Sanctuary Housing Association (202322712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322712

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Lift repairs.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bed flat on the 17th floor under an assured tenancy agreement which began on 12 February 2023. The block is 24 storeys in total. As part of the resident’s service charge, she is billed for a concierge service and lift maintenance.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for this resident.
The complaint centres around repairs to the communal lift. The resident queried the maintenance levels and the timescales taken to conduct the repairs. Additionally, the resident raised concerns about a neighbour living in the block, who she alleged had committed anti-social behaviour, including criminal acts. In particular, the resident was concerned that the neighbour had been permitted to remain in the block.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 1 September 2023. She said:
1. She first raised a repair request regarding the lift on 14 August 2023. During this report she had informed the landlord that the lift was “dropping, making banging/grinding noises and losing power”.
2. The repair had not been completed in the interim and this had left 93 flats reliant on one serviceable lift.
3. She was concerned that the lift repair was not being treated as a priority and queried whether an interim service would be carried out on the remaining lift to ensure it remained functional.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2023, in which it said:
1. It had arranged for lift repairs to be undertaken on 8 September 2023, however further works were identified during this visit.
2. It had chased its contractors for a date to complete the outstanding works. The contractors had told the landlord that it was delayed due to waiting for parts.
3. It would continue to chase the contractors to complete the works as soon as possible, once it was in possession of the required parts.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023 on the following grounds:
1. The landlord had not responded to a request from the resident regarding an interim service on the remaining functioning lift, to avoid this become out of order.
2. On the day the resident escalated her complaint, she said that the remaining lift was out of order. She had overheard contractors saying that the lift was overheating due to overuse and that the landlord were not servicing or maintaining the lift in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines.
3. She requested details of the ongoing lift maintenance, as they had previously been out of service every 6 months.
4. She said that the first lift to be out of service had not been functioning since Christmas 2022 and this was causing considerable inconvenience to residents.
5. She had previously complained about the conduct of another resident in the property. She said that he was “displaying continually concerning sexual and threatening behaviour” to the resident and other occupants of the building. The resident was seeking for the landlord to end the perpetrator’s tenancy on these grounds.
6. She felt that the lack of concierge service, which was paid for via the service charge, had contributed to allowing the anti-social behaviour to take place.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023 in which it said:
1. It apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered the resident £100 compensation in respect of this. It attributed the delay to “not accurately recording” the complaint escalation.
2. The lifts were “regularly maintained and serviced and are inspected to meet health and safety regulations”. Specifically, it said the lifts were examined every 6 months and that defects were acted on immediately. In some cases, it said this might need the lift shutting down for work, particularly when parts were needed.
3. The last lift inspection had been completed in July 2023, and the next scheduled inspection was for January 2024.
4. It apologised for the disruption that the lifts being out of service caused.
5. It had written to all residents regarding the concierge service and was offering a refund of service charge for the period that the service was not provided.
6. It had reported the resident’s neighbour’s conduct to the police and obtained an injunction, with the power of arrest attached. Additionally, it said it was taking “the appropriate legal action in relation to the property” and encouraged the resident to report any further incidents to the landlord and the police.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 28 January 2024 as she indicated that the lifts were still not operational, the concierge service was still not being fully offered and the alleged ASB perpetrator was still living in the building. The resident was seeking:
1. Completion of the lift repairs and improvements to ongoing repairs. The resident said that this might require changing contractors or installing a new lift system.
2. Reinstatement of the concierge service as a full-time facility. The resident said that this was “currently costed and charged with service charge rates” as a full-time provision.
3. Eviction of the alleged perpetrator of ASB. The resident said that he was “still at large, still harassing and threatening residents on a daily basis”.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal lift

The resident’s block is serviced by two lifts. The maintenance and servicing of the lifts is paid for via the resident’s service charge.
The landlord’s maintenance repairs policy sets out the landlord’s commitments regarding cyclical / service maintenance. It says that the landlord will ensure that “all equipment and installations are periodically inspected and tested by a competent person to establish condition, identify faults, implement remedial action and establish programmes for improvement according to the significance of the report findings”.
The resident reported on 14 August 2023 that the lift was not operational. She was concerned that the lift was regularly out of service and this left 93 flats reliant on one lift. Once initially repaired, the resident told the landlord on 10 November 2023, that it had “stopped working after two hours”. During the course of the complaint, the resident reported on 19 September 2023 that the second lift had also failed, although this appears to have been brought back into service the same day.
