Sanctuary Housing Association (202338653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338653

Sanctuary Housing Association

17 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 handling of:
1. The information given as part of the resident’s application for housing.
2. The condition of the property upon moving in and the repairs needed.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 4-bedroom ground floor flat.
On 14 June 2023 the resident viewed and accepted the property with the landlord. During the viewing she raised concerns regarding the windows and back door. Throughout June and July, the resident reported several more repairs to the landlord and it attended the property on multiple occasions.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 August 2023 about the property condition when she moved in. She said the issues raised should have been rectified she moved in. The resident also complained about the lack of information given during the landlord’s sign-up process.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It accepted there had been delays to some repairs and failings in its handling of the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £2,650 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with us, the resident has raised other issues that occurred after those subject to this complaint, in addition to those that were already made to the landlord. These additional issues are in various stages of investigation as part of the landlord’s complaints process. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
Of those issues raised by the resident as part of her original complaint, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the information given as part of the sign-up process. It also did not provide a response at stage 1 of its complaint process for any complaint point that was raised to it. As such, we have exercised our discretion under the Scheme to investigate all elements of that formed part of her original complaint.
This scope of this investigation will cover all the complaint points raised by the resident between 10 August 2022 to 21 March 2024. This being the 12 months leading up to the complaint, through to when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties using the discretion we have under our Scheme. The resident may raise those matters not considered in this report with us, when they have completed the landlord’s complaint process and if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The resident informed us how the issues have impacted her family’s health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

The information given as part of the resident’s application for housing

On 13 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and said she had been short listed for a property. The following day the resident viewed the property and said she would accept it if offered to her. The resident told us she asked the landlord how she would know whether she had been successful, and it told her it would be in touch to arrange the sign-up if she was.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023 and asked if she had been successful in securing the property. On 20 June 2023 the landlord told the resident she could sign the tenancy agreement on 22 June 2023 and would need to be in the property by 25 June 2023 to avoid paying rent on 2 properties. The resident said she queried with the landlord why she only had 5 days to prepare to move a family of 7. In response she said the landlord told her she should have assumed the property was hers. The resident later included this information in her complaint to the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord disputed this.
The landlord’s lettings policy states when a property becomes available it will shortlist applicants and where possible, allow the applicants to view the property. It states a formal offer will be made to the successful applicant following an assessment. The policy is silent on timescales in which moves are to take place.
The evidence shows there was no information provided by the landlord to the resident at the time of her application which said or implied she would be the successful applicant. As such, there was no basis upon which it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident she should have assumed she would be the successful applicant for the property. In accordance with the policy, the resident could only form the view she had been successful in her application at the point the landlord made its formal offer to begin the tenancy.
The resident signed the new tenancy on 22 June 2023 and had a telephone appointment with the income team. She told us she was asked personal questions about income and asked to make a payment to secure the tenancy.
The landlord’s lettings policy states than when an offer is accepted the resident will complete a telephone appointment to ensure affordability. The policy also states that during the appointment, tenants will be advised the rent is to be paid in advance and arrangements for this will be put in place. The landlord’s actions during the telephone appointment where in line with its policy and reasonable.
On 10 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its tenancy sign-up process. She said she was provided with no information about the process or timescales and felt anxious and threatened when taking the call from the income team. The landlord failed to address this aspect of her complaint in both of its complaint responses. The failure to address the matter in its complaint response is discussed further in the complaint handling section below.
The resident told us she felt more information could have been given to her at the start of the process. She said it was difficult to move a family of 7 in such a short period of time. Had she known the property was going to be hers, she could have prepared for this a few days earlier, reducing the distress and inconvenience caused.
In summary, while the landlord acted within its policy it could have been more open with the resident during its earlier communication. The evidence suggests the landlord had no other applicants for this property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to let the resident know this sooner to help her prepare for the move.
The failure to communicate in an effective way leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the information given as part of the resident’s application for housing. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings that would not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Property condition and repairs

