We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202339707)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339707

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Outstanding repairs including carpet replacement.
    2. Possessions which were disposed of without his consent.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, located on the ground floor of the block. The resident has vulnerabilities, including dementia.
  2. On 31 October 2022 there was a fire at the resident’s property. On 14 December 2022 the landlord met with the resident at the property to make an inventory list. The resident was placed in a hotel by the landlord but was due to be moved into temporary accommodation so repairs could be carried out at the property. The inventory included items in the lounge, kitchen, hallway, and bedroom of the property. These possessions included home accessories, documents, furniture, electronics, and religious items. These were to be moved into the temporary accommodation by the landlord, and anything not on the list would be disposed of.
  3. The resident attended the landlord’s office on 21 December 2022. The landlord said he agreed to move to temporary accommodation and signed the inventory list. The resident moved into the temporary accommodation on 6 January 2023.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 26 January 2023 and said it had disposed of items from his property which he had not agreed to. The resident did not specify which items these were. The resident was told by the landlord on this date that he had signed a disclaimer for it to remove his items. He was advised to submit a list of items he believed were “wrongly” disposed of.
  5. On 27 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident reminding him he signed a document on 21 December 2022 allowing it to dispose of his goods and that he could not access the property as it was unsafe to do so. The resident was also told if he were dissatisfied, he could submit a complaint. On 31 January 2023 the resident called the landlord. The resident felt his items were “wrongly” disposed of and questioned whether some items were in storage. The landlord called the resident back on 2 February 2023 and outlined its position on events since the fire. The landlord told the resident:
    1. Works to the property were being carried out by its insurance team so that he could return.
    2. Items had been disposed of and some items that remained inside the property were being disposed of that week.
  6. On 6 February 2023 the resident called the landlord and asked about getting his possessions back. The landlord told him that he can not get anything else out of the property as it was unsafe to do so.
  7. We have not received evidence on specifically when the resident was admitted to the hospital. On 2 August 2023 the resident was discharged from hospital. The resident called the landlord on 25 September 2023 asking about his possessions that were disposed of. He submitted a complaint about this via email on 11 October 2023. He told the landlord he believed his belongings were “wrongly” disposed of and he wanted to be compensated for that. He did not specify which items had been disposed of. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 October 2023 and apologised it had not done so earlier. It said it would address that delay in its complaint response.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint on 24 October 2023 by email. The landlord said:
    1. It arranged a temporary move for the resident after the fire at the property on 31 October 2022.
    2. In December 2022 the landlord’s Housing Officer and the resident went room-by-room in the property and compiled a list of items to keep. He was advised at the time that anything not listed would be disposed of.
    3. The resident attended its office on 21 December 2022 and its staff member discussed the inventory list which had been completed. The resident was told he could not access the property due to safety concerns and the presence of asbestos. The resident signed a declaration which it attached.
    4. When the resident made contact in January 2023 and February 2023, it had reiterated that items not listed were disposed of and the property was not safe to access.
    5. It spoke to the resident on 9 August 2023 and confirmed that items were disposed of.
    6. It found it had communicated what actions it would take to the resident about his possessions and did not uphold his complaint.
    7. It advised the resident to seek independent legal advice about liability for disposed items.
  9. On 12 December 2023 the resident said he had still not received the stage 1 complaint response from the landlord. The resident said that at the time he could not access his emails. The resident called the landlord:
    1. On 19 December 2023 and the landlord tried calling the resident back on 27 December 2023.
    2. On 28 December 2023 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure.
    3. On 2 January 2024 and left a voicemail for the landlord’s Housing Officer.
  10. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 4 January 2024 and said there was nothing further it could do about the disposed items. The resident said he wanted to be compensated for 3 items, which were a wardrobe, a filing cabinet, and a dressing table. In this visit the landlord offered the resident £150 as a goodwill gesture but said there was no service failure. It recommended he tell its complaints team why he was unhappy and provide any supporting evidence.
