From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202422260)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422260

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for repairs to the rear garden fence.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association. He lives in a 3-bedroom detached house.
  2. Following moving into the new build property, the resident notified the landlord of over 100 separate defects and snagging issues in September and October 2023.
  3. On 4 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He complained about several defects and snagging issues, including various problems with the front and rear gardens. However, he did not mention any issue with the rear garden fence.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 17 November 2023. It said it had raised the issues with the rear garden with the contractor that built the scheme. It said it would arrange for the contractor to complete a full survey of the condition of the garden and agree a course of remediation, where required.
  5. The resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its response on 16 January 2024. He asked to escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process and said he wanted to highlight the condition of the fence panel at the rear of the garden, which was not straight and tilted down to the left.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 May 2024. It said the fencing issue had delayed the garden works being completed, as the contractor needed to complete the fencing work first. It said it expected the fencing work to be booked in the coming weeks. It apologised for the time taken and inconvenience caused. It also said it would keep the stage 2 complaint open until it had completed all work. It said it would send a further complaint response once it had completed all work and then consider compensation at that time.
  7. The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response on 14 August 2024. It apologised for missed appointments, delays to work and miscommunication. It said the fencing work had been delayed due to issues sourcing the materials but had been booked to start on 5 September 2024. It offered £600 compensation for the delays and inconvenience, which the resident accepted. However, the £600 was in recognition for all works for the defects and snagging issues raised.
  8. When the resident contacted us, he was not satisfied with the repair work the landlord completed to the rear fence. He wants the landlord to provide further compensation to acknowledge it has left him with a mismatched fence.

Assessment and findings

Requests for repairs to the rear garden fence

  1. From time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners of new build properties are therefore protected by the defect period and the warranties in place, and the existence of defects alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
  2. According to the landlord’s defects process, when it receives a reported defect within the defects period, it should raise the repair with the relevant contractor. It should also chase up any defects repair orders if the contractor has not confirmed completion within the agreed timescales.
  3. The defect process states that the works must be carried out in accordance with the timescale as per the landlord’s priority rating. This priority rating is not set out in the defects policy. It further states that the service user must sign off the repair as satisfactorily completed if that is the case. It states if the issue is not a genuine defect it must be raised as a responsive repair. The policy also states that some defect of a minor nature that are not affecting functionality may have to wait until the final defect inspection even if they are reported in advance.
  4. When the resident first reported the defects and snagging issues in September and October 2023, he did not mention the problem with fencing in the rear garden. Similarly, he did not mention the fencing issue in his complaint to the landlord of 4 November 2023. We are therefore unable to find any failing in the landlord not addressing the matter in its stage 1 complaint response of 17 November 2023.
  5. There were numerous occasions when the resident notified the landlord of the defective fence since then. The landlord’s response was not in accordance with its defects procedure.
  6. The resident first reported the matter on 4 January 2024, and again when escalating his complaint on 16 January 2024 and on 10 February 2024. Each time there was no response from the landlord. This is a clear failure to follow its defect procedure.
  7. In accordance with the landlord’s defects procedure it should have raised a work order with a contractor, agreed a timescale and priority for the work and if it did not receive confirmation of completion from the contractor chase the mater up. Whilst it does not expressly say so, good customer service would require that the resident be kept updated of all matters so that it can arrange access and also sign off repairs as satisfactory. If the matter was to be left until the end of the defect period, the resident should have been advised to that effect. However, this repair did not fit that criteria as it affected the functionality of the fence.
  8. When the resident reported the matter on 2 February 2024 the landlord said it was chasing its contractor. On 8 February 2024 the landlord said it was not part of his complaint but would ensure the problem was rectified. None of the responses were in compliance with its procedure and did not inspire confidence in its handling of the situation. It later made an appointment for 3 April 2024 which was 3 months after the matter was reported and that appointment was not kept.
  9. It is not clear what the appointment on 3 April was for as the contractor had not yet provided its report on the works required and needed to undertake a further assessment. This is a failing of its defect procedure as the resident should have been aware of what the appointment was for and the appointment should have been kept.
  10. After a lot of back and forth communications between the landlord, resident and the contractors the work was finally completed on 5 September 2024. The landlord fixed the substantive issue of the fence sinking in the rear left corner of the garden. This was 8 months after the resident first reported the issue on 4 January 2024. This was a clear failure to follow its defect procedure.
  11. Although the landlord offered compensation of £600 to acknowledge delays and inconvenience, that was for the entirety of all defects and snagging issues the resident had raised. The landlord therefore did not specify the proportion of this amount allocated for its handling of the defect to the rear garden fence.
  12. It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.
  13. This has left the resident with a mismatched fence in the rear garden. We understand how this issue would affect the resident’s enjoyment of his garden.
  14. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident an additional £400 compensation. This is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

The associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  2. When the resident first complained on 4 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days later. It then provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
  3. The resident first asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2024. However, there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this request or that it escalated the complaint. This was inappropriate.
  4. When the resident next expressed dissatisfaction on 17 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request the next day. It then issued its stage 2 response 20 working days later. This was within the timescales for responding from the date of escalation. However, it was 84 working days after the resident first asked to escalate, which was inappropriate.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response of 16 May 2024, the landlord did not provide any definitive plan or timescales for the resolution of the issue, which was not appropriate. Although it apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused, it did not offer any compensation and said it would keep the complaint open. It would only consider compensation once it had completed all work.
  6. According to the Code, a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Although the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident on 16 May 2024, it was a failing it did not consider appropriate compensation at that time.
  7. The landlord’s further complaint response of 14 August 2024 was a further 63 working days after its final stage 2 response. It did not offer any financial redress specifically for the failings in its complaint handling process, which was not appropriate.
  8. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate by over 3 months, for which it offered no redress. It then did not fully deal with all matters in its stage 2 complaint response, and sent a further response, which offered no redress for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  9. We are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failings resulting in maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the rear garden fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £550, which is made up of:
      1. £400 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle repairs to the rear garden fence.
      2. £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.