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 (202446528)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446528

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs to:
    1. Remedy structural issues.
    2. The bathroom.
    3. Kitchen units.
    4. Living room window.
    5. Storage heaters.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom mid terrace flat within a 3–storey building. This is on an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in 2021.
  2. The landlord’s records of 26 January 2024 refer to 4 storage heaters not working. On the same day its records refer to a window hinge broken. It inspected the window in February 2024 and said the window was safe but further work was required.
  3. The resident reported cracks within the property on 15 March 2024. The landlord’s repair records of 3 April 2024 refer to work that was required to replace a bathroom ceiling fan stating, “water tracking back through”. It also states that a stain block was required where the bathroom fan had been leaking.

 

  1. On 4 April 2024 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said several structural repairs remained outstanding, repairs to a bathroom fan relating to a potential leak and damp on the ceiling, storage heaters that did not work, window and kitchen repairs. The resident said this was impacting on his mental health and he no longer wanted to stay at the property as he did not feel safe.
  2. The landlord commissioned an independent surveyor to inspect internal cracking and structural movement. The surveyor’s report of  29 April 2024 confirmed the reported cracks were cosmetic and not due to structural defects. It said the cracks were due to thermal movement in the concrete floor. It recommended these cracks should be filled and it provided a specification of works. This specification of works later extended to more extensive work to rebuilding a wall in the bedroom, lintel work and renewal of doors.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2024. It agreed with the resident’s complaint and apologised for its failures. It offered £150 compensation for his time, trouble, and inconvenience. It said it would closely monitor works to completion. It told him:
    1. It had carried out repairs and agreed to replace the kitchen units.
    2. It confirmed remedial works to remedy the cracks and movement were going through its tender process.
  4. On 10 September 2024 the landlord’s records refer to the requirement for a new bathroom fan.
  5. The resident raised his concerns with the landlord about outstanding issues. We do not have the records to confirm the date or what issues the resident had raised. The landlord decided to register a new complaint as 4 months had passed since the initial stage 1 complaint. It said the resident had raised new issues. The landlord acknowledged this stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2024. It summarised the issues to be structural concerns, delays in replacement of the storage heaters, lounge window and bath panel repairs. It sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 December 2024. It told him:
    1. The remedial repairs to cracks and movement should have started in November 2024. The date was inconvenient to the resident and therefore It would reschedule the work. The landlord upheld this part of the complaint due to delays.
    2. The resident had reported the storage heaters not working in the lounge, bathroom, and hall. The landlord assessed the heaters on 5 February 2024. It had recommended replacement of the heaters. It recognised the resident had spent time with chase ups. It apologised for the delay in completing this work and for the lack of communication. It committed to contact the resident to arrange the work.
    3. Lounge window – The resident reported the repair on 26 January 2024. It attended on 22 February 2024. It assessed the window and offered the resident an appointment for 21 June 2024. The landlord attended on this date, but there was no access. It tried to rearrange the work, but the resident raised concerns due to a previous poor experience with an operative. The landlord agreed to call the resident back to arrange a visit when it was convenient with an alternative operative. It arranged an appointment with him for 18 November 2024. The landlord did not believe that it had failed in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
    4. Bath panel – It had no evidence it had been made aware of an issue. It raised a repair, and it would make contact with him to arrange a suitable appointment.
    5. Overall, the landlord upheld the complaint due to the significant failures in delayed work. It recognised the resident’s time and trouble having to chase up the issues. It offered the resident £350 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £150 time and trouble.
      2. £100 significant delays in work.
      3. £100 for future impact of completion of the storage heaters and structural works.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 December 2024 when he raised his dissatisfaction predominately due to being without heating. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request as a stage 2 complaint on the same day. It then extended its response time with the resident on 20 January 2025, however, it did not provide him with an estimated response time.
  7. The landlord’s records of 13 February 2025 state a new bathroom fan was required as “water was tracking back through”.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 February 2025. It told him:
    1. The structural repair start dates had been put back. This was partly due to  the resident not providing access in November 2024 and then delays caused by the landlord in January 2025. It said work was due to start shortly.
    2. Bath panel – It ordered work on 4 December 2024, and this was completed 17 January 2025.
    3. Living room window – It reiterated its position. The work was arranged a number of times until 19 February 2025. It resulted in a separate complaint about access issues.
    4. Storage heaters – It agreed it should have managed the issues better and it apologised for the impact caused to the resident. It had made an appointment to attend and replace the heaters on 11 March 2025. It was arranging to reimburse the resident costs for using temporary heaters.
    5. Bathroom – It had arranged work to stain block the bathroom ceiling and repair/replace an extractor fan. Work was completed around 28 August 2024.
    6. It offered the resident an additional compensation payment of £500 for his time and trouble. The total amount of compensation was £1000.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to us in May 2025. He told us that he had experienced injuries from a kitchen door falling off its hinges due to the structural issues. The resident wanted compensation for the distress he said he had experienced.
  10. In June 2025 the landlord arranged to move the resident to a hotel for a temporary period of 3 days until it completed remedial work. The specification of works covered filling of cracks, replastering, redecorating areas of new plaster, renewal of vinyl floor, internal door replacements and lintel works. There appeared to then be issues with the landlord not turning up to carry out work on time and issues with a meal allowance which is now subject to a separate complaint.
  11. The landlord provided us with an update on the case. It confirmed it had paid the resident £3300 for the use of temporary heaters between March 2024 and February 2025.
  12. The landlord recently confirmed that all work had been completed apart from a few snagging issues. The resident had returned home. It was arranging to provide him with decoration vouchers.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident raised a complaint about repairs to his kitchen units in April 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in June 2024. It told the resident it would replace the kitchen units. There is no evidence that the resident escalated this element of the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
    1. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs/replacement he should contact the landlord to escalate the complaint through its internal complaints procedure.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident refers to an injury which he said was caused by a door falling off. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
  2. The landlord has not provided a breakdown of its £1000 compensation offer for us to be clear what elements of failure it apportioned to each of the issues. From its complaint correspondence we have therefore calculated this to be £575 for its failure to complete structural works and £425 in relation to its delays in completing work to the storage heaters. Our assessment will reflect this level of compensation.

