we cannot see that the landlord was taking steps to progress the repair.
It is unsatisfactory that works to address the roof were outstanding for a period of 8 months following approval. This is a significantly protracted period of time. The chronology of the issue demonstrates that this was as a result of the landlord’s poor handling of the matter. While the repair work was outstanding this will have caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder, in addition to time and trouble in chasing the repair.
As part of the leaseholder’s escalation request she reported that the electrics in flat B had been impacted as a result of the roof leak. Despite the leaseholder’s report we cannot see that the landlord considered this to determine if it was required to take any action to complete a repair. This is unsatisfactory.
While we acknowledge that the landlord awarded compensation in respect of its handling of the roof leak, we do not consider that this amounts to reasonable redress. This is because it does not reflect the significant length of time the repair issue was outstanding, including after the end of the complaint procedure, the missed opportunities to address the issue at a much earlier time and therefore the impact on the resident.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s request to repair a leak from the roof. This is because it significantly delayed in completing the repair due to its poor handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response 17 working days after the leaseholder made the complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 59 working days after the leaseholder escalated the complaint. Both responses were provided outside of the timescales prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code – 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is unsatisfactory. While the responses were outstanding it will have added to the leaseholder’s concerns that her case, and the repair issues, were not being taken seriously.
In considering the complaint the landlord awarded £75 for poor complaint handling at stage 1. This was appropriate for the length of time the response was outstanding at stage 1 and therefore the impact on the leaseholder. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord did not also consider compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
As part of her complaint the leaseholder set out that the tenants of flat A and flab B were both vulnerable and she was concerned regarding the impact the outstanding repairs were having on them. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s concerns in this regard. This would have been appropriate to ensure all issues subject of the complaint were addressed.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that its communication with the leaseholder in respect of the repairs had been poor. This is reflected in the landlord’s records which do not show regular or proactive updates by the landlord to the leaseholder. Proper communication would have been appropriate in order to manage the leaseholder’s expectations and to keep her informed. The landlord apologised for its omission which was appropriate.
As part of its stage 2 response the landlord set out that it would consider reimbursement for costs incurred by the leaseholder for making good any damage as caused by the repair issues. This was a reasonable offer. As the landlord had acknowledged failings in respect of the service it had provided it was appropriate that it offered to consider if its shortfalls did, or could have resulted in damage to the internal parts of the properties and whether any reimbursement or compensation was due. It would however have been helpful if the landlord had set out that its offer would remain open until such time as the repairs had been completed so any make good works could be safely completed without risk of spoiling.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This is because it has not offered redress for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and it failed to address the leaseholder’s concerns regarding her vulnerable tenants while the repair issues were outstanding.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s request to replace the guttering, fascia, soffits and gable end.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the leaseholder’s request to repair a leak from the roof
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the leaseholder in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the leaseholder a total of £1,150 compensation. This figure comprises the £575 it awarded itself, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £575 comprising:
1. £250 for the delay in repairing the guttering and other items and therefore the impact on the leaseholder including inconvenience, distress and uncertainty.
2. £250 for the delay in repairing the roof leak and therefore the impact on the leaseholder including inconvenience, distress and uncertainty.
3. £75 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and therefore the uncertainty the leaseholder will have experienced.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, inspect the block to ensure that the work completed to the guttering, fascia, soffits, gable end and wider roof have been completed to a satisfactory standard and have resolved the faults. Following the inspection the landlord should write to the leaseholder to confirm the outcome of the inspection, detailing any next steps with timescales. We consider that a post inspection of the works is appropriate due to the length of time the issues have been outstanding and to satisfy all parties that the issue has been remedied.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, write to the leaseholder to provide an update on the stock condition survey of the block. The update should include timescales, even if provisional, and what items will be considered as part of the survey. The landlord should provide a copy to us.

Recommendations

Within 2 weeks of receipt of information from the leaseholder, detailing actual costs incurred or estimated costs for make good works to flat A and flat B, the landlord should carry out an exercise to determine if any reimbursement is due. The landlord should write to the leaseholder setting out its decision providing appropriate explanation.