The evidence shows the resident’s new property was vacant for at least 12 months before she moved in. An empty property like this is also known as a ‘void property’. A marker on the landlord’s systems, dated 6 July 2022, highlighted the property had serious drainage and sewer issues. It was not to be allocated until the issues had been fully resolved. The landlord accepts it did not address the drainage issues prior to the resident being allocated the property.
The landlord uses a comprehensive form to inspect void properties before they are reallocated. The form sets out the aspects of the property to be inspected and the condition it needs to be in. The form states:
1. All electrical installations must be checked and tested.
2. The floors are to be inspected.
3. The heating system must be free from leaks.
4. The kitchen must have room to install a cooker.
5. Kitchen units must operate as intended.
6. Bathroom toilets and extractor fans must be working properly.
7. Damaged or unsafe fencing must be removed.
8. Broken external slabs and steps must be re-laid or renewed.
9. Windows and external doors must be capable of easy operation.
10. There must be 2 keys per external door.
11. Pre-payment utility meters must be cleared and not in debt.
The landlord has not provided evidence it completed a void inspection form for the resident’s property. However, the landlord’s records show a “snagging list” was prepared on 10 May 2023, which included:
1. Renew rear external door lock.
2. Repair window mechanism in bedroom 3.
The rear external door lock was renewed on 15 June 2023. There is no record of the window being repaired.
The landlord’s voids policy states it aims to enable tenants to move into their homes with minimal delay. It does not say how it will achieve this, and states targets for void repairs will be agreed internally. The resident could have reasonably expected any repairs that should be identified by the landlord’s void inspection, to be completed prior to her moving in. The evidence provided by the date of the snagging list shows the void inspection was likely to have been conducted a minimum of 31 days prior to the resident moving in. This is a reasonable time for the landlord to have identified and actioned the necessary repairs for the property to meet the requirements set out in its void form.
Upon signing for the property on 22 June 2023, the resident reported a number of issues to the landlord. These included:
1. She was only given key for the property.
2. The utility meters were both in debt.
3. The space for her cooker was obstructed by a pipe sticking out of the floor.
4. The rear external door lock was not working.
5. Several windows in the property did not function correctly.
The landlord had identified problems with the rear door and a window in May 2023. It had completed a repair to the rear door a week earlier. However, the resident’s report that the door lock was not functioning properly would suggest the repair was ineffective.
The landlord’s failure to complete the window repair before the resident moved in was unreasonable. It is reasonable to conclude that issues reported by the resident should have been identified and rectified by the landlord’s void inspection and process. The presence of the issues is evidence that the voids inspection was ineffective, and it was unreasonable that the issues were present when the resident started their tenancy at the property.
The resident raised the need for the same repairs again in the following weeks. This was due to no action being taken in the interim period by the landlord. Between 23 June and 25 July 2023, the resident reported further issues to the landlord, such as:
1. The boiler was not working.
2. Multiple reports of a blocked toilet.
3. Loose and uneven slabs and a step in the garden.
4. A leak to the radiator pipes (only apparent when the boiler was repaired).
5. Broken fencing.
6. Uneven kitchen floor.
7. Problems with a kitchen cupboard door.
8. Bathroom extractor fan not working.
9. Front gate had dropped.
The additional issues reported by the resident was further evidence that the landlord’s voids inspection was ineffective. Its failure to ensure the property met the required standards at the start of the tenancy caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience by having to report the issues and wait for them to be repaired.
On 10 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the issues raised should have been dealt with before she was allocated the property. The resident listed the issues she had reported, many of which had not been dealt with by the landlord. She also complained she had to pay to get new keys cut as the landlord had refused to pay for them.
The landlord’s void inspection form states there should be at least 2 keys given to new tenants for each external door. Its records show it advised the resident on 14 August 2023 it would refund her any costs incurred if she submitted receipts. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the refund, it was unreasonable the keys were not available at the time of letting.
All the repairs reported by the resident were the responsibility of the landlord, as per its void inspection form. The landlord does not dispute this. The evidence shows that some repairs took multiple visits to complete. The landlord’s response times to the repairs were as follows:
1. The broken boiler was repaired on 27 June 2023, 4 days after it was reported.
2. The leak to the radiator pipes was repaired on 7 July 2023, 10 days after the issue was reported.
3. While the landlord attended each report of a blocked toilet within 24 hours, it took at least 7 reports before it instructed a contractor to jet clean the pipes on 13 July 2023. This was particularly unreasonable given the landlord had known the property had drainage issues and failed to rectify them before the resident moved in.
4. The window hinges were replaced on 7 August 2023, over 1 month after the issue was first reported. The landlord offered to make further improvements, including hacking off plaster around the windows, but the resident refused the works as she had started to decorate.
5. The bathroom extractor fan was repaired on 30 August 2023, 1 month after the issue was first reported.
6. The front gate was repaired on 25 October 2023, 3 months after the issue was first reported.
7. The repairs to the slabs, steps, fencing, and kitchen cupboard door were completed in December 2023, around 5 months after the issues were first reported.
8. The repairs to a pipe sticking out the kitchen flooring and issues with the floor appear to have been completed in January 2024. This was approximately 6 months after the issues had been reported.
9. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord conducted any repairs to the rear external door following the resident’s reports in June and July 2023.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. Half of the issues reported by the resident exceeded this timescale. The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged the repairs should have been picked up during its void inspection. Given the issues should have been identified and remedied prior to moving into the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to act on reports or repairs promptly because of this. Instead, the resident was waiting 7 months and beyond for some repairs to be completed. The additional delays incurred beyond the 28-day timescale to repair as allowed by the landlord’s repair policy was especially unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2024 and apologised for the delays in addressing the repairs. It said:
