Sanctuary Housing Association (202515263)

Decision
Case ID	202515263
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 December 2025

Background

1. The resident completed a mutual exchange to the property in July 2024. At the time of the move, the resident was pregnant, and lived with her partner, and 3 young children. Shortly after moving in, she reported the property was in an unacceptable condition. This included the presence of human and animal faeces inside the property. She also reported repairs to the staircase and downstairs toilet. The landlord has no record of any household health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s property condition reports at the point of mutual exchange.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s property condition reports at the point of mutual exchange.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Failed to respond to the reported hazard at point of property exchange.
   2. Did not demonstrate effective communication or monitoring of the resident’s cleaning need.
   3. Did not offer proportionate redress during its complaints process.

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. It must ensure the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. The apology must have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £927 made up as follows: £727 (£200 in addition to the landlord’s offer of £527) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in handling of the resident’s property condition reports at the point of mutual exchange. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failings. This must pay the resident directly by the due date. The landlord must provide us with 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 12 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider reimbursing the resident for out-of-pocket expenses, on production of evidence and receipts.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between April to July 2024	The landlord accepted the resident’s application for mutual exchange and carried out a property inspection on 14 May 2024. The landlord completed gas and electrical safety checks and the resident viewed and accepted the property, as seen, on or around 4 June 2024. The resident signed the deed of assignment at the end of July 2024.
2 August 2024	The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team and reported the condition of the property on moving in.
9 August 2024	The resident reported for the second time that she had found the property covered in human and animal urine and faeces, including inside kitchen cupboards. She said she had cleaned as much as possible but was unable to make the property sanitary. She expressed health and safety concerns and said the house had not been in this condition when she viewed it. The landlord raised an urgent environmental clean and left a voicemail for the resident confirming it had raised the work order.
12 to 13 August 2024	The resident chased the landlord about the condition of the property. On 13 August 2024, the housing officer attempted to contact the resident but was unsuccessful. The housing officer recorded that the previous tenant had left the property in a poor condition.
20 to 22 August 2024	On 20 August 2024 the resident complained. She also reported a leaking downstairs toilet. She said she had cleaned as much of the property as she could as she had not received contact from the landlord. The resident said the landlord had left her family exposed to health risks. The landlord attended to the toilet repair within 24 hours and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 August 2024, referenced 8000774534.
4 September 2024	The resident’s partner contacted the landlord for an update, stating that cleaning had only taken place in the kitchen. He expressed concern about the time they had waited and asked why the landlord had not cleaned all of the affected areas.
6 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for any inconvenience caused by the condition of the property. It said that it had arranged and completed an environmental clean within its published timescales on 4 September 2024. It advised the resident that, as she had accepted the property “as seen” through the mutual exchange process, it did not uphold her complaint.
7 to 9 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint on 7 September 2024. She said that she was unhappy as the clean had not taken place as expected. She accepted it had cleaned the kitchen cupboards but considered its stage 1 response inaccurate. The resident reported a repair for the “urine soaked and damaged” staircase.
On 13 and 20 September 2024	The landlord emailed the resident appearing to acknowledge her ongoing dissatisfaction.
23 September 2024	The landlord recorded that it had completed the repair to the staircase. During September 2024, the resident reported additional repairs, which the landlord addressed under separate complaint reference numbers.
5 October 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response.
Between 7 to 9 October 2024	The resident reported a leak from the upstairs toilet and said issues remained with the downstairs toilet. The landlord replaced the upstairs toilet on 6 November 2024 and recorded that the resident had since replaced the downstairs toilet herself.
20 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement.
On or around 20 June 2025	The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on her behalf. The landlord said under the terms of a mutual exchange it was the resident’s responsibility to inspect and accept the property. However, it accepted the level of cleanliness left by the outgoing tenant did not meet acceptable standards.
16 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint due to delays and poor communication during the early tenancy and complaint handling. It also acknowledged delays and miscommunication in its response to her toilet repairs. The landlord offered £577 compensation, which included £127 for loss of enjoyment between 9 August and 13 September 2024, £150 for poor complaint handling at stage 1, and £300 for the resident’s time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident’s complaint to us said the landlord’s handling of this and other complaints caused psychological strain on her family. She said the unsafe and unsanitary conditions had forced her family to stay in a hotel for 5 weeks. She said she had out of pocket expenses of approximately £10,000 for alternative accommodation, repair, and cleaning costs. She expected the landlord to make an increased offer of compensation.
11 August 2025	The landlord increased its compensation offer by £150, bringing the total to £727. This included £100 for the property’s condition and £50 for inconvenience caused by the stage 2 complaint delay.

 

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s property condition reports at the point of mutual exchange
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