During the course of her complaint, the resident said that she had overheard contractors saying that the landlord was not following the manufacturer’s guidance for servicing. The contractors also said that the lift was out of operation due to overheating from overuse.
In response to these concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Apologised to the resident (and all residents in the block) for the disruption caused by the lift being out of service.
2. Arranged for contractors to attend to repair the inoperable lift on 8 September 2023. During this visit, works were completed to shorten the lift ropes, however a part (contactor) was required to complete the works. The landlord chased for this repair to be completed, and this was finalised on 4 October 2023.
3. Arranged for contractors to attend on 29 November 2023 to conduct routine maintenance and refitting the drive/controller covers.
4. Arranged for contractors to attend on 13 March 2024, to complete a service on the lifts. The report noted that the ‘autodialler’ was not working, but that the lift was left serviceable.
5. Confirmed to the resident that the lifts were “regularly maintained and serviced and are inspected to meet health and safety regulations”. It said the lifts were examined every 6 months and that this had last been completed on 21 July 2023. It said that any defects identified are acted on immediately and that this sometimes requires shutting the lifts down.
6. Conducted a residents’ meeting on 22 February 2024 although no record has been provided showing the content of this meeting.
7. Wrote to all residents in the block on 26 March 2024 to apologise for the inconvenience caused by the lift being out of service and to outline the next steps. In particular, it noted that it was waiting for a specialist report to enable it to implement any repairs or recommendations made.
During this complaint, the landlord appears to have undertaken preventative maintenance and servicing of the lifts, and it appears to have responded in a timely way to the repair requests raised. This has meant that the periods of time that the lift has not been operatable have usually been 1 or 2 days, in most instances.
The primary cause of delays appears to have been awaiting the completion of works by the contractor, who were waiting on parts to complete the repairs. It is noted that in lifts of this type and age, the availability of parts can become more scarce, however there is no evidence that the landlord, or its contractor, had made any assessment of the most likely parts to require repair, in order to hold stock of these. While likely to be beyond the affordability or practicality for the landlord, there is also no evidence that it has considered replacing one or both lifts, despite the ongoing repairs being reported.
Notwithstanding this, the evidence shows that the lift was out of service on multiple occasions during the complaint. The landlord’s repair records do not clearly show when the repairs were completed or, in all cases, what had caused the repairs to be needed. Additionally, the resident has reported that, at the time of investigation, the lifts continue to be out of service regularly. For example, she said that the lift was not operable for 9 days in May 2025 and 4 days in June 2025.
In a high-rise building set over 20 storeys and containing over 90 flats, any periods where one of the lifts were not in service cannot but have caused inconvenience and delay to the resident. Additionally, any period where both lifts were inoperable, as was the case on one occasion during the course of this complaint, would have caused significant distress and inconvenience. This had the potential to negatively impact the resident by requiring her to use the stairs to ascend or descend 17 floors on each occasion.
This has been compounded, as the landlord does not appear to have undertaken a thorough assessment of the cause of the repeated repair requests or having taken suitable action to make a lasting and effective repair. It is not reasonable for the resident to continue to have significant disruption to a key service, over a protracted period of time. Additionally, there has been no evidence that the landlord has considered financial redress or refunds for the resident at the time of this complaint, given that she paid for the lift upkeep, maintenance and use as part of her ongoing service charge.
On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal lift repairs due to:
1. Repeated repair requests being raised, without an effective and lasting repair being implemented, over a protracted period.
2. Limited repair records, which do not capture clearly the cause of the repairs, or any actions taken to rectify them.
3. A lack of oversight or strategic examination of the repairs being raised to assess the ongoing viability of the lift or the need to hold stock of particular items to be able to effect a more timely repair.
4. A lack of consideration of redress for the resident, for the loss of service that she experienced on numerous occasions, which she was paying for via her service charge.
The landlord must now thoroughly assess the lift’s serviceability and take any remedial action required. It must also build resilience into its repairs and maintenance by assessing the viability of holding advance stock of anticipated repair part items and improving its record keeping to support the modelling needed to achieve this. It must also provide additional redress to the resident. Orders and recommendations have been made in respect of this below.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s hate crime and ASB policy adopts the definition of ASB given in Part 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, namely behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance.