  11. On 8 January 2024 the resident called the landlord and stated his items were removed from the property and he wanted compensation. He wanted to check if his complaint was escalated. During a call on 16 January 2024 the resident said he wanted £1,000 compensation and that he had dementia. The landlord then offered £250 as a goodwill gesture. The landlord updated its records for the resident’s vulnerabilities on 23 January 2024.
  12. The resident called the landlord on 26 February 2024 and wanted to speak about his complaint. On 5 March 2024 the resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord. The resident said:
    1. The landlord’s Housing Officer “unfairly” disposed of his personal belongings following the fire in the resident’s property.
    2. He only received a copy of the inventory list after he complained, and the disposal of his items were not explained to him well. The fire was only to the balcony so he believed items in his bedroom would not be disposed of.
    3. When he tried to access the property during his time living at the temporary accommodation, he was unable to gain access. The filing cabinet in his bedroom was no longer there which held legal identification documents.
    4. The signature on the licence agreement for the temporary accommodation was not his. He believed the landlord had forged this.
    5. When he signed documents, he needed an adviser to have supported his decisions.
    6. He was being ignored by the landlord.
    7. He was in hospital for 3 months.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure on 12 March 2024. On 2 April 2024 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response by post to the temporary accommodation address and to the resident’s email address. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for any inconvenience experienced. It did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint within its target dates.
    2. Apologised that it re-sent the stage 1 complaint response to the incorrect address on 14 December 2023.
    3. Said on 27 December 2023 it left a voicemail on the resident’s phone which told him he could escalate his complaint.
    4. Apologised for not escalating the resident’s complaint following his contact on 28 December 2023. It awarded £250 compensation for poor complaint handling. This included delays in responding and escalating to stage 2 and providing “poor quality” correspondence.
    5. Reiterated that it had provided an offer of £250 as a goodwill gesture on 16 January 2024.
    6. Told the resident he would not have had access to both his permanent property and the temporary accommodation while living at the temporary accommodation. Its records showed he was clearly advised not to access the property due to safety reasons.
    7. Said there was no evidence to verify that the resident’s signature was completed fraudulently.
    8. Thanked the resident for disclosure of his dementia diagnosis, but said it was not made aware of this when completing the inventory list and signing the declaration in December 2022.
    9. Said it was not responsible for items that were disposed of.
  14. The resident called the landlord on 18 April 2024 and said he had not received the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it could see it posted the stage 2 complaint response to the wrong address. It re-sent its stage 2 complaint response on the same day, via email and via post. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted more compensation. The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation on 24 May 2024. The landlord confirmed to the resident that its total financial remedy amounted to £650. This comprised of the:
    1. £150 gesture of goodwill verbal offer on 4 January 2024.
    2. £250 previously offered on 16 January 2024 and its stage 2 complaint response as a gesture of goodwill.
    3. £250 in compensation for complaint handling in its stage 2 complaint response.
  15. On 2 September 2024 we received contact from the resident that he wanted us to investigate his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident wanted the landlord to increase its compensation offer. The resident also told us the landlord had not completed all repairs in the property. On 23 September 2024 the resident accepted the £650 offer from the landlord. In our contact with the resident in September 2025, he advised us the landlord had not replaced his carpet and said he was told it was his responsibility.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint point will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. Unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
  3. In the resident’s referral to us, he said repairs were outstanding and subsequently said the carpet was not replaced. These issues did not form part of his complaint submission on 11 October 2023. There is no evidence the resident submitted a complaint about these issues to the landlord.
  4. In line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about outstanding repairs and carpet replacement has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We cannot comment on these issues in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied about repairs and carpet replacement, he could submit a formal complaint to the landlord directly.

