Sanctuary Housing Association (202433492)

Decision
Case ID	202433492
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

1. At the time of her complaint, the resident lived with her children. Three of the children were under the age of 5. She reported that the landlord surveyed her property and identified various repairs. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and its actions to complete the repairs following the survey.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the survey and associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the survey and associated repairs.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord apologised, compensated the resident, and completed repairs. However, this did not go far enough to put things right. It delayed completing the repairs, failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about window replacement, and did not communicate effectively with the resident. Despite multiple complaints, the landlord did not show learning from them. It missed opportunities to put things right sooner.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. It did not acknowledge or respond to all of the resident’s complaints in line with its policy or the Code. However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered reasonable financial redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 17 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £675 made up as follows: £525 it offered complaint 1 and 2 in relation to its handling of the survey and repairs £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the concerns about the window replacement, and its poor communication and repair delays after issuing its final stage 2 response The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 17 February 2026
3	Inspection order The resident has told us that the bathroom window needs replacing, and that it has not been reasonably repaired. The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the bathroom window. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: • inspects the condition of the bathroom window and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: • whether the window poses a hazard • a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue When the inspection is completed, the landlord must: • agree a communication plan with the resident to ensure it provides updates on any changes in timeframes and details of any further necessary works if required • write to the resident, providing details of the communication plan and timescale to complete the works The landlord must provide us with a copy of the survey and letter no later than the due date.	No later than 17 February 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident within 4 weeks the £300 compensation it offered in complaint 1 and 2 for its complaint handling if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February 2024	The resident made complaint 1. She said the landlord surveyed the property in September 2023, identified repairs, but did not arrange them. She said there were issues with her windows, extractor fans, a loose plug socket, and the kitchen wall was crumbling. To resolve her complaint, she asked the landlord to investigate the lack of communication and complete the repairs.
12 March 2024	The landlord responded to complaint 1 at stage 1. It apologised for its lack of action following the survey. It said it had reviewed the Surveyor’s report and would contact the resident to arrange the repairs. It offered her £75 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble it caused.
7 May 2024	The resident contacted the landlord as the repairs remained outstanding. She said that it had missed appointments on 9 and 26 April 2024 to repair the plug socket and kitchen wall. She told it that the loose plug socket was a hazard for her young children. The landlord raised complaint 2.
10 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response for complaint 2. It reviewed its repair records and agreed that it had missed the appointments for the kitchen wall and plug socket. It told her it would arrange further appointments and monitor the repairs through to completion. It offered the resident £120 compensation, broken down as follows: £20 for 2 missed appointments £25 for its lack of communication £25 for repair delays £50 for the distress and inconvenience
Between 12 and 14 June 2024	The resident escalated complaint 2 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the kitchen wall and plug socket repairs remained outstanding. She reiterated that the Surveyor had found other repairs that had not been raised, and that she had logged these concerns in complaint 1.
19 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 2, in which it said: on 21 June 2024 it inspected the property to identify outstanding repairs on 9 and 14 August 2024 it repaired the plug socket and kitchen wall it had arranged to paint the wall on 21 August 2024   The landlord increased its original £120 compensation offer to £400, broken down as follows: £200 for the missed appointments, delays, and inconvenience it caused £200 for the complaint handling delays
Between 21 August 2024 and 28 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint 1 to stage 2. She was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed all of the issues found in the September 2023 survey.
Between 4 and 6 June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord about the outstanding repairs. She said the survey recommended replacing all of the windows, and the bathroom window needed urgent replacement. She told it that the extractor fan and hallway plastering were still outstanding. She asked for a copy of the September 2023 survey. The landlord raised complaint 3.
24 June 2025	The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. We asked the landlord to escalate complaint 1 and issue a stage 2 response.
25 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response for complaint 3. It said it had responded to the resident’s concerns about the missed appointments and repair delays at stage 2 in complaint 2. It confirmed it had requested a copy of the September 2023 survey, but it could not guarantee it would provide it.
1 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 1. It said the survey was a stock condition survey and did not trigger repairs. It agreed to inspect the property to identify any outstanding repairs. It promised to update the resident every 5 working days. It apologised for its poor communication and any confusion caused by its complaint handling. It offered the resident £350, broken down as follows: £250 for its handling of the stock condition survey and associated repairs £100 for its confusing complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord delayed completing the repairs and it had not replaced the bathroom window. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise compensate her for the distress and inconvenience respond to her concerns that the bathroom window needs replacing

