Sanctuary Housing Association (202450021)

Decision
Case ID	202450021
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom house that the resident has occupied since 2004. In March 2024, he requested a property inspection due to concerns about structural movement in the foundations, internal and external cracking, damaged guttering, and widespread blown plaster throughout the home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property, including a sinkhole in the garden.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property, including a sinkhole in the garden.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs in the property, including a sinkhole in the garden

5. The landlord repeatedly failed to act within its own repair timeframes, including excessive delays in providing key reports and commencing urgent works. Additionally, it did not maintain adequate communication with the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not inform the resident in advance that its stage 2 response would be delayed. However, it later issued an apology and offered compensation that was reasonable and sufficient to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,995 made up as follows: £2,395 previously offered to him at stage 2 in relation to its handling of the repairs at the property. An additional £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the repairs in the property and sinkhole in the garden.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 05 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord: Pays the resident the £100 compensation previously offered to him at stage 2 for its handling of the complaint, if it has not done so already. Reimburses the resident for the electricity usage of the dehumidifier and heater as a result of the drying out process if documentary evidence is provided. Contacts the resident to discuss an action plan to resolve the recent plastering issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 March 2024	Following the resident’s request, the landlord visited the property. During the visit the resident highlighted several repair concerns and asked for a surveyor to attend.
11 March 2024	A further inspection of the property identified potential movement in the foundations, damaged guttering, and widespread blown plaster throughout. Additionally, serious concerns were raised regarding a possible sinkhole in the rear garden.
18 March 2024	A surveyor inspected the property and identified “multiple areas of concern” found. These included: Multiple large cracks externally Blocked gutters and downpipes Large sinkhole Blown plaster Ceiling damage from a roof leak Mould in the bathroom
5 November 2024	The resident raised a complaint, expressing concerns regarding long delays in completing the repairs and lack of communication.
18 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, acknowledged the delays and its poor communication, and offered the resident £250 compensation. This was made up of: £100 for the delay in undertaking the repairs. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the matter had caused him. The landlord said the works were awaiting approval and it would track them to ensure completion.
19 December 2024	The resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 2, citing the lack of progress on repair works, ongoing water ingress, and the unresolved issue of a suspected sinkhole in the garden.
14 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for its poor handling of the repairs and its communication. It confirmed the action it had taken and that the works were only approved in January 2025. It offered the resident £2,495 compensation. This was made up of: £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience. £300 for future impact to recognise the resident would be further inconvenienced up to when works will be completed (projected 3 months) up to 14 May 2025. £1,695 for loss of enjoyment (home/garden) between 11 March 2024 and 14 May 2025. £100 for complaint handling failures.
6 August 2025	An inspection was carried out at the property with a detailed schedule of works prepared by the landlord.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint in July 2025, stating that he wanted the outstanding works completed and compensation provided. By November 2025, he confirmed to us that most of the works had been completed. However, he raised concerns about new plaster that had detached from the wall and explained that he was unable to afford the running costs of the dehumidifier and heater supplied by the landlord to dry the affected area.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of repairs in the property, including a sinkhole in the garden
Finding	Maladministration