Scope of investigation

  1. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability or causation for effects on health and wellbeing. Further, we are unable to determinate whether fraud or forgery occurred. We cannot provide awards for damages. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue these aspects or a claim for damages. We will assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about this.

Possessions which were disposed of

  1. We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and  our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. Our Remedies Guidance takes into consideration the length of time the resident experienced distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  3. There is no evidence the resident told the landlord that he had dementia prior to making the inventory list on 14 December 2022. The evidence shows the landlord was not put on notice of the resident’s dementia until January 2024. The landlord appropriately updated its information system and logged the resident’s vulnerability.
  4. Additionally, the landlord’s Housing Officer was not a medical professional. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to have adjusted its service delivery prior to the resident disclosing his vulnerabilities.
  5. We can see contents from the bedroom, lounge, hallway, and kitchen were included in the inventory list made by the landlord. The inventory list was clearly communicated to the resident in writing on 21 December 2022. The letter of 21 December 2022 also stated that anything not on the inventory list would be disposed of. Therefore, the landlord appropriately attempted to manage the resident’s expectations.
  6. The earliest the resident disputed the contents of the inventory list was 26 January 2023. As above, the resident had not told the landlord that he had dementia at that stage. The landlord advised the resident on the same day he could submit a list of any items that were missing, as he had not specified. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  7. The evidence shows that on 27 January 2023 the landlord told the resident that his items were disposed of, and he was not allowed to access the property in the interim. It was reasonable the landlord reiterated this position on:
    1. 2 and 6 February 2023.
    2. 24 October 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed the property was not safe to access due to asbestos when the resident was temporarily moved.
    3. 2 April 2024 in its stage 2 complaint response and confirmed it was not responsible for the items disposed of.
  8. The resident raised further concerns on 5 March 2024 that his signature had been forged when he accepted to be temporarily moved. The landlord responded that it had no evidence that verified the resident’s allegations that his signature was forged by it. This was an appropriate response at that stage.
  9. To put things right the resident wanted £1,000 in compensation for his items that were disposed of. The landlord used its discretion in its Compensation Guidance and offered a total goodwill gesture of £400 to the resident. This was despite the landlord not finding any service failures in its handling of the substantive issue. Additionally, this was prior to our involvement and the complaint being duly made. This action by the landlord was fair in the circumstances and showed it was resolution focused.
  10. In the absence of any conflicting evidence, we have not identified any service failures by the landlord in disposing of the resident’s possessions. There is also evidence the landlord clearly communicated to the resident that he could seek independent legal advice regarding liability.
  11. Overall, we make a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possessions which were disposed of without his consent. We acknowledge that in September 2024 the resident accepted the £400 goodwill gesture offered by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Housing and All Supported Living Policy (complaints policy) which it operated at the time of the resident’s complaint said:
    1. It aimed to have acknowledged complaints within 3 working days, and it then would have provided a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
    2. At stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure, it would have provided a response in 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
    3. It could have extended the deadline to respond to a complaint at both stages by 10 working days. If it did this, it would explain the reasons for any extension to residents.
    4. After its stage 2 complaint response, residents could have contacted it and explained what they were looking for to resolve the complaint if they remained dissatisfied.
  2. The landlord had not acknowledged the resident’s complaint until 8 working days after his complaint submission. This was 5 working days over its complaints policy target and was inappropriate. The landlord did identify this delay in its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and committed to addressing this in its complaint response.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent within 1 working day after its acknowledgement letter. While the timeliness of its response was appropriate, it did not address the delay to acknowledge the complaint as it had committed to do. This mismanaged the resident’s expectations.
  4. The evidence shows the resident first tried to escalate his complaint on 28 December 2023. The resident had chased the landlord in January 2024 and February 2024. He then submitted a new complaint form to the landlord on 5 March 2024. The landlord had not issued its stage 2 complaint response until 2 April 2024. This meant that the landlord:
    1. Had taken 66 working days to issue its final response (42 working days over its target timeframe).
    2. Failed to respond by 26 January 2024 (20 working days) or write to the resident that it needed to extend the complaint response deadline.
  5. The above was inappropriate action by the landlord. It is clear the resident expended time and trouble chasing the landlord as he had not had a response. While we acknowledge the landlord advised the resident of a 30 working day timescale on 12 March 2023, the stage 2 complaint response was already overdue at that stage. The landlord’s failure to address this earlier unreasonably delayed the resident’s complaint journey.
  6. By the landlord’s final response, it had recognised all delays up until 2 April 2024. The landlord also apologised for its poor correspondence. The resident had requested on 12 December 2023 a physical copy of the stage 1 complaint response as he could not access his emails. The resident was living at the temporary accommodation at the time. However, the landlord had sent the stage 1 complaint response to the permanent property’s address, which the resident did not have access to. It was reasonable the landlord identified this error and apologised.
  7. The level of compensation offered by the landlord of £250 was also proportionate to the time and trouble expended by the resident between 11 October 2023 and 2 April 2024. This demonstrated the landlord was willing to put things right and the overall award was in line with our Remedies Guidance.
  8. Although the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response via email to the resident on 2 April 2024, this was also sent by post to the incorrect address (his temporary accommodation). The resident had moved back into the property by that stage. On 18 April 2024 the resident told the landlord he had not received the final response. We can see that on the same day the landlord sent another copy of the final response by email, and it posted it to the correct address.
  9. Taking the above into account, the landlord was acting on the resident’s requests for a physical copy of its complaint response. However, as above this was a similar communication error by the landlord where it posted the stage 1 complaint response to the incorrect address. Also, the landlord should have considered whether any reasonable adjustments were needed from January 2024 after it was told about the resident’s dementia diagnosis.
  10. In any case, the above is evidence of inappropriate record keeping. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Failure to keep accurate records of the resident’s correspondence address shows the landlord’s processes were not operating effectively. It also demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from outcomes, as errors were repeated. Due to this, we are unable to find reasonable redress in the circumstances. We would have considered to do so if this repeat error did not occur. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  11. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident about his communication and contact preferences, and for it to agree any reasonable adjustments. While no additional compensation is ordered, we order the landlord to pay the £250 compensation proportioned for complaint handling as set out in its final response. We acknowledge the resident accepted this payment in September 2024, but we want to see evidence that this has been paid. Also, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is now statutory, so no further orders have been made in relation to the delays.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs including carpet replacement is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possessions which were disposed of without his consent.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Contact the resident and agree communication preferences with him. It is also to assess whether any reasonable adjustments are required, given his vulnerabilities.
    2. Pay the resident £250 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response (2 April 2024) for its complaint handling failings, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.