Structural issues

  1. The resident reported cracks in the property on 15 March 2024. The landlord arranged an independent surveyor to inspect the property. The survey report was produced at the end of April 2024. It confirmed there were no structural defects and cracks were due to thermal movement in the concrete floor. It said the cracks could be filled in and recommended a specification of works.
  2. At the beginning of April 2024, the resident raised a complaint about various repairs including structural issues. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident at the beginning of June 2024. It confirmed remedial works would be arranged. It offered him £150 compensation to recognise his time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, this was to reflect its response to 2 complaint elements – structural, kitchen work and not solely the structural issues. It is unclear of the amount it apportioned to its response to the reported structural issues.
  3. In accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a statutory obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of structural issues at the property by appointing an independent surveyor. Given structural concerns require a competent surveyor’s inspection to determine a technical diagnosis, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised it required this level of expertise. The landlord arranged the inspection and received the structural report within a reasonable timeframe. The survey report concluded no concerns with structural issues, however, there had been thermal movement to the floor, for which remedial work was required.
  5. In November 2024 the remedial work remained unresolved, and the resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident, however, it raised a further stage 1 complaint. It told him it had aimed to start remedial work in November 2024. This date was put back as it was inconvenient to the resident. It recognised its delays and offered him a total of £350 for its overall failures in structural work and storage heaters. It is unclear of the amount of compensation it apportioned for the delays in completing remedial work.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint in mid-February 2024. The landlord confirmed structural repair start dates had been put back due to issues by both parties. It agreed work would start soon, however, it did not provide him with an estimated timeframe. It offered the resident additional compensation of £500 which now totalled £1000 (including £500 from the 2 stage 1 complaints). Again, this was for the overall complaint in relation to the 2 issues of structural concerns and storage heaters.
  7. Where there are delays in completing remedial works, we expect landlords to have regular communication plans in place with residents. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to its commitment to keep residents updated. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided him with regular updates. This was important given the resident’s earlier reports of concerns for his safety. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to rebuild trust in its ability to manage works effectively. Even if the landlord could not provide an exact timeframe for works it could have estimated this and provided the resident with its plan of action including regular updates thereafter. The landlord’s lack of communication was unreasonable, and no doubt added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  8. In June 2025 the landlord arranged to move the resident to a hotel for 3 days until it completed remedial works. The landlord confirmed the resident returned to the property. It post inspected the property on 21 July 2025 and confirmed work was complete apart from a few snagging issues.
  9. To conclude, there were delays in completing remedial works of 15 months. While there were mitigating circumstances relating to resident access issues around November 2024 this cannot solely be attributed to the prolonged delays. It was positive that the landlord recognised these delays, it apologised and offered compensation. Its overall offer was £1000, however, while we know it apportioned a figure of around £575 for its failures making reference to this within its complaint responses, it was unhelpful that it was not transparent on its compensation figure.
  10. Given the landlord had recognised the full extent of its failures and offered the resident compensation of around £575 we are satisfied the landlord put things right for the resident and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance. We have therefore found reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of structural works at the property.

