Sanctuary Housing Association (202419921)

Background

1. The resident’s lease began in August 2023. She reported defects throughout the first year in the property and was unhappy as she felt there was a lack of progress in resolving these. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response to her complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of property defects, including draughts, the kitchen extractor fan, the front door recess, and the garden waterlogging.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of property defects, including draughts, the extractor fan, the front door recess, and the garden waterlogging.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. There were avoidable delays in completing works at the property. The landlord acknowledged some of these but did not provide any redress for the failures it identified meaning additional detriment to the resident.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was not compliant with the Complaint Handling Code or its policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings when it responded to the complaint, and therefore failed to provide appropriate redress.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The landlord is the developer of the property and contracted the builder to build the home. In its homeowner’s handbook it states that the contractor who built the property will be responsible for any defects.
9. The landlord’s defects procedure does not state a timescale for any reported defects to be resolved. However, it does say that non–urgent, minor defects may not be completed until after the final defects inspection. Given the absence of timescales, we have assessed the actions of the landlord on the basis of reasonableness.
10. The resident’s lease began on 11 August 2023, but the exact move-in date is unclear. On 20 August 2023, she reported that the extractor fan lacked an isolation switch and ran continuously. The landlord promptly raised this with the builder and assured her the fan was installed according to manufacturer guidelines. On 7 December 2023, the resident provided evidence from the manufacturer stating the fan should have a triple isolation switch. In its stage 1 response, the landlord reiterated that the fan was fitted correctly but noted the builder agreed to change the fuse. The fuse change did not take place.
11. The stage 2 response advised the resident that works were being considered by the builder following receipt of the email from the manufacturer to them on 5 July 2024. This was 8 months after the landlord had initially received the information from the resident. It is unclear why there was such a delay in referring the evidence to the builder. Nevertheless, following the closure of the stage 2 complaint, a decision was made to install an isolation switch. This was completed on 24 October 2024, over a year after the resident had first raised the issue. During this time, she consistently chased the landlord, raising safety and compliance concerns. Although the landlord communicated throughout, it failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the builder had the necessary information to expedite the necessary work. The delay was avoidable, and the landlord offered no redress or explanation for its change in position. If the landlord had identified the fan was incorrectly fitted, it should have informed the resident and apologised for its earlier incorrect advice. It remains unclear whether the landlord ever acknowledged a fault.
12. In September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to investigate garden drainage concerns. Works were delayed, but drainage was installed in February 2024 and the garden was re-turfed in June 2024. The landlord reviewed its handling of these reports in the stage 2 response, acknowledged delays, and apologised. It confirmed no further works would be carried out, which, while frustrating for the resident, provided clarity. The landlord offered a £50 goodwill gesture for water costs during turf bedding but did not compensate for delays, inconvenience, or loss of garden use over a prolonged period of time. That it acknowledged failings but made no attempt to put these right was not compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
13. Soon after moving in, the resident reported cold patches and draughts throughout the property. On 8 December 2023, the landlord confirmed the issues had been raised with the builder and would be treated as a priority. This demonstrated it was taking the reports seriously and maintaining communication with the resident. A thermal assessment was completed on 24 January 2024, within a reasonable timeframe.
14. Following this, works were carried out to improve loft insulation and seal the external pipework, but the problem persisted. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed a new thermal imaging assessment was needed and committed to completing it during colder months, as requested by the resident. This was a complex repair, and it was positive that the landlord engaged with the resident and used a process of elimination to try to resolve the issue.
15. After closing the stage 2 complaint, the landlord fulfilled its commitment to carry out a further thermal imaging assessment. This was agreed for October 2024 but was not completed until January 2025. The reason for this delay is unclear, and there is no evidence it was unavoidable. Given previous delays and the resident’s consistent communication about the impact of outstanding works, the landlord should have done all it could to expedite the process. The assessment identified further insulation issues. As these events occurred after the stage 2 complaint was closed and the commitment was met, we have not investigated the recommended works or subsequent actions. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that the recess by the front door was cosmetic, not a defect, and the builder would not carry out works. Despite this, the landlord arranged remedial works, booking a three-day appointment for 23 July 2024. An incident occurred between the resident and the builder during the visit, and the builder left without completing the works. The stage 2 response apologised and said the situation would be monitored, with updates provided. Further works were completed after the complaint response, but the resident remained dissatisfied. In March 2025, the landlord confirmed no further works would be done and advised the resident to contact the warranty provider about this and the draughts in the property. While we have not assessed these actions, it was positive that the landlord gave a clear position and next steps. If the resident remains dissatisfied, we would encourage her to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
17. Our investigation has found that there were some delays in completing works that could reasonably have been avoided. As a result of the landlord’s handling of the matter, the resident spent significant time and effort repeatedly chasing updates. She stated on multiple occasions that she felt unheard and that the situation was affecting her wellbeing. While the landlord responded promptly to each contact, it missed the opportunity to be proactive. It could have agreed to update the resident periodically. As it did not, the resident was left to chase the matter. Evidence shows the landlord faced challenges with the builder refusing to carry out defect repairs. Its decision to engage a third-party contractor was positive and demonstrated an effort to provide a good service.
18. At stage 1, the landlord offered £300 for inconvenience caused by delays, which was appropriate. At stage 2, it offered a further £300, made up entirely of smaller goodwill gestures. Although the landlord acknowledged its failings, it did not fully address them or provide adequate redress for the detriment caused by the failings. It also rescinded this offer of compensation following the closure of the complaint meaning no redress was provided for its failings. We have considered the landlord’s decision to rescind the offer as part of our complaint handling assessment. However, its overall handling amounted to maladministration. In line with our Remedies Guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to address the detriment, we have made an order for the landlord to pay an additional £400.
19. The landlord reviewed its defects policy in March 2025 and identified areas for improvement. It introduced a new policy with a centralised team to handle all defect reports. This change streamlines communication between the builder and the landlord with the purpose being to reduce delays. Therefore, we have not recommended any further reviews of the landlord’s policy.

20. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate and there were several departures from the Complaint handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. Namely:
    1. It issued the stage 1 complaint 115 working days after it was acknowledged.
    2. It apologised and compensated for this delay but failed to recognise the departure from the Code which states a response must be provided to the resident when the answer is known, not when the outstanding actions are completed.
    3. It refused to add additional issues to the stage 1 complaint or to raise a new complaint in April 2024 when the resident contacted it. This meant the resident had no avenue to seek redress for her additional concerns.
    4. The stage 1 response did not address all complaint issues. While the stage 2 response acknowledged this failing, it provided no redress to the resident for this.
    5. After it issued the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that the offer of £600 compensation would only be available if she accepted the complaint response.
    6. When the resident did not accept the complaint response it rescinded the offer of £600 compensation meaning no redress was provided.
21. There were delays and instances of incomplete or incorrect information throughout the complaints process. The landlord failed to acknowledge these issues or take steps to correct them, which did not align with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase responses and was given incorrect information regarding compensation she was entitled to. For these reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £250 for the failures identified in this report and the previous offer of £600 to be paid.
22. The landlord has told this service that it has provided further training to both the complaint handling staff and other frontline employees on the complaint handling code. This is positive and we have not recommended any further interventions regarding this as a result. 

Learning

Communication

23. Communication from the landlord was good throughout the complaint. The resident was in regular contact and the landlord consistently responded to her and passed concerns to the builder when reported. The landlord may wish to consider a more proactive approach to communication in future. Although it responded consistently, the reactive nature meant the emphasis was always on the resident to chase for updates.