Sanctuary Housing Association (202422397)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422397

Sanctuary Housing Association

14 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 handling of repairs to a defective toilet.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The property has 2 toilets.
  2. On 22 July 2024, the resident reported that a tap was leaking, and the downstairs toilet was not flushing.
  3. On 17 August 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the lack of action in repairing the kitchen tap and toilet. He said he had been inconvenienced and was unable to enjoy his home.
  4. On 29 August 2024, the landlord’s operative attended to the tap and repaired it. However, they were unable to fix the toilet and identified that it needed a new part.
  5. On 2 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that it was unbale to fix the toilet and it acknowledged that it would not meet its 45-day repair timeframe. It apologised for the delays and offered £25 for time and trouble, and £25 for future impact as the repair would not be attended to until late October 2024. On the same day, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord’s operative had not attempted to repair the toilet as it claimed and had concerns that his children had to wait to use the toilet as only 1 worked.
  6. Across 5 to 7 September 2024 the resident reported further concerns. He said he had recently redecorated, and a toilet replacement would damage area of the floor. He also said the home smelt because the broken toilet would not flush and he was looking to book a hotel.
  7. On 9 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for any confusion caused with the repair as opposed to replacement of the toilet. It stated it had arranged another appointment on 16 October 2024. It recognised the resident’s concerns about the flooring and asked for receipts of the recent renovation. It also offered £100 for future impact for toilet repair that was yet to be completed. This offer was in replacement of the stage 1 offer of £50.
  8. On 16 October 2024, the landlord’s operative attended but was called away to an emergency repair and was unable to complete the toilet repair. The next day the landlord said it had requested the next appointment, of 18 November 2024, to be bought forward.
  9. The landlord’s operative attended to the toilet and replaced it on 23 October 2024. On the same day, the resident reported that there was a gap in the flooring due to the new toilet and the quality of work performed was poor, as the toilet was not properly fixed to the wall.
  10. On 28 October 2024, the resident reported that he had engaged a professional to rectify the toilet fitting and flooring issue. The landlord requested the invoice for this work on 31 October 2024 and the resident supplied it the same day.
  11. On 18 November 2024, the landlord further reviewed its actions. It recognised its delay in sending its final response, it also recognised its lack of communication and overall disruption caused to the resident. For this it offered a further £150. It also offered £90.47 reimbursement for the toilet repair and fixing of the flooring organised by the resident. This bought its total compensation offer to £340.47 (including its earlier offer of £100).
  12. When the resident approached us, he said he wanted the landlord to respect residents, improve its communication, and an apology.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a defective toilet

  1. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord shall maintain installations for the supply of water and sanitation, including toilets.
  2. The landlord’s repair and maintenance procedure says that it will aim to complete all appointed repairs within 45 calendar days.
  3. Given the landlord was aware of the defective toilet since 22 July 2024 and it replaced the toilet on 23 October 2024, this meant the repair took 68 calendar days to complete. This was beyond its repair procedure timeframe of 45 days. This delay was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord’s first appointment of 28 August 2024 noted that the toilet needed a siphon. However, for the second repair appointment of 16 October 2024 the operative did not attend with a part and was called away for an emergency repair, so the repair was deferred again. This appointment was not appropriately planned and caused further delays and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. However, the landlord did recognise that it would not meet its repair timeframe prior to its 16 October 2024 appointment in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It apologised for the delay in the repair and offered compensation for the future impact until the repair could be addressed. It also said following the unsuccessful appointment of 16 October it would move the next appointment forward. Although the landlord missed an opportunity to fully take responsibility for its actions and explain the reason for these delays, it was reasonable of the landlord to recognise these delays, offer compensation, monitor the situation and act to prioritise the next appointment.
  6. As communicated on 17 October 2023, the landlord acted to bring forward the next repair appointment originally planned for 18 November 2024, and it was able to fix the toilet 5 days after the 16 October’s appointment, and on 23 October 2024. In doing so it was proactive and followed up with what it had promised.
  7. The communication of the landlord, however was not proactive and to a good standard. The resident had to request action from the landlord and the landlord did not supply regular updates on matters. On 7 September 2024 the resident chased the landlord and said that the house smelt so bad he was considering getting a hotel. He also said on 29 August 2024, given the delays so far he would seek to engage his own contractor to fix it. The landlord did not provide assurances in response to these concerns.
  8. However, it did supply its complaint responses within 2 days of these emails which supplied some clarity in respect of the repair. The landlord did also at its review stage (18 November 2024) recognise its communication was not up to standard and offered compensation for this. While it could have recognised improvements in its communication sooner, it did reflect and acknowledge that it could have communicated better. This was a reasonable action to take.
  9. Given the Complaint Handling Code only requires 2 complaint stages, we discourage landlord’s employing a third stage with any further reviews. This is because it can cause confusion and delays in the overall complaints process. However, in this case the resident was able to bring the complaint to us following stage 2 and the review was due to the nature of the complaint. The landlord did not have an opportunity to account for the full extent of the delays and failures before the repair was completed and during its complaints process. Therefore it was appropriate of the landlord to recognise its failings and increase its compensation offer following the completion of the repair.
  10. The landlord’s review included consideration of the resident’s concerns raised about the quality of the repair work done by the landlord’s operative where the toilet was wobbling and there was a gap in the flooring. It was appropriate of the landlord to request the invoice for this work so it could consider evidence of the work, and it accordingly reimbursed the resident for this (£45 for fitting to wall and £45.47 for the flooring). In addition to this it was appropriate to offer further compensation for the additional delays, its lack of communication and overall disruption (£150). This was reasonable to recognise the impact of its failures given the resident’s reported concerns about the ongoing smell and lack of enjoyment of the property.
  11. We have seen evidence that the total compensation of £340.47 (including the £100 offered during its complaints process) was paid to the resident. The compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration. This is because the failings had an adverse impact but did not have a permanent effect. The landlord recognised these failings at stage 1, 2 and upon review, and it compensated for them at each stage. In doing so, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and sought to put right the inconvenience he and his family had experienced over the 9 weeks they did not have use of their second toilet.
  12. The landlord also advised of learnings as a result of the complaint including the implementation of a complaint handling model to ensure better customer care. Also, that its complaints team had completed an accredited course covering complaints and competency. It is positive to see that it had taken learning from the complaint.
  13. The landlord’s review of the complaint was proactive and prompted without our intervention, prior to accepting the complaint for investigation. The landlord had genuine intentions to review matters again following the repair completion to account for further potential failures and delays. Overall the landlord acted appropriately to address all of its failings up to and after the repair, and it offered a proportionate amount of compensation for these. We have seen evidence of the compensation being paid and as such we have not made any further recommendations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs to a defective toilet.