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 (202418016)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418016

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of water ingress from the roof and skylight and resulting damage to the living room ceiling.
    2. Reports of issues with her windows.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 1-bed first floor flat, since 2020.
  2. Within her communications with the landlord about her complaint she has disclosed several health conditions including osteoporosis and seasonal affective disorder.
  3. On 2 April 2024 the resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord via post. The landlord received the complaint on 9 April 2024. She said:
    1. There was water staining on her living room ceiling due to a leak from the roof. She had reported this but had heard nothing since.
    2. The windows throughout the property had frosted rather than clear glass. This meant there was inadequate daylight in the property which was bad for her physical and mental health. It also prevented “natural surveillance…of intruders”.
    3. The windows were “jamming” and the window locks were not up to standard.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 April 2024. It said:
    1. It had completed the repairs to the ceiling on 28 March 2024. It was sorry for the delay.
    2. It had inspected the windows and no repairs were required.
    3. It would not change the glass as this was a “cosmetic issue”.
    4. It offered her £50 compensation for the delay in completing the ceiling works.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 May 2024. She said:
    1. The landlord had not repaired the ceiling. It had repaired the roof but as the ceiling was still damaged the work was incomplete.
    2. The operative who inspected the windows said they were “faulty”.
    3. “Sensory deprivation” caused by living in “near blackout conditions” was causing her distress.
  6. On 24 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to raise a separate complaint in relation to her bedroom windows. She said:
    1. Her bedroom windows were “defective” and let water in.
    2. They jammed when she tried to open and close them. This could cause her injury due to a medical condition which caused bone fragility.
    3. She was concerned that she could not easily open the windows if there was a fire. This would delay escape from the property.
    4. She asked it to install clear glass in the bedroom windows. This would let in more sunlight which would benefit her health conditions (bone fragility and a light deficiency disorder).
    5. She had concerns about crime and disorder in the area. Clear glass would allow her to see possible intruders.
  7. On 10 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident it was adding her complaint about her bedroom windows to her existing stage 2 complaint. The resident advised the landlord she did not want it to merge the complaints.
  8. On 19 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident it would need longer to respond to her stage 2 complaint. It said it would do so by 16 July 2024.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 August 2024. It said:
    1. The resident had asked it to log her concerns about the bedroom windows as a separate complaint. However, it felt it was more efficient to address the issues together.
    2. It’s stage 1 response had incorrectly stated it had completed repairs to the ceiling on 28 March 2024. It had completed repairs to the skylight on that date. The repair to the ceiling paintwork remained outstanding. She had stated she wanted to paint the ceiling herself.
    3. Replacing the frosted glass with clear was a cosmetic issue. It had however raised an inspection of the windows.
    4. It had delayed in repairing the roof and skylight and had not redecorated the ceiling. It offered her £300 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience. This included a contribution towards paint.
    5. Its stage 1 response had been poor and contained inaccuracies. Its communication had also been inadequate. It had added her bedroom window complaint to her existing complaint and its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. It offered £250 for these failings.
  10. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has expressed that she considers the landlord’s decision not to change the glass in her window from frosted to clear to be discriminatory.
  2. Whether or not the landlord has breached the Equalities Act (2010) is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action.
  3. The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction that she has been paying a service charge for window cleaning. She stated that she could not see out of the frosted windows and therefore the landlord should reduce her service charge.
  4. The landlord did not consider this issue within its complaints process. This is because its complaint policy excludes service charge disputes as it has a separate process for this. We have therefore not considered this issue as it has not completed the landlord’s internal complaint process.

Reports of water ingress from the roof and skylight and resulting damage to the living room ceiling.

  1. In September 2023 the evidence shows the landlord’s contractor attended to assess the roof. It is not clear whether this was in response to a report from the resident.
  2. The landlord has not provided an inspection report from this visit. It is unclear whether it has not kept a record of the outcome of the assessment or has done so but failed to provide it for this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. As the landlord has not provided a record of the outcome of the visit, it has not demonstrated that it took appropriate action at that time to reasonably address any issues with the roof.
  3. In January 2024 the resident reported water staining on her living room ceiling. The landlord inspected the issue 3 weeks later and raised repair works to the roof and skylights. This was within the 28-day timeframe outlined in its repair policy and was therefore reasonable.
  4. The landlord completed the roof and skylight repairs on 28 March 2024. This was 42 days after its inspection. This exceeds the timeframe outlined in its repair policy. While the delay was not an unduly long, the landlord did not communicate the delay to the resident or provide any explanation. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that, following the roof and skylight repairs, it failed to identify that the damage to the resident’s ceiling was outstanding. This was a further failing. The resident has however since advised that she wants to decorate the ceiling herself and asked it to provide compensation for the paint. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed to this.
  6. Overall, the landlord delayed in carrying out repairs to the roof and skylight. It also failed to identify that it had not completed works to the ceiling when it closed the repair. It has acknowledged its failings in relation to its handling of the water ingress and damage to the living room ceiling. It has repaired the roof and skylight and offered the resident £300 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord’s offer is broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance. This states compensation of between £100 and £600 should be considered where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but the impact was not permanent.
  8. We consider that the landlord has resolved the repair issue and offered the resident redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We therefore find reasonable redress in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and skylight and resulting damage to the living room ceiling.