Bathroom

  1. The landlord’s earliest record of bathroom repairs was at the beginning of April 2024. This related to an issue with the bathroom fan. It acknowledged a new fan and a stain block application to an area of damp were required. The resident raised a complaint at the beginning of April 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response at the beginning of June 2024, however, it did not respond about the resident’s concerns on this issue. We will expand on its lack of response within the complaint handling section.
  2. The landlord is obligated to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it will prioritise repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency repairs – any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to health and safety. It aims to attend and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Non-emergency repairs – 28 to 45 days by mutual agreed appointment.
  4. We would expect a landlord to attend to resolve an issue with the fan within the landlord’s non-emergency repairs priority given there was an issue with the fan causing damp. The evidence suggests the landlord did not resolve the fan issues or deal with the damp within this non-emergency repair timeframe. The landlord’s inactions were unreasonable causing additional delays in resolving the issues.
  5. The resident raised another complaint with the landlord, however, we do not have the date. The landlord acknowledged it towards the end of November 2024. We do not have a record of the resident’s complaint to evidence his concerns at this stage. The landlord recorded the issue to be about a bath panel. It arranged the work at the beginning of December 2024 which was completed in mid-January 2025. The landlord therefore carried out the repair within a reasonable timeframe and in compliance with the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy.
  6. The landlord confirmed within its stage 2 complaint response that it had arranged work to stain block the bathroom ceiling and repair/replace an extractor fan. It appears that work was completed at the end of August 2024. The timeframe for completion of bathroom fan works appears to be around 5 months which is an unreasonable timeframe and outside of the scope of its repair and maintenance policy.
  7. In conclusion, the landlord delayed unreasonably by 5 months in resolving the bathroom fan and treating an affected area of damp caused by the faulty fan. It is unclear whether the fan was disconnected to stop its usage during this delayed period. Given the fan was causing damp and it was an essential feature to control the level of humidity in the bathroom, the landlord should have recognised the importance of resolving the issues within its non-emergency repair timeframe. The landlord did not recognise its delays when it responded the resident during its complaint handling.
  8. For these reasons, we have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of bathroom work. The landlord should compensate the resident £100 to recognise the delays, distress and inconvenience caused to him in resolving bathroom work.

Living room window

  1. The resident raised a concern with a broken hinge on a window at the end of January 2024. The landlord assessed the window at the end of February 2024 and left it safe. It provided an appointment for the end of June 2024. However, work was delayed as the resident was not at home.
  2. The landlord was under a duty to repair the window within a reasonable time of being given notice that there was an issue. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 to 45 days by mutually agreed appointment. Given there was no indication of a safety issue, the landlord’s initial appointment was provided within a reasonable timeframe of 1 month and in compliance with its repairs policy timeframe for non-emergency work.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord at the beginning of April 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response at the beginning of June 2024, however, it is of concern that it did not provide a response to the resident on this issue. We will expand on this within the complaint section.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again to raise a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this as a new stage 1 complaint at the end of November 2024. It summarised the complaint about various repairs including the lounge window. It said there were no failures. It also said that an appointment had been arranged with the resident to attend the window in mid-November 2024.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint in mid-February 2025. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in mid-February 2025. It reiterated its position and confirmed a separate complaint was investigated about access issues.
  7. In conclusion, the landlord delayed unreasonably in repairing the living room window by around 10 months. There were mitigating circumstances in relation to access issues which we appreciate added time to the landlord resolving the issues. However, these access issues cannot reasonably excuse the overall delays. It is unclear whether the resident had full use of the window to open/close it during this delayed period of repair. The landlord missed an opportunity to recognise its failures and put things right for the resident. We have therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s failure to complete work within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord should therefore compensate the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance.