1. It had advised it would reimburse the resident for the cost of getting new keys cut and apologised the utility meters had been left in debt.
2. Each of the repairs complained about had been completed. However, during an inspection of the property it had identified further repairs which it committed to completing separately. This included repairs to the rear external door.
3. At times, it had struggled to contact the resident to arrange dates to attend.
4. It offered the resident £1,900 compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for delays in resolving the repairs when they were raised.
  2. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  3. £500 for loss of enjoyment of the home.
  4. £500 for future impact until the works were completed.
The landlord said the repair to the rear door was part of the new work it had identified. This was incorrect. The resident had reported the issue in June and July 2023. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this demonstrates a lack of understanding around the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also said it had difficulty arranging dates with the resident. This was not apparent from the evidence provided. It was also unreasonable given the landlord’s notes acknowledge the repairs should have been picked up during the void period.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards of up to £400 for failings that have a high impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation exceeded that set out in its policy.
The landlord has told us that since it issued its response, it has reviewed its void process to prevent similar issues arising in the future. It has also provided further training for staff members.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord failed to carry out an effective void inspection. Had it done so, it is likely that all of the issues reported by the resident would have been identified prior to the property being allocated, as per the requirements set out on its void inspection form.
The evidence also shows the resident had to report issues on multiple occasions before the landlord took any action. The majority of the repairs were subject to significant delays, with the repair to the rear entry door being overlooked by the landlord. This caused the resident great distress and inconvenience, which would have been evident in the communications she sent to the landlord.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £1,900 compensation. The amount of compensation offered was proportionate to the level of failing identified by this investigation. And together with the learning identified and improvement to its services is evidence the landlord has complied with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We acknowledge the landlord has made significant efforts to put things right for the resident. However, the repairs required to the resident’s rear door remain outstanding and the resident complaint is not entirely resolved. This leads to a determination of service failure.
Orders to apologise for this failing and make arrangements for the door to be repaired are made below. The landlord should pay the amount of compensation already offered as part of its complaints process if it has not done so already.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 10 August 2023. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response. It replied directly at stage2. The failure to provide a stage 1 response was not in line with its policy.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on her complaint at least 8 times between August and November 2023 and received no meaningful reply. On 23 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said if she was unhappy with her stage 1 response, she should escalate her complaint. The landlord’s failure to recognise it had not delivered a stage 1 response was unreasonable. The email was confusing, misleading and did not give the resident confidence the landlord was taking her complaint seriously.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day, reminding it no stage 1 response had been received. The landlord said it would escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2024. This was 4 months from the date of the original escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.
The landlord did apologise and acknowledge the delays and lack of communication in handling her complaint. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the information she had been provided as part of the sign-up process. The landlord offered £750 compensation made up of:
1. £150 for failing to provide a stage 1 response.
2. £200 for escalating the complaint to stage 2 without the resident’s permission.
3. £400 for delays in providing its stage 2 response.
The stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaint about its property sign up process. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time (dated 28 September 2022) states where it decides not to accept a complaint, it will explain this to the resident and set out the reasons for the decision. The landlord’s failure to respond to the complaint or explain why it would not do so was another demonstration of poor complaint handling.
In summary, there were significant failings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. The evidence shows it failed to provide a stage 1 response, despite repeated requests from the resident. This denied the resident access to its 2-stage complaint process. There were further significant delays in issuing its stage 2 response, which failed to address all of the complaint points.
In this instance, the landlord offered significant compensation for its complaint handling errors. The amount offered were proportionate to the level of the failings in the case. The landlord demonstrated it had acted in part in accordance with the dispute resolution principles.
However, the landlord failed to address or identify that parts of the resident’s complaint were not addressed by its response. This left the resident without answers to her complaint and required her to escalate matters to the Ombudsman. This leads to a determination of service failure. The landlord is ordered to apologise for its omission. It should pay the compensation previously offered as part of its complaint’s procedure if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident signing up for a new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the property condition and repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the additional failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £100 compensation for its failings in its handling of the information given as part of the resident’s application for housing. This must be paid directly to the resident and not off set against a rent account.
3. Carry out an inspection of the rear external door to ascertain what repairs are needed. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a schedule of works, including timescales. Alternatively, the landlord can submit evidence the repair has already been assessed and completed.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.