Sanctuary Housing Association (202423876)

dDecision
Case ID	202423876
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow. She is disabled and has mobility issues that the landlord is aware of. In May 2024 the resident reported that the front path to her home was a trip hazard and needed repair. The landlord attended a number of times to repair the front path but the resident states the path still needs repair. The resident wants the path repaired and compensation to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A path repair.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the path repair.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for path repairs

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its delays, inconvenience and distress. However, the landlord did not act in accordance with repairs and maintenance policy and escalate the repair according to the resident’s vulnerabilities. It should have conducted a risk assessment to ensure the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities were fully considered.

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s complaint responses were timely and in line with its complaints policy response times.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 November 2025
2	Risk Assessment   The landlord must complete a risk assessment of the resident’s front path, considering the mobility issues, to ensure any safety hazards are identified. The risk assessment must be completed by a suitably qualified person. The landlord must provide a reasonable timeline for completion of any actions identified.	27 November 2025
3	Learning Order   The landlord must provide refresher training to repair and complaint handling staff regarding assistance available for vulnerable residents under its repairs and maintenance policy.	27 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 July 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said when she initially reported the path repair on 14 May 2024, she was told it would be treated as urgent. She told the landlord about her mobility issues and risk of falling and she wanted the path repaired urgently.
19 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
26 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response which apologised to the resident for its delayed path repair. It awarded £100 compensation (£50 for delays to repairs and £50 for distress and inconvenience). It said it had passed the repair to its works co-ordinator and complaints team to track and monitor.
15 August 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy that the path had still not been properly repaired and she was worried about falling.
12 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response which acknowledged and apologised for the delayed repairs. It said that: It had completed an inspection on 26 June 2024 and raised works to repair 3 sections of the path. It was sorry that works scheduled for 27 July 2024 did not happen. The resident was unhappy with the repairs completed on 17 August 2024. Works on 31 August 2024 did not go ahead as the resident was unhappy the whole path was not being replaced. As the repairs are outstanding and an appointment still needed to be confirmed. The complaint was upheld and awarded the resident £250 compensation (this included the £100 compensation awarded at stage one).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her concerns to us on 19 September 2024. She wanted the landlord to repair the path and said the compensation the landlord had offered was insufficient to reflect the level of inconvenience and distress she experienced.
9 October 2024	The landlord carried out path repairs and said the path repairs were     complete.
25 November 2024	The landlord offered the resident an additional £125 compensation for the further delay to complete the repairs.

 

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	The landlord’s handling of the path repair
Finding	Service failure

7. The landlord’s repairs handbook states the landlord is responsible for keeping the concrete path in repair. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses acknowledged and apologised for delayed repairs which was appropriate as the repair (first reported on 14 May 2024) was still unresolved.
8. The landlord referred the repair to its wellbeing team on 31 July 2024. This team tracks repairs (until completion) considered higher risk due to the resident’s health conditions, or vulnerabilities. This was an effort by the landlord to put appropriate support in place for the vulnerable resident. However, on 13 August 2024 the wellbeing team correctly told the landlord that because the repair was part of a complaint, the complaints team was responsible for tracking the completion of the repair.
9. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it aims to complete routine repairs within 45 days. It also states it can escalate and complete repairs for vulnerable residents within 25 days. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s noted mobility issues, history of falls and the risk of further falls on the uneven path. There is no evidence however the landlord appropriately escalated the resident’s repair in line with its policy.
10. Given the resident’s mobility issues and acknowledged safety issues (trip hazard) the landlord should have completed a risk assessment when the resident first reported the uneven path in May 2024. When the landlord attended on 8 August 2024 it took photographs and noted the path was a trip hazard. On 13 August 2024 the resident told the landlord the postman tripped on the path.
11. The landlord’s file shows the first reference to a risk assessment was not until 1 October 2024, 6 months after the resident’s initial report. However, the landlord was unable to provide any evidence to show that a risk assessment had been completed. This was unreasonable and a failure to have due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
12. A review of the landlord’s repair logs shows it first attempted to repair the path on 17 August 2024, 3 months after the resident’s initial report in May 2024. However, the resident raised concerns about the standard of the repair works completed and said the trip hazard was not addressed. The resident refused works on 31 August 2024 as she expected the full path would be replaced. The landlord then attended on 9 October 2024 and stated the path repairs were complete.
13. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords have a legal obligation to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale.  Reasonableness of timescale can depend on the complexity of the repair, but landlords should be able to show that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it could to resolve issues appropriately. The landlord provided no reasonable explanation as to why this matter remained unresolved for such a prolonged period from 14 May 2024.
14. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for action and updates which was unreasonable. It caused time and trouble to the resident by not telling the resident it could not attend on the repair appointments scheduled for 27 July 2024 and 21 September 2024. This lack of communication added to the resident’s frustration and raises questions about the effectiveness of the complaints team monitoring of the progress of the repair.
15. Following the path repairs on 9 October 2024 the landlord offered the resident a further £125 to reflect the further repair delays. In total the landlord offered £375 compensation for distress, inconvenience and delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord’s apology and compensation were appropriate and proportionate steps towards putting things right. This provides redress for the landlord’s further delayed resolution of the safety hazard following its stage 2 complaint response. This prolonged delay likely added to the resident’s frustration and worry.
16. Although the landlord has offered financial redress to the resident, its offer of compensation alone was not proportionate to put right its failure to complete a risk assessment, lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerability and prolonged exposure (6 months) to the trip hazard. We have found service failure, and the landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident the £375 compensation already offered, if it has not done so already. The landlord is also ordered to provide refresher training to relevant staff on its repairs and maintenance procedure to make sure staff are aware of its enhanced service options available for vulnerable residents.
17. The resident told us she has repeatedly raised further safety concerns about the condition of the path around 6 months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and the path repairs carried out in October 2024. As these concerns were raised after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response we would normally consider this outside the scope of the investigation. However, given the landlord’s previous failure to appropriately consider risk to the resident to ensure any ongoing safety hazard is identified we have ordered the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the path.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 19 July 2024. This was within 5 working days of her raising it on 16 July 2024, and in line with its complaint handling timescales. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2024, 5 working days later, and within the 10-working day timeframe of its complaints policy.
19. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 August 2024, and it responded on 12 September 2024. This was within its 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints.

Learning

20. We’ve asked the landlord to conduct a learning review. Our observations are:

• The landlord’s staff did not appropriately address the resident’s vulnerabilities. It  did not escalate the resident’s repair in line with its repairs and maintenance policy for vulnerable residents.
• It also incorrectly referred the repair to its wellbeing team when it was the responsibility of the complaints team to monitor progress of the repair. The landlord should consider refresher training for staff in this regard.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.

Communication

22. The landlord’s file provides evidence that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on progress of the repair .This was not appropriate and likely added to the resident’s distress. Effective communication helps rebuild trust and positive resident relationships.