Within its policy, the landlord outlines a range of possible interventions it could utilise, including warning letters, acceptable behaviour agreements, mediation and ultimately tenancy warnings or eviction.
The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the Act’) sets out a range of powers that the local authority, police or courts can utilise in cases of antisocial behaviour, including injunctions, community protection notices, criminal behaviour orders, closure orders and public space protection orders. Whilst the landlord could not apply many of these options directly, it can consider making referrals or applications to other multi-agency partners, where appropriate.
The landlord’s policy categorises ASB based on the severity, as set out below:
1. High level – includes hate crimes and sexual acts.
2. Medium level – includes “other criminal behaviour”, verbal abuse vandalism and damage to property.
The policy also includes specific timescales in these cases for taking particular actions such as interviewing parties involved or cleaning up damage caused by the perpetrator.
The resident reported that a neighbour within the property had been aggressive and had also displayed sexual behaviour. Throughout the course of her complaint, she reported that the resident had:
1. Caused damage to the building’s front door on 11 November 2023. She said that the police had told her that they could not progress matters because the landlord was “not responding within witness statement and CCTV footage”.
2. Acted in a sexually inappropriate way to herself and other residents, including exposing himself.
3. Been in the communal areas under the influence of alcohol.
4. “Tried to barge into [her] in a threatening way, because he [had] absolutely no concern or regard for residents living in the property.” During this incident the resident said he had also “began shouting and raising his fists at [her]”.
In addition to this, the evidence shows that the landlord’s staff had reported incidents of ASB from the neighbour and this was supported more widely by information that the landlord received from the police.
In response to the resident’s concerns, information from the police and incidents against its own staff, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Obtained an injunction, with the power of arrest attached, on 22 May 2023.
2. Responded to the resident’s concerns on 30 November 2023 and confirmed that it had supplied witness statements and CCTV to the police and had issued a notice of seeking possession to evict the alleged perpetrator.
3. Progressed matters internally with its legal department in December 2023, to move towards evicting the resident. This included undertaking a vulnerability assessment.
4. Liaised with the police on several occasions, including requesting information to support its court and legal applications as part of the eviction proceedings.
5. Encouraged the resident on numerous occasions to report any further incidents of ASB to the police and landlord. It stressed that the injunction prohibited this behaviour and included the power of arrest.
6. Held a residents’ meeting on 22 February 2024 to discuss various concerns raised by the residents, including the ASB concerns related to this individual.
7. Wrote to all residents on 26 March 2024 to update on the action it was taking and to stress the importance of reporting any further incidents to the landlord and the police.
While it is appreciated that any ASB can be hugely distressing to the residents of a property, the evidence shows that the landlord took steps to address the matter by seeking information and support from multi-agency partners, undertaking the necessary legal steps to progress and eviction and providing information to residents (within the limits of confidentiality). It is unclear, at the time of investigation, whether the ASB case has been progressed to a satisfactory conclusion. The landlord should provide an update to the resident on this matter, if it has not already done so.
Additionally, while the concierge service, in itself, would not have necessarily reduced or prevented the ASB, it is noted that this may have acted as a deterrent. It was therefore positive to note that the landlord had refunded residents for the time that it could not provide this service and, during the course of this complaint, it had been reintroduced.
On this basis, the landlord has acted reasonably and there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced during the times the lift was not available for use. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her accounts.
2. Consider whether the resident is entitled to a service charge refund for the periods of time that one or both lifts were not in service. The landlord must provide its position in writing, including any rationale for this decision and calculations for any refund awarded.
3. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure that repair records accurately capture what work was completed and, in particular, when follow up actions were completed.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Survey the lifts and plant equipment and provide a report on their condition and a prognosis of any future or anticipated repair needs.
2. Review its processes for record keeping ensuring that it has accurate and accessible data to support its repair appointments and strategic oversight of the lifts, including any trending or patterns in the repairs being reported.
3. Use the survey report above, and its existing records, to identify any parts that it may wish to hold in stock to be able to effect a more timely repair on the lift in future.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Process the service charge refund for the time that the resident was without the concierge service, if it has not already done so.
2. Provide residents with an update on ASB case, if it has not already done so. In particular, whether it intends to take any further action or whether the case has been closed.