Sanctuary Housing Association (202343564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343564

Sanctuary Housing Association

3 September 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 decision to open the communal door of the resident’s building for public access.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a retirement community. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord notified the residents of the building via a letter on 19 December 2023 that it was proposing a change to visitor access through the communal front door.
The resident made a complaint on 20 December 2023 in the form of a petition from residents of the building. She said residents felt unsafe with the front door being unlocked and publicly accessible. She asked for the door to remain accessible by residents’ fobs only.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024. It said the doors would remain open between 8am and 4pm daily to allow public access to amenities in the building. It said the resident’s security would not be affected.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 January 2024. She said it was not appropriate for the member of staff who proposed the doors were unlocked to have conducted the stage 1 investigation. She said there was not enough staff to have oversight of who was in the building. She said the safest option would be for the doors to remain closed. She asked for evidence of any risk assessment conducted by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. It said opening the communal door would prevent interruptions to care staff from the door buzzer as well as providing access to public amenities in the building. It apologised for not having consulted on the change before sending its letter on 19 December 2023. It said there had been no service failure in its approach and that the complaint was not upheld. It said it would conduct a risk assessment of the change and the results would be discussed at a residents’ meeting on 6 March 2024.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Service on 20 February 2024. She said she and other residents did not feel safe with the door unlocked. She said that caring staff were provided by a third party and that the landlord’s staff should be responsible for monitoring the door. She said the landlord did not speak to her or any other residents during its investigation into the complaint. She also said a lack of staff at the building was putting vulnerable residents at risk.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident raised concerns about staffing levels in the building putting residents at risk. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s decision to open the communal door to public access

In the landlord’s Professional Service Providers procedure, it says that third parties may deliver services on its premises. It says that service providers engage solely with clients and are not permitted to enter residential areas of its buildings. It says approval must be sought for services to operate in communal areas and will be declined if they pose a risk to residents.
In the landlord’s Visitors, Access, and Security procedure, it says it has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for its residents. It says it must complete detailed risk assessments for building access and security when new risks are identified. It says it will provide a visitors book to log details of anyone accessing the building. It says staff will direct visitors to the appropriate area according to the nature of their visit.
On 19 December 2023 all residents were notified by the landlord that it was proposing the communal door of the building should be opened to the public between the hours of 8am and 4pm each day.
The resident raised her complaint on 20 December 2023. She had created a petition of residents who objected to the proposal to open the communal door. She said that she felt unsafe with the plan for the doors to be opened to the public and asked for access to remain by residents’ fobs only.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 December 2023. This was appropriate and showed that it prioritised the concerns the resident had raised by responding efficiently.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It said:
1. It was standard procedure to enable public access to its retirement communities so facilities could be accessed.
2. That having the door unlocked would not compromise residents’ security as residential areas would remain accessible by fob only.
3. That there was a timer fitted to the doors to ensure they automatically locked at 4pm.
4. That there would still be staff on site 24 hours a day to respond to safety concerns.
It was appropriate for the landlord to identify its practice of opening buildings to third party services and showed that it was considering the issue in line with its policies. It provided a copy of the risk assessment conducted in advance of the proposal to this Service. The risk assessment demonstrated it had considered the potential impact of the change on the residents and identified mitigations including:
1. CCTV at access and egress points.
2. Fob only access to residential areas.
3. 24 hour presence of staff in the building.
4. The ability to permanently lock the door in an emergency situation.
5. Emergency pendants worn by all residents to alert staff of issues.
The risk assessment timeline shows that there was an issue with the automatic lock mentioned in the landlord’s stage 1 response. The issue was identified on 19 December 2023, the day the changes were proposed. While this issue remained unresolved, the doors were kept on permanent fob access. This was an appropriate response and showed that the landlord took the safety of its residents seriously.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 January 2024. She said:
1. She was unhappy that the person who proposed the opening of the doors was the same person who investigated the complaint at stage 1.
2. That there was inadequate oversight of who accessed the building and that the landlord had admitted it did not have enough staff to supervise people in the building.
3. That the safest option would be to return to having the doors fully locked and accessible only by fob.
4. She wanted a copy of any risk assessment conducted regarding the doors, along with the landlord’s access/egress policy.
In the landlord’s Complaints – Housing and All Supported Living Policy, it says the aim of the second stage of the complaints process is to have the issue investigated by an independent person not involved in stage 1.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 24 January 2024. This was an appropriate response time and showed that it recognised the importance of responding promptly to the resident’s concerns. It allocated the investigation of the complaint to an independent member of staff as its policy says it will.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. It said:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s request to have the door locked throughout the day and that this was supported by other residents.
2. It was implementing the change as its care staff were being regularly interrupted by people using the door buzzer to gain access.
3. The new hours would allow the community to access the facilities within the building more easily.
4. It apologised for not consulting on the changes with residents prior to the notice given on 19 December 2023 but that this was not a service failure.
5. The changes would be reviewed and discussed at a resident’s meeting on 6 March 2024.
6. It would not provide copies of internal working documents but directed the resident to its Personal Health and Wellbeing Policy, which it enclosed with the response.
It was appropriate for the landlord to explain its rationale for opening the doors to public access. Its explanation considered its policy appropriately by reiterating the security measures that were in place to allow access to communal areas without compromising residential areas. It acknowledged the concerns raised by the resident while considering its responsibility to act in the interests of the business. It acknowledged the impact of having to answer the door on its staff in their ability to conduct their other duties, which was appropriate.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its shortcomings in relation to consultation with the residents and showed an intention to learn from the complaint. It could have considered discussing the proposal with residents before issuing its notice of the changes.
It provided evidence to this investigation of initial risk assessments conducted in line with its policy. While not a failing, it could have taken the time to explain the outcome of its risk assessments to the resident and how potential risks were being addressed. This would have offered the resident reassurance that security measures were in place. It gave the opportunity for the resident to respond to the changes in a scheduled meeting which was appropriate and showed it valued her perspective.
It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to refuse access to internal working documents. It took steps to provide an appropriate alternative policy for the resident to review which showed that it was seeking a positive outcome in its response. It provided relevant internal documents to this Service to show it had adhered to its policies.
Evidence provided to this investigation by the landlord shows that it conducted its residents meeting on 6 March 2024 as it said it would. As a result of the meeting, it agreed to shorten the opening hours from 10am to 2pm, which demonstrated that it was listening to the concerns of the residents. It gave a date for a further review in July 2024 for residents to discuss the impact of the changes. This was appropriate and demonstrated a positive approach to resident interaction moving forwards.
The landlord also confirmed that it had moved the location of its visitor signing in book to a more visible area to ensure all visitors were accounted for. It said this had given it staff more oversight to ask visitors to sign in. This was an appropriate change to its procedure and shows that it had considered how it could ensure it was implementing its policy correctly following the change.
In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident. While it failed to consult on the changes early in the process, it acknowledged this and sought further opportunities to consult with residents. It provided appropriate explanations for its decision and offered reassurance in response to the resident’s concerns about security. It demonstrated that it was following its policies throughout the process. As the landlord acted within its obligations, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to open the communal door of the resident’s building for public access.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord offers the resident the chance to discuss her personal concerns about the ongoing impact of the change and any support it can offer to help with these concerns.
It is recommended that the landlord ensures consultation with residents early on in any process of proposing changes that will directly affect residents.