Sanctuary Housing Association (202430575)

Decision
Case ID	202430575
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident’s late father held an assured tenancy with the landlord of a 5-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her husband and brothers.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for succession of the tenancy.
   2. Vulnerabilities and support needs.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for succession of the tenancy.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for succession of the tenancy

4. The landlord’s final decision was determined in accordance with the law and its obligations. However, there were failures in how it communicated its position to the resident, handled the process, and in addressing the concerns raised by the resident. This left the resident uncertain of her status at the property for a prolonged period.

The resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs

5. While the advice provided by the landlord was reasonable, it missed opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns about the household’s health needs sooner. Its later responses regarding the options available to the resident lacked clarity and did not take into account the concerns raised.

The complaint

6. The landlord offered compensation for its failure in its handling of the complaint. We consider the redress offered was reasonable and 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	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 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. It is made up as follows: £400 for failures related to the request for succession. £100 for failures related to the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs.   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 07 January 2026
3	Position statement The landlord must provide a position statement to the resident on the following: The current status of her succession. What type of property it will offer to her. An update on its allocation of a property and the timescales for this. How it intends to “honour the terms originally provided to her”.	No later than 07 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, it is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £100 it offered for its complaint handling failure. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the payment of this sum.
If it has not already done so, it is recommended the landlord liaise with the resident to ensure it has a record of all vulnerabilities within the household.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 June 2023	The landlord noted the resident’s father had sadly passed away. It said the resident would provide the death certificate and she wanted to apply for succession.
19 July 2024	The landlord informed the resident it had approved the succession but it would not apply to the current property. It confirmed 1 of her brothers had also succeeded the tenancy. The landlord said it would offer them a 1 bedroom property each.   The resident asked for a review of the decision on 1 August 2024.
13 August 2024	The resident submitted a complaint about the outcome of the landlord’s review of her succession application. She referred to errors made in the review and the oversight of her family’s circumstances and needs. She said she had asked for clarity on its decision making process and an occupational therapy assessment and had no response. The resident said the lack of transparency and waiting a year for the decision was inexcusable and added unnecessary stress in an already challenging time. She asked the landlord to review the case and work towards a resolution which prioritised her family’s health needs.
23 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said there were no further grounds to complain about her succession application and therefore its response would only focus on any inconsistencies identified. It: Said its investigation would not show the relationships between family members and it only provided information on where each member was registered. Therefore, it would not uphold the resident’s complaint about it failing to establish the accurate relationships. Acknowledged it had been a challenging time for the resident. It said the time taken for it to carry out checks was not something it had control over. It said it could see there were some internal delays which did add over 2 months to the process and apologised for that. It awarded £100 in recognition of the service provided and the delays.
1 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She found the landlord’s response lacked accountability and accuracy. She said a 1-bedroom property for herself, brother and husband would be overcrowded. She said her request for a 2-bedroom property had gone unanswered. She said she asked for an occupational therapist visit which had been ignored. The resident felt the £100 compensation was inadequate and did not address her ongoing concerns or clarify her housing situation.
2 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It provided its timeline of events which had taken place since the resident informed it of her father’s death. It advised her how to make a request for an occupational therapist assessment so it could consider her health needs as part of its offer of a 1-bedroom property. It said it was unable to overturn the decision made but it could see there were delays in providing the decision. It offered £200 compensation. £100 was for the delays in providing its decision and £100 was for the delays in providing its complaint responses.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said it still failed to address her request to remain with her brother. She said she had not been provided with details about the allocation process or the timescales to be rehoused. The resident felt the compensation did not reflect the stress, time and energy expended to navigate the process. The resident is still residing in the property.