5. The resident says her family experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any ill. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
6. The resident raised multiple complaints. The landlord responded to each separately. Our role is to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint of 22 August 2024, referenced 8000774534. Our investigation will not include the additional matters raised by the resident.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 45 days. The evidence shows the landlord raised an urgent environmental clean on 9 August 2024, a week after the resident’s initial report, but attended on 4 September 2024.
8. The policy does not include an ‘urgent’ category. However, given that the report concerned faeces, which presents a health hazard, it is reasonable that we treat this to mean the landlord intended to respond as an emergency. The landlord therefore failed to meet its published response time of 24 hours.
9. During the resident’s wait of approximately 5 weeks, the evidence shows she reported distress and health concerns due to the condition of the property. The landlord did make some attempt to contact the resident. However, it did not provide evidence of any attempt to offer her additional support or arrange to view the property. Given the resident informed the landlord of her pregnancy and concern for her 3 young children, this indicates a gap in support for the resident during a period of vulnerability.
10. At stage 1, the landlord said it had responded appropriately and reminded the resident that she accepted the property as seen. It is correct that an incoming resident accepts the condition of a mutually exchanged property. However, if a resident discovers hazards after exchange, the landlord must act under its health and safety obligations. In this case, it should have arranged an environmental clean to make the property fit for habitation. This did not happen within a reasonable time. As a result, the resident, who was pregnant and living with 3 children, remained in a property with a health hazard the landlord was responsible for resolving. This was not consistent with its obligations.
11. The landlord attempted to raise an urgent environmental clean on 9 August 2024 but did not monitor the order effectively. Evidence shows the contractor did not treat the order as an emergency or understand the request. Failures in communication and monitoring caused the initial delay, further delays to start, and incomplete work. The landlord’s failure to identify this at stage 1 shows an ineffective investigation.
12. The landlord addressed a leak from the downstairs toilet on 20 August 2024 within 24 hours. This was appropriate and consistent with its repairs policy. The landlord raised another repair job on 9 October 2024 after the resident reported ongoing issues. Evidence shows it raised a repair order, but the resident said she had removed the toilet and would complete the work herself. It is unclear why she carried out the work, as the landlord was responsible and had said it was willing to complete it. It was the resident’s choice to take this action, so the landlord is not responsible for reimbursing any costs.
13. The landlord does not dispute a delay to raise the resident’s staircase repair on 9 September 2024. While it did not attend as an emergency, it completed the repair within 10 working days on 23 September 2024. The landlord apologised for this delay in its stage 2 response, which was reasonable.
14. The resident says the landlord communicated poorly and gave incorrect advice during the exchange process. The landlord addressed this in its complaint responses. It remained satisfied that it had acted appropriately and acknowledged where its service fell short after she moved in.
15. The evidence does not show failing during the initial exchange process. However, the landlord’s records only show attempted calls and voicemails after exchange, not active checks or follow-up. The resident told the landlord about her situation, but the landlord did not show that it checked whether emergency action was taking place. This shows poor monitoring of the situation, and the landlord did not take sufficient steps to address the known hazard.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 July 2024 offered £427 compensation, for this complaint point. This included a 20% rent reduction over 5 weeks for loss of enjoyment. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, 13 months later, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 raising its offer to £527.
17. The resident remained unhappy and said she incurred hotel and cleaning costs. There is no evidence she provided receipts to the landlord or us. However, we found no evidence the landlord assessed her comments or discussed whether these costs were necessary. This does not show the landlord gave due regard to her circumstances. We have recommended that the landlord consider reimbursing the resident if she provides evidence.
18. When a landlord admits failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We assess this against our remedies guidance. The landlord’s increased offer of £527 was within our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation. However, it did not go far enough to recognise the detriment caused to a vulnerable household. Its improved offer also came after the complaints process ended. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
19. We also recognise that the distress caused to a resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same level of distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This may depend on their circumstances or any vulnerabilities, known as aggravating factors. Where aggravating factors exist, we may increase our awards to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
20. Based on our findings, we find maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £727. This includes £600 for distress and inconvenience, plus the landlord’s 20% loss of enjoyment calculation of £127.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to issue a stage 1 and stage 2 response within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
22. Evidence shows the resident first emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 2 August 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint until 22 August 2024, 9 working days late. The delay resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord to raise the necessary environmental clean. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not show that it had thoroughly reviewed all relevant records. Its did not identify evidence of poor communication and repair monitoring issues, which the landlord only acknowledged following its stage 2 investigation. This may have also contributed to the resident’s time and trouble having to repeat her concerns.
24. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 7 September 2024. Evidence shows the landlord emailed the resident on 13 and 20 September 2024, suggesting it would progress her complaint. The landlord did not provide an explanation for sending a formal acknowledgement 193 working days late, on 20 June 2025. We note the landlord was managing several complaints from the resident at this time. However, its response was not consistent with the Code and indicates that it did not monitor this complaint effectively.
25. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will consider compensation of £151 to £400 when there has been ‘high effort’ and ‘high impact’ on a resident. The policy gives examples of high effort and high impact, such as when a resident needs to contact an MP or us for support. The resident took these steps before the landlord issued its stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not explain why it did not consider this when calculating its offer of redress.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response did provide a more detailed investigation. It summarised its actions, identified failings, and apologised to the resident. The landlord offered £150 compensation for its handling of the complaint at stage 1 but no offer of redress for its stage 2 delays. This was below the range set out in its compensation policy for cases involving high effort and high impact. Therefore, it is our finding that landlord did not fully consider the detriment caused to the resident.
27. On 11 August 2025 the landlord offered an additional £50 compensation for complaint handling delays at stage 2. This revised offer was consistent with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord made it 13 months after its final response and only after our involvement. Therefore, in such circumstances we cannot determine reasonable redress and find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
28. We order the landlord to pay the resident £200, which reflects its total compensation offer for complaint handling failures. We consider this amount appropriate in the circumstances because it aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. While we have not ordered any additional compensation, our determination reflects the landlord’s failure to resolve this within its complaints process.

Learning

General learning

29. In contact with us in November 2025 the landlord said it is reviewing its mutual exchange process. It aimed to clearly outline the responsibilities of all parties, encourage property visits, and improve communication. This may provide the landlord with opportunities to provide refresher training.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord did not monitor the cleaning order effectively. As a result, it did not identify that the contractor had misunderstood the requirements and also not treated it as the required emergency.

Communication

31. There was miscommunication with the landlord’s contractor resulting in the resident’s property not receiving the arranged clean.