Sanctuary Housing Association (202515635)

Decision
Case ID	202515635
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The resident had reported leaks to the landlord since 2018. The resident had made 2 previous complaints to the landlord about this issue before this complaint was made on 4 March 2025. The cause of the leaks had not been identified during the complaint process. The resident told us the leaks were in 3 rooms and are still not fully resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks and related repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and related repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of leaks and related repairs.

6. The landlord has provided financial redress for its poor communication and delays in finding and resolving the cause of the leaks. However, we have found additional failures in the landlord’s handling of the leaks and related repairs. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising repairs and calculating compensation. It also failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of remedial repairs needed inside the property. Finally, it compensated the resident for loss of enjoyment of the home up to 30 October 2025 but the issues have continued past this date. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £630.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling.

7. The landlord sent 2 further complaint responses to the resident after its final complaint response. While the landlord recognised further failures and attempted to put things right, this showed that the landlord did not resolve the resident’s complaint within the complaint process. It also failed to open a new complaint when requested by the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation of £75 for its complaint handling failures.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £705 made up as follows: · £230 for loss of enjoyment of the home from 31 October to 16 December 2025. · £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of leaks and related repairs. · £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. It must also pay the resident the previously offered £1800 if not already paid.	No later than 21 January 2026
2	Communicating about the works The landlord must write to the resident, copying in this Service, explaining in detail: – What external works are outstanding (if any), with an estimated completion date. – When the completed external works will be inspected by the landlord’s surveyor. – Details of when and how the results of the surveyor’s inspection of the external works will be communicated to the resident. – What internal works will be completed, with an estimated start and completion date. – The decant arrangements for the resident. – If the landlord is unable to provide this information by the due date, it must explain in writing to the resident and us why it cannot and when it will be able to.	No later than 21 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2025	The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord about leaks at the property that had been ongoing since 2018. He said that the leaks had caused damage and were causing a serious health hazard due to damp and mould. The resident complained about the lack of progress and communication.
7 March 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement.
20 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised that the source of the leaks had not been found. It explained some of the delays and said it was arranging work with another contractor. The landlord offered compensation of £250 to the resident for his time, trouble, and inconvenience, including for the next 90 days.
21 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint because it had not provided a plan of action to address the ongoing issue. The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement.
17 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that the recent delay was caused by the contractor pulling out of the contracted works. The landlord admitted that its stage 1 response had not addressed delays or communication and offered additional compensation of £50.
8 May 2025	The landlord sent a further response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord admitted poor communication and further delays. It also said that there had been a poor investigation and response at stage 1 of the complaint process. The landlord offered increased compensation of £1200 that included loss of enjoyment of the home up to 31 July 2025. This sum included the amounts offered at stages 1 and 2.
13 August 2025	The landlord sent a second further response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised that repairs had not progressed, and for its poor communication. Works were due to start in August. The landlord offered further compensation of £600, including loss of enjoyment of the home up to 30 October 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us on 17 July 2025. He told us that despite several contractors trying to resolve the leaks, the issue was ongoing. He wanted the landlord to repair the leaks and provide additional compensation for his household’s distress and inconvenience.

 