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	Request for succession of the tenancy
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident’s late father’s tenancy agreement states that where 1 person holds the tenancy, the tenant’s spouse may succeed the tenancy. This is on the conditions that the deceased tenancy was not a successor and the spouse was occupying the dwelling as their only or principal home immediately before the death of the tenant.
8. The landlord confirmed its policy states its case management team have a maximum of 28 days from receipt of the death certificate to agree or deny the succession claim.
9. In line with its policy and following the resident’s contact on 18 June 2023 in which she provided the death certificate, the landlord should have responded to the claim by 14 July 2023. However, it did not provide the outcome until 25 July 2024, over a year later. It was not disputed by the landlord that it took far longer than was appropriate to make its decision, it apologised and it offered £100 compensation. It said it had reminded its housing teams that they must make decisions as soon as evidence is provided.
10. When there are identified failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
11. After the resident provided the landlord with the death certificate, there is no evidence of the landlord explaining the next steps or whether she needed to provide any further information for it to make its decision. This was not in line with its policy and would not have managed the resident’s expectations. The landlord has noted the resident made attempts on 30 June 2023, 12 July 2023, and 25 July 2023 for an update and it did not provide any information to her. This was not appropriate and likely caused the resident time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in what would have already been a challenging time. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 response. But it did not consider the reasons why it did not respond to the resident or what steps it would take to ensure it would not happen again.
12. On 25 July 2023 the landlord sent the resident a housing application and a termination notice. In its complaint response, the landlord referred to a delay in receiving the documents back from the resident, it said she had not returned them by 16 August 2023. However, we have seen a copy of the completed housing application and termination notice. The resident had signed both documents on 29 July 2023 and they were stamped as received on 31 July 2023. This suggests the resident did not cause the delays. In an internal email dated 16 August 2023 the landlord noted there was a delay in the case as it had assigned it to the wrong person.
13. Within the housing application form the resident stated that she and her brothers had lived in her father’s home since 1992 and they were all seeking succession of the tenancy. The resident chased the landlord on 1 and 14 September 2023 for a response and raised concerned about the delays. In an internal note on 29 September 2023, the landlord said it would decline succession to the resident. It said the resident had referred to other persons on her housing application and it had not seen documentation to support them living at the property 12 months prior to the resident’s father’s death. It said a succession had already taken place in 1997.
14. The landlord’s decision at this stage was not appropriate. We have not seen evidence of it outlining to the resident that she would need to provide evidence to support the household was living in the property 12 months prior to her father’s death. It was also unclear where it had obtained the information regarding the previous succession. We have not seen evidence of the landlord communicating this information to the resident at the time.
15. Following a conversation with the landlord on 1 November 2023 the resident said she wanted to appeal against the succession decision. She said she had not received any communication regarding it and had sent a complaint. In a telephone conversation with the resident on 15 November 2023 the landlord advised her of the reasons it had refused the succession. The resident disputed that there had already been a succession as the tenancy was only in her father’s name. She said she would send evidence of her family living at the property 12 months prior to her father’s death. The landlord confirmed the resident’s information regarding the tenancy was correct and said it would review any further evidence provided.
16. On 13 December 2023, following receipt of the evidence from the resident, the landlord informed her it had rightly refused the succession due to under–occupancy. It arranged a home visit for 19 December 2023 but no-one attended. The resident called to say she had been waiting all day.
17. The landlord’s actions were again not appropriate. It was not fair for it to have informed the resident over the phone that it had refused the succession due to under occupancy. It may be there was enough evidence to confirm the property would be under-occupied but this would not affect whether the resident met the criteria to succeed the tenancy.
18. It was also unclear why a home visit was required. The landlord did not then attend the appointment which likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience in not knowing the status of her living arrangements. In not communicating that the visit would not be going ahead, it appeared dismissive of the importance of the matter. This also led to further delays as the home visit did not then take place until 23 February 2024, 2 months later.
19. The notes from the home visit stated that the landlord took pictures of the property along with some supporting documents. It said everyone living in the property was to provide additional supporting documents to evidence grounds to succeed. It said this would then undergo a fraud check to determine if all persons concerned were registered the property. This was an appropriate next step but the landlord should have taken it sooner.
20. The landlord submitted the tenancy fraud check on 11 March 2024 and received the outcome on 16 July 2024. It identified that only 1 of the resident’s brothers and the resident met the criteria for succession. It said as the property was heavily under occupied it would approve the succession but offer the resident and her brother a 1 bedroom property each. It provided the outcome to the resident on 19 July 2025. It said the tenancy ended on 21 August 2023 and it would be sending a notice of seeking possession for the property. It outlined the payments required from the resident under a “use and occupation” agreement. On 30 July 2024, the landlord also confirmed the option for the resident to have a shared 2-bedroom property with her brother.
21. The landlord’s decision at that stage was fair and in line with its obligations. Landlords are entitled to recover possession of under-occupied properties to ensure the best use of their stock particularly in areas of high housing demand. Its decision to offer a 1-bedroom property or shared 2-bedroom property with her brother to the resident sufficiently addressed the resident’s housing need.
22. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord failed to establish accurate relationships of her family member. In its complaint response, the landlord said its investigation would not show the relationships between family members and it only provided information on where each member was registered. It said it would not uphold that part of the resident’s complaint.
23. In investigating this complaint, we have seen instances where the landlord had incorrectly referred to members of the household. In discussing the complaint with us, the resident said this was not nice to deal with while grieving. Therefore, while it was reasonable for the landlord to advise of the processes, it would have been reasonable for it to recognise the impact caused. It did not demonstrate a willingness to learn or consider the importance of handling such applications with sensitivity and accuracy.
24. The landlord has since informed this Service that it identified instances of miscommunication with the resident regarding the parties involved in the succession. It said it would contact her to apologise for the oversight, rectify the error, and honour the terms originally provided to her. It is unclear what the landlord meant by this and it has not provided evidence of taking this action.  
25. To conclude, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for succession of the tenancy. Its final decision was reasonable, the landlord addressed some of the delays, and it offered compensation. However, this was not in line with our dispute resolution principles. Its redress did not put things right as it was not proportionate to the impact caused by its lack of responses to the resident and poor internal handling of the case. It lacked fairness in failing to acknowledge its lack of clarity regarding the process. It also failed to show learning from its outcomes, particularly the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its earlier decisions.