Reports of issues with her windows.

  1. In January 2024 the resident reported that her windows kept “jamming” when she tried to open and close them.
  2. The landlord inspected the windows 38 days later. This is outside the timeframe outlined in its policy. While not an excessive delay, we have not seen evidence that it communicated the delay to the resident. This was unreasonable.
  3. The operative noted that the window frames were timber and had swollen due to the weather but that no repairs were required. The resident has stated that the operative told her the windows were “faulty”. She has also said that the operative told her not to open the windows in winter when they were swollen. These comments are not reflected in the landlord’s contemporaneous notes, we cannot therefore determine that the operative gave this advice to the resident. For this reason we have not assessed these comments.
  4. In her stage 1 complaint the resident raised further concerns about the living room windows. She said the frosted glass did not allow adequate daylight into the property and this was bad for her physical and mental health. She also expressed security concerns as she said the window locks did not meet standards and the frosted glass prevented her from identifying intruders.
  5. The obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, is to repair and maintain the windows. Installing new windows or replacing the glass would amount to an improvement or upgrade, and there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out such works. We acknowledge that landlords have limited resources and must manage these resources responsibly. Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where this is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair.
  6. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS and be in reasonable state of repair.
  7. The HHSRS recognises that inadequate natural light can constitute a potential hazard, as can “the view through glazing from the dwelling”. It also identifies entry by intruders is potential hazard. The landlord should therefore reasonably have considered whether the frosted glass and window locks were a hazard that needed to be addressed in this case. That it did not was unreasonable.
  8. In her second complaint letter, the resident raised further concerns about the windows. She explained that her bedroom windows allowed water into the property. She added that she suffered from a medical condition which caused bone fragility and that the force she was having to use to operate the windows could cause her injury. The resident stated that she was concerned that she could be unable to escape the building in case of fire.
  9. Given her concerns it was reasonable that the landlord said it would carry out an inspection of the windows. However, it did not do so until December 2024. This was 6 months after the resident disclosed her health conditions and 3 months after its final complaint response. Given the concerns raised by the resident, this was an unreasonable delay.
  10. After the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to replace her windows. It did so on 4 June 2025. We have not assessed this action as it took place after the period of investigation.
  11. Overall, the landlord failed to respond promptly and reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the windows. It did not address her concerns about the impact to her health or assess whether the issue constituted a hazard. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.
  12. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation of between £100 and £600 should be considered where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but the impact was not permanent. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This is proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident in relation to this issue.

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated it had repaired the resident’s ceiling. It has acknowledged that this was incorrect.
  2. By providing inaccurate information the landlord caused the resident distress and avoidable time and trouble in escalating her complaint. This was unreasonable.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. The stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s concerns that the frosted glass was reducing the natural light in the property which was impacting her health. It also failed to acknowledge her security concerns. This was unreasonable and a failure to adhere to the Code.
  4. It took the landlord 82 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. This is a significant departure from the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord advised the resident, in accordance with the Code, that it needed more time to provide its stage 2 response. However, it failed to adhere to the timeframe it provided and did not respond within the maximum timeframe of an additional 20 working days. This was inappropriate and delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
  6. The Code states that, where a resident raises additional complaints after the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint. The landlord failed to do so and therefore denied the resident a 2-stage process in relation to her complaint about the bedroom windows. This was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord failed again in its stage 2 response to address the resident’s points about the impact of frosted glass on her health and the security of the property. It also failed to address her concerns about her ability to open the windows due to her health and associated fire safety concerns. This was a failing.
  8. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that:
    1. Its stage 1 complaint response was poor and contained inaccuracies.
    2. It had added her complaint about her bedroom windows to her existing stage 2 complaint against her wishes.
    3. It’s communication around the complaint was lacking.
    4. Its stage 2 complaint response was delayed.
  9. In recognition of these failings the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation.
  10. The landlord’s offer is broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance. This states compensation of between £100 and £600 should be considered where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but the impact was not permanent.
  11. The landlord has acknowledged its failings in relation to its complaint handling and has offered the resident redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. We therefore find reasonable redress in relation the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof and skylight and resulting damage to the living room ceiling.
    2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £550 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.