Storage heaters

  1. The earliest record of an issue with the storage heaters was at the end of January 2024. The landlord had recorded 4 storage heaters were not working. It assessed these in February 2024 and agreed to replace them. At the beginning of April 2024, the resident complained that the storage heaters did not work. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure at the beginning of June 2024. It is of concern that the landlord did not respond about the storage heaters. We will expand more on this within the complaint handling section.
  2. The landlord was under a duty to repair the heating within reasonable time of being given notice that the heaters were not working. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-urgent repairs within 28 to 45 days. Given the storage heaters were the only source of heating, we expect landlord’s to prioritise the repair accordingly taking into account any resident vulnerabilities. Where there is no heat during the winter period the landlord prioritises the work as emergency repairs. It is unclear how many storage heaters are located in the flat to determine whether all of them were not working. In any case we know that 4 storage heaters did not work and therefore we would expect the landlord to prioritise its attendance in this situation in accordance with its emergency repair timescale. The landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy and attended to assess the heaters 1 month later. This timescale was unreasonable causing additional delays and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord identified that the heaters required replacement in February 2024. It is unclear if the landlord offered the resident temporary heaters or whether he sourced his own. We understand that the landlord would require more time to plan and co-ordinate replacement items of this nature. In these instances, the landlord’s repairs policy commits to keep the resident informed of any delays. We have seen no evidence that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident to provide him with updates. The landlord’s inactions were therefore unreasonable causing additional distress and inconvenience to him.
  5. The resident raised another complaint which the landlord acknowledged at the end of November 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response at the beginning of December 2024. It apologised for the delay in completing work and his time in chase ups. It offered £350 for its failures relating to this complaint and structural issues.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint in February 2025. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in mid-February 2025. It recognised its failures and made an appointment to attend to replace the storage heaters in mid-March 2025. It agreed to reimburse the resident the cost of temporary heaters (£3300) for the period March 2024 to February 2025. It was unhelpful that it did not make it clear what amount of compensation it apportioned to its failure. However, we know from the complaint correspondence that the amount was in the region of £425.
  7. In conclusion, the evidence suggests the resident was without heating from 4 storage heaters for 13 months. It is unclear whether the landlord provided him with temporary heaters, or he sourced his own. It is positive that the landlord recognised the resident’s additional costs of using temporary heaters and paid him £3300 on top of its compensation offer of £425. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord recognised the full extent of its failures and put things right for the resident. We have therefore found reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the storage heaters.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 4 April 2024. We do not have the records to evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It provided its full stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2024. While the records note the resident’s specific concerns with various repairs, the landlord did not respond on all of the issues.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code states that complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. A stage 1 complaint response must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained.
  3. Section 6.7 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
  4. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not comply with our Code. This was because we cannot establish whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It did not provide a full response to all the issues within the complaint. It delayed in its response by 2 months and there is no evidence it agreed an extension timeframe with the resident.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint around 4 months later. The landlord decided to register a new stage 1 complaint. We do not have the records on when the resident made the complaint, however, the landlord acknowledged it on 22 November 2024. Given the issues appeared to be of the same nature with the exception of a bath panel, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. Our Code states:
    1. Section 6.10 –  If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response.
    2. Section 6.11-  Requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It provided its full stage 2 response on 13 February 2024. It answered all the resident’s complaint points and offered the resident £500 compensation. In total its compensation offer was £1000 for its overall failures.
  8. Our Code states:
    1. Section 6.14 – Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
    2. Section 6.15 – Landlords must decide whether an extension to the timescale is needed. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
  9. While there is evidence the landlord agreed an extension of time to the stage 2 complaint it did not provide its timescale for response. It responded outside of the 20-working day timeframe and therefore it was inappropriate that the landlord did not comply with the Code.
  10. In conclusion, the landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. Its record keeping was poor and made it difficult to establish full facts of the complaint case and timeline. It was unreasonable that it registered another stage 1 complaint given it had already registered an earlier stage 1 complaint. It would  have been more appropriate to escalate the first complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s inactions caused delays in resolving the full complaint issues.
  11. The landlord maintains that the kitchen units were not part of the complaint. Its poor record keeping make it unclear what the resident complained about at each stage. Given the resident raised concerns with us about the kitchen units, the landlord should contact the resident to establish whether he wishes to register a complaint about the kitchen units. The landlord must comply with our Code when dealing with this new complaint.
  12. For these reasons we have found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should compensate the resident £100 to put things right for him in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The landlord should also reflect upon its failures and provide us with its learning from this complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the resident’s report of structural issues at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration   in the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme the resident’s report of repairs to the kitchen units is outside our jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the resident’s reports of repairs to a living room window.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the resident’s reports of repairs to storage heaters.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should apologise for the failures identified within this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should pay the resident £400 made up of:
    1. £100 bathroom repairs.
    2. £200 living room window repairs.
    3. £100 complaint handling.
  3. Within 2 weeks of this report the landlord should contact the resident about the kitchen complaint. If he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, it must register a new complaint and follow our Complaint Handling Code.
  4. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide us with its complaint handling learning in particular in relation to its record keeping and transparency of compensation offers. The landlord’s review of the complaint and wider improvements to strengthen its repair service and complaint handling are noted. The landlord should refer to our:
    1. Complaint Handling Code 2024.
    2. Spotlight report on Knowledge Management and Information (May 2023).
    3. Spotlight report on repair and maintenance – repairing trust (May 2025) for best practice.
  5. The landlord should reply to our Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should compensate the resident £1000 if it has not already done so in recognition of its failures relating to structural issues and storage heaters.
  2. The landlord should confirm its position on the recommendation.