Complaint	The resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs
Finding	Service failure

26. In bringing her complaint to us, the resident said she was 65 and had a heart condition, she said her brother was 71, diabetic, and had a lung condition. She said the current property had adaptations which she felt they would eventually need. The resident said she provided medical evidence to the landlord. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen this information in the landlord’s records.
27. In her formal complaint, the resident said the landlord had not grasped her family’s true circumstances and needs. She said she had requested an occupational therapist assessment and had not received a response. She said it failed to consider the desire to live together as a family. She asked the landlord to work towards a solution which prioritised the household’s health needs.
28. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed it had offered the resident and her brother a 1 bedroom property each which it deemed sufficient for their needs. It said prior to her father’s death it did not have evidence of alterations required for the current property. It explained she would need to contact a GP or the local authority for an occupational health assessment, so it could consider her health conditions when it offered alternative accommodation. 
29. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its obligations. While it is clear the resident may have benefited from the adaptations in the current property, there was no evidence to suggest they were put in place on her behalf. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to outline the process required for her to have an assessment so it could be considered in any future offers of accommodation.
30. The resident’s housing application form dated 31 July 2023 stated that she felt she needed an additional bedroom on medical grounds. It asked if she needed a property with lift access and she ticked yes stating “we are pensioners with health issues”. She ticked no to requiring a property with adaptations. It is unclear whether on receipt of the application, the landlord considered the information provided, there is no evidence of it doing so. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to obtain further information and clarify the process for adaptations to the resident sooner.
31. In her complaint, the resident said she wanted to continue to live with her brother and requested a 2-bedroom property due to their vulnerabilities. In her stage 2 escalation she said her requests had gone unanswered. It was a failing that the landlord did not confirm its position. On 30 July 2024 it informed the resident that she had the option of 2 separate 1-bedroom properties or a shared 2 bedroom property. If this remained the case, then it could have reassured the resident of this. In not doing so, it likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience chasing clarification due to its later position of just offering two 1 bedroom properties.
32. In speaking with this Service, the resident has informed us that since the stage 2 response, the landlord has confirmed her other brother has also now succeeded the tenancy upon providing further evidence. She said she has requested a 3-bedroom property for them to stay together. She said the landlord initially agreed to this but then sent correspondence offering a 1-bedroom property to her. She confirmed she is waiting to hear back from the landlord about a suitable 3 bedroom property but was concerned about the time taken.
33. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs. While the advice provided in its stage 2 response was accurate and addressed the concerns regarding a suitable property, the landlord had the opportunity to address this sooner. It also did not sufficiently consider or address the resident’s concerns regarding being separated from her brother and this is an ongoing concern for the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

34. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 8 days after the formal complaint which was appropriate and in line our Complaint Handling Code. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation 5 working days after which was reasonable. It provided its stage 2 response 17 working days after which was also reasonable.
35. The landlord awarded £100 compensation which it said was for the delay in handling of the resident’s complaint at the investigation stage of its process. It is unclear what part of the process it is referring to. However, we note on 2 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord she had sent in a letter of complaint. We have not seen a copy of the letter sent to the landlord, however it was clear the resident indicated that she wished to complain. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the complaint, in line with its complaints process.
36. We have not found any other failures related to the handling of the complaint. As the landlord offered £100 towards its complaint handling, we consider this reasonable redress for the failure identified.

 

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We identified record keeping failures throughout this investigation. This included misinformation about the tenancy agreement, a lack of acknowledgement of the records provided, and errors regarding the occupants of the household. As stated, these failings likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and likely contributed to the delays in this case. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reflect on the record keeping issues raised in this report and what action it can take to ensure its records are accurate and detailed.

Communication

38. As with the record keeping, the landlord’s poor communication in this case likely led to a loss of confidence by the resident. A key issue in this case appeared to be the internal communication and inconsistencies in following the succession process. Given the importance of succession decisions to an applicant’s housing status and security, it is vital these are communicated clearly, in an accessible manner and well-reasoned.

Succession process

39. The landlord has informed us that since the conclusion of the case it has reviewed and revised its succession process to address areas it wished to improve. It said it implemented changes with the aim of improving efficiency, reducing delays and ensuring a more consistent and transparent experience for residents. It is positive to see the landlord has made changes to its succession process. If it has not already done so, it should also consider the need to handle applications with sensitivity and to ensure the steps required to make its decision are clear to all relevant staff members.