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of leaks and related repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the issues outlined in his complaint had a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the household. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident told us that water started leaking into the property in 2018. The resident has had 2 other complaints considered by the landlord about the issue, with the previous final response sent by the landlord on 27 January 2025 and compensation paid. This investigation covers the events that took place from 28 January 2025 until the landlord’s final complaint response was sent on 13 August 2025.  
10. In February 2025 the landlord was in communication with a contractor to carry out a survey of the property to identify the source of the leaks. The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 February 2025 to discuss the progress. A week later the works order had been raised to the new contractor.
11. On 4 March 2025 the resident contacted the landlord because works had not started onsite. He said that he had not received any communication about the delay and was making a new complaint. He said that leaks in the property had caused significant damage and a health hazard due to the damp and mould. The resident told the landlord that he had underlying health conditions and the delay was causing stress and anxiety.
12. The next day the contractor advised the landlord that it was unable to accept the works order because the height of the works was outside of its insurance cover. Within 2 days the landlord provided the resident with an update and said it had already started to discuss the works with other contractors.
13. The resident requested the landlord pay the premium to cover the contractor’s insurance issue. However, the contractor stated in its email to the landlord that the additional premium was ‘uneconomical’ for the landlord and therefore not possible. The landlord is responsible for having oversight of its contractors and making decisions in line with its procurement frameworks. However, in this case, not understanding the limitations of the company it had raised works to, caused a significant delay in starting the work.
14. The resident received a further update from the landlord on 9 March 2025. On 20 March 2025 it sent its stage 1 complaint response, confirming that works were being arranged with a different contractor to identify the source of the leaks as soon as possible. The landlord apologised for delays and said it would monitor the outstanding works to completion. In recognition of the resident’s inconvenience, the landlord offered £250 compensation broken down as:
    1. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
    2. £150 for impact over the next 90 days to allow for further investigations.
15. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response because it did not provide a plan of action to address the ongoing issues, so he escalated his complaint to stage 2.
16. The Complaint Handing Code 2024 (The Code) says that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. The landlord should then track and action outstanding actions promptly with appropriate updates given to the resident.
17. The complaint response would have been sent outside the timescales set out in the Code if the landlord had waited until it had a resolution to the issue before sending out its response. The landlord provided a point of contact to keep the resident informed about progress. However, it would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to set out how often it would contact the resident.
18. In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it was unsure what issues the resident might be experiencing inside the property as the resident had not mentioned mould. The resident reported mould in his complaint to the landlord. This was therefore an inappropriate response by the landlord. It was also inappropriate that the landlord did not take any action over the resident’s report of mould inside the property, particularly as he had described how it was causing a serious health hazard. The landlord should have organised for an internal inspection of the property and regular mould washes or treatment until the leaks were repaired.
19. On 21 March 2025 the resident contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord’s surveyor said it was in the process of obtaining quotes and would confirm the start date once it had selected a contractor. Even though the landlord did not have much information to share at this time, it was a missed opportunity to set up a communication plan with the resident.
20. On 13 April 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to express his disappointment about the contractor chosen to carry out the investigation and works. He stated that this contractor had previously been unable to resolve the leaks. The resident chased the landlord for a response by telephone on 16 April 2025 and did not get a reply.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 17 April 2025 offered £250 in compensation to the resident for poor communication. The landlord also made an offer of an alternative property.
22. Offers of permanent transfer to an alternative property were made to the resident before the timeframe of this complaint. On 31 January 2025 the resident explained that he had turned down several offers of properties as they had not met his household’s requirements.
23. In February 2025 the landlord had told the resident that it could only offer 3 alternative properties under its policy. This was in line with its lettings procedure that states that a third unreasonable refusal of a property may result in the resident’s application being cancelled. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of an additional property in its stage 2 complaint response if the resident was not aware that the landlord could only make 3 reasonable offers.
24. On 28 April 2025 the resident responded to the stage 2 complaint response. He stated that progress had been slow and there was still no definite plan to rectify the leaks. He said the landlord had no understanding of the impact of the issue on his health.
25. Leaks can be difficult to locate and rectify and will often involve diagnostic or investigatory work to identify the source. It will not always be possible for landlords to repair leaks quickly. However, it is clear that the landlord had taken several years to identify and repair the leaks in the property, which has increased the distress and inconvenience to the resident and his household.
26. Also, the landlord seemed unaware of the condition of the property on the inside. During the timeframe of this complaint there is no evidence that the landlord carried out an internal survey or offered temporary repairs or dehumidifiers. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response suggested that the resident could request a mould wash if needed, but it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a damp and mould survey. It appears from the evidence that responsive repairs to help support the resident and his household during this time of disrepair were overlooked.
27. The landlord was aware that the resident has asthma. In his original complaint to the landlord the resident explained that he has underlying health conditions. There is no evidence that the landlord gave any particular consideration to the resident’s health conditions when dealing with the disrepair.
28. The landlord’s vulnerable customers procedure says that it is everyone’s responsibility to recognise customer vulnerability and to tailor services appropriately. Its repairs and maintenance procedure says that it can prioritise repairs for customers with vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that the landlord tailored its services or prioritised the repair due to the resident’s health conditions.
29. The landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident on 8 May 2025. It recognised that the resident had experienced further delays to the leak repairs. It offered the resident increased compensation of £900 for loss of enjoyment of his home from 27 January 2025 until 31 July 2025 when the works were expected to be completed. It was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for his additional loss of enjoyment of the home.
30. The landlord updated the resident twice in May 2025, but the resident made a complaint on 1 June 2025 because he was concerned about the landlord’s choice of contractor for the works. He asked for an explanation of the delay and a revised timeline for completion of the repairs. The landlord responded 5 days later and advised that the quote for the new contractor had been sent for approval. However, the evidence shows that approving and raising the works order took a further 2 months. This was an unacceptable delay and indicates a lack of communication between departments.
31. The resident did not receive a response to his new complaint so he contacted this Service on 17 July 2025. Four days later the resident asked the landlord again to raise a new complaint. The resident wrote that he was unable to use a bedroom because water was coming through a light fitting, and there was increasing mould.
32. The landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident on 13 August 2025, apologising that the works had not progressed since its last response. It said that it had recently updated the resident on the timeline of the works. However, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a responsive repair for the lights or a damp and mould survey to assess the internal damage. The landlord offered further compensation of:
    1. £150 for lack of communication and further delays.
    2. £450 for further loss of enjoyment of the home up to 30 October 2025.
33. The resident has been offered a total of £1800 in compensation for this complaint. It was appropriate of the landlord to offer additional compensation to the resident up to the point that the works were due to be completed.
34. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
35. The resident told us that while the leaks appeared to be resolved in 2 rooms, there is still water leaking into one room. The landlord has advised it is still in the process of finishing the external works, and the resident is being decanted in January 2026 so that the landlord can complete works inside the property. Therefore, the compensation offered to the resident in the landlord’s final complaint response has been unable to put things right for the resident because the issue is still ongoing.
36. We have ordered the landlord to pay £230 compensation to the resident for further loss of enjoyment of the home due to the ongoing leak and related repairs from 31 October 2025 up to the date of this report. We have also ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to recognise the resident’s likely additional distress and inconvenience caused by living in the property with vulnerabilities. This is in line with the landlord’s policy that says household vulnerabilities should be taken into account when deciding compensation.
37. Finally, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its failure to arrange a damp and mould survey or respond to the resident’s need of remedial repairs inside the property. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance in recognition of time, trouble, and inconvenience of a service failure that resulted in high effort from the resident to try and resolve, and which resulted in high impact.
38. The total amount of compensation we are ordering the landlord to pay is £630, which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

39. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure refers to those in the Code.  
40. The landlord sent all complaint acknowledgements and complaint responses in line with its stated timescales.
41. The landlord’s complaint policy states clearly that it will follow a 2-stage complaint process. However, the landlord sent 2 further complaint responses to the resident after its stage 2 response. These are dated 8 May 2025 and 13 August 2025.
42. The first additional response was sent after the resident replied to the stage 2 complaint outcome. The second additional response was sent when the resident tried to make a new complaint.
43. In these further complaint responses, the landlord apologised that the issue was ongoing and offered the resident further compensation. While we welcome that the landlord recognised further failures and attempted to put things right, it should have recognised these during the complaint process. Also, if the resident requested to make a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue after the stage 2 was sent, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have logged a new complaint in line with its policy.
44. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £50 for a poor-quality investigation and response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. However, it has not compensated the resident for the additional complaint handling failures we have identified.
45. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay further compensation to the resident of £75. This sum is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for service failures by the landlord in the service it provided which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Learning

46. The landlord sent further complaint responses and offers of compensation to the resident in May and August 2025. While it is positive that the landlord considered the ongoing situation that the resident was experiencing as a result of its actions and sought to put it right through compensation, these failings should have been recognised and resolved during the complaint process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. As identified in this report, the landlord’s major works and complaint handling teams did not communicate remedial repair needs to its responsive repair teams. While this is a communication issue, it also highlights a need for coordinated sharing and storing of information between teams. However, the landlord has been very responsive to our requests for information during our investigation.

Communication

48. A major theme of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s lack of communication with him and also between internal departments. The resident described this as a barrier. One of the most significant internal communication barriers was between the team arranging the works, and the team who approved and raised the works orders. Delays in raising works orders delayed the contractors from booking in the works sooner.