7. The landlord’s repair policy says that all emergency repairs must be attended to and made safe within 24 hours. It allows 45 calendar days for routine repairs to be addressed, with an enhanced service of 28 calendar days for vulnerable residents. All major works are aimed to be complete within 90 calendar days.
8. On 11 March 2024, following a visit from the landlord, the resident requested a surveyor’s inspection due to multiple concerns regarding outstanding repair issues. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 18 March 2024, in accordance with the 45-day repair response timeframe. However, the surveyor’s report was not provided to the landlord until 44 working days later. This delay was excessive given the urgency of the issues identified. For instance, the report highlighted that a mould wash was “very urgent” and that the large sinkhole required “very urgent attention”.
9. On 22 May 2024, the landlord contacted the surveyor to seek clarification regarding the mould wash recommendation and the specific areas affected. The surveyor responded the same day, stating that there was only a “very small amount of mould” and that it could be addressed once the repair works commenced, “unless it worsens”. This contradicted the initial assessment, which had described the mould wash as “very urgent”. Furthermore, no follow-up inspection had been carried out in the intervening 2 months, leaving the landlord without sufficient information to determine whether the mould had worsened.
10. There was no evidence to suggest that a formal risk assessment of the area surrounding the sinkhole was carried out following the inspection. This omission was particularly concerning given that the surveyor, in March 2024, classified the issue as requiring “very urgent attention”. A sinkhole presents serious safety risks, including potential structural instability and hazards to occupants and visitors. In situations where such risks are identified, it is expected that the landlord would promptly undertake a formal assessment to determine the severity of the issue and implement appropriate safety measures. It is noted, however, that the resident had temporarily fenced off the area. The absence of such action raises questions about the adequacy of the landlord’s response to a potentially dangerous situation.
11. An asbestos survey was identified as necessary during the inspection on 18 March 2024. However, due to a 2-month delay in the report being provided to the landlord, the survey was not conducted until 24 June 2024—67 calendar days later. This significantly exceeded the expected 45-day timeframe. Importantly, the asbestos survey was required before any repair works could commence.
12. Between May and September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions seeking updates on the outstanding repairs. While it is acknowledged that some of the required works were substantial and subject to the landlord’s major works schedule, the absence of proactive communication was unreasonable. Even in the absence of no new information to share, it is good practice for landlords to maintain regular communication to reassure residents that steps are being taken to resolve the matter. The landlord did, however, advise the resident on 26 September 2024 that he would receive a text message once the major works had been approved.
13. On 28 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the situation had worsened. The landlord promptly raised a works order for an inspection to be carried out and contacted the resident the same day. The case notes indicate that the resident advised an inspection had already been carried out and so it was cancelled. There was no further information as to the inspection, which failed to confirm the current condition of the sinkhole. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, as it enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents and this Service.
14. On 5 November 2024, the resident submitted a complaint expressing frustration over the prolonged delay in commencing the repair works. In response, the landlord liaised internally and confirmed that the works were still awaiting approval. Acknowledging the resident’s concerns—particularly those relating to health—the landlord explored whether the approval process could be expedited. This demonstrated a resolution-focused approach, aimed at progressing the works more swiftly for the resident.
15. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 November 2024, outlining the actions taken, including property inspections and obtaining external quotations for the necessary works. The complaint was upheld, and the resident was offered £250 in compensation. While the response was clear and transparent, the compensation offered was insufficient given the prolonged delay in addressing the repairs. According to the landlord’s policy, major works should be completed within 90 calendar days; however, in this case, 245 days had passed without the works commencing.
16. The major works were approved on 5 December 2024. However, by 19 December 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, as no works had commenced. The available evidence suggests there was a lack of communication from the landlord regarding the progress of the repairs. This evidently caused frustration and left the resident feeling uncertain about when the issues would be addressed.
17. The repair works commenced on 20 January 2025—over 10 months after the initial concerns were raised. This was significantly beyond the landlord’s major repairs timescale, which states that such works should be completed within 90 calendar days. While some delays may have been unavoidable, there was a 2-month delay in receiving the necessary report and recommendations, which outlined the need to outsource the works due to their complexity. This made timely delivery of the report even more critical, as it would have allowed quotes to be obtained and approvals secured more promptly. The delay in providing the report, obtaining quotations, and securing approval was prolonged. However, the impact on the resident could have been mitigated had the landlord maintained proactive and regular communication throughout.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response was positive in that it accepted its failing and acknowledge the effect the situation had had on the resident. It was empathetic and outlined steps to ensure the worked progressed, such as escalating some matters to senior members of staff and ensuring its complaint team tracked and monitored others. It went on to offer the resident compensation totalling £2,395. This was positive, and aligned with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. Despite the commitments made in the landlord’s stage 2 response, the evidence indicates that the repair works were not completed within the stated 3-month timeframe. Although a positive step was taken when an inspection was carried out on 6 August 2025—leading to the preparation of a detailed schedule of works—the overall timeline remained significantly delayed. The required repairs were first identified on 18 March 2024, yet they remained incomplete more than 16 months later.
20. This prolonged delay was unreasonable, particularly given the urgent nature of the issues involved. The extended period without resolution caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience. While the preparation of a schedule of works was a constructive development, it came far too late in the process. Had the landlord acted more promptly and communicated more effectively throughout, the impact on the resident could have been significantly reduced.
21. In light of the above, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the property. A finding of severe maladministration has been avoided due to some positive actions taken by the landlord during the process, including its substantial offer of compensation.
22. The resident has confirmed that while the majority of the works have now been completed, some issues remain—particularly following recent plastering, which has not been fully resolved. Although the landlord offered compensation that was appropriate for the period covered by the complaint, it did not fully follow through on the commitments it made to the resident.
23. Given the continued inconvenience and the landlord’s failure to complete the necessary works within the agreed timeframe, an additional award of £600 has been made. This is intended to reflect the prolonged disruption experienced by the resident and the landlord’s lack of follow-through on its stated actions. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says for findings of maladministration, an award of this level is appropriate where the resident has been distressed or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors but there may be no permanent impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case came into effect in April 2024. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s policy also allows for an extension of up to an additional 20 days, if more time is needed to reach a decision, which should be communicated to residents.
25. The landlord acknowledge the resident’s complaint within 3 working days and issued its stage 1 response within 9 working days. Both actions were completed within the timeframe set out in its policy, which was appropriate.
26. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 19 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation within the timescale set out in its policy. On 24 January 2025, the landlord informed the resident that additional time was needed to provide a stage 2 response. While it was reasonable to request an extension, and in line with its policy, this should have been communicated before the original response deadline, rather than on the day it was due.
27. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2025, which was within the 20-working-day extension request. It also offered the resident £100 for its delay in providing the response, which was resolution focused.
28. In light of the above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because we consider the compensation was sufficient to put things right, and because the landlord accepted its failing and apologised.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. Maintain regular communication to reassure residents that steps are being taken to resolve the matter, even if there is no new information to share.
30. The landlord’s record keeping was found to be lacking on a number of occasions, such as in relation to prompt updating of inspection notes. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can assist the landlord with this.

Communication

31. In this case, the landlord did not recognise the need to inform the resident in advance that its stage 2 response would be delayed. The Code will help the landlord to improve the quality of its complaint communications.