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 responses to the survey and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

8. There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events related to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s responses between September 2023 and January 2026.
9. On 28 February 2024 the resident made complaint 1. She was unhappy with the lack of communication following the survey completed on 25 September 2023. She said the landlord had not arranged repairs for the extractor fan, windows, crumbling kitchen wall, and plug socket. She told it that the Surveyor said some components, such as the windows, might need replacing.
10. The landlord’s records did not clearly record what repairs were identified, but it did note that the windows were in a “less than typical” condition. This lack of detail was a failing in the landlord’s record-keeping and contributed towards the overall repair delays.
11. On 12 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response for complaint 1. It was reasonable for it to apologise and acknowledge its poor communication. Its offer of £75 compensation was consistent with its Compensation Policy. This suggests a payment between £51 to £150 for distress and inconvenience. This offer was reasonable for the failing. While the landlord should have communicated better about steps it was going to take after the survey, there is no evidence that this caused any significant impact to the resident until she contacted it in February 2024.
12. The landlord also committed to monitoring the kitchen wall and plug socket through to completion. This showed the landlord took some of the resident’s concerns seriously and met its repairs policy to regular monitor repairs.
13. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about the windows, extractor fan, and replacements. Failing to do this likely made the resident feel her concerns were overlooked and caused her frustration.
14. Between 20 March and 26 April 2024 the landlord visited the property and noted the kitchen wall was not crumbling. It is unclear why it made this finding when it later repaired the wall. This would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs handling. However, the landlord later acknowledged this shortcoming in its stage 2 response for complaint 2, showing accountability of its actions.
15. During this time, the landlord missed 2 appointments to repair the plug socket. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will contact residents if it cannot attend an appointment. The landlord did not do so, which caused the resident inconvenience as she had unnecessarily waited at home.
16. On 7, 10, and 24 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord. She was unhappy with the repair delays and missed appointments. She told it the loose socket was a hazard for her young children, and the kitchen wall was crumbling.
17. In response, the landlord raised complaint 2. This showed it recognised the resident was unhappy with its service. However, considering she had raised safety concerns about her young children, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the socket repair. It missed the opportunity to tailor its service to the household’s circumstances, as required by its Tenancy Handbook.
18. On 10 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response for complaint 2. It apologised that the repairs remained outstanding and acknowledged its earlier missed appointments. The landlord committed to tracking the repairs through to completion again, which was a reasonable step to restore the resident’s confidence. It offered £120 compensation, including £20 for the 2 missed appointments, and said it would contact the resident to arrange the repairs.
19. This response went some way toward putting things right. It admitted its failings and accepted responsibility for the delays. However, it did not give the resident a timeframe for completing the repairs. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and reduced her uncertainty. She had already waited 3 months, which exceeded the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
20. On 12 and 14 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint 2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and said the service she had received was “not acceptable”. She told it that the various repairs identified in the survey were still outstanding.
21. Following the resident’s escalation, the landlord inspected the property on 21 June 2024. This was a reasonable and allowed it to check both the outstanding repairs and the property’s condition.
22. On 2 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update as it did not share the outcome of the visit with her. It said it had arranged to plaster and paint the kitchen wall on 9 and 21 August 2024 and repair the plug socket on 14 August 2024.
23. Despite promising to see the repairs through to completion, the onus was on the resident to chase updates. This showed the landlord had not taken learning in relation to its communication from the previous complaints. This added to her distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s actions were not consistent with its policy, which says it will proactively communicate and keep residents updated.
24. Between 13 and 15 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to check the repair appointments had gone ahead. This showed the landlord had improved its oversight of the outstanding issues. During this time, the resident told the landlord that the following repairs were outstanding from the September 2023 survey:

• hallway plastering
• bathroom window replacement
• bedroom and kitchen repairs

25. On 19 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 2. It reviewed its responses for both complaints. It acknowledged its earlier incorrect finding about the kitchen wall. It recognised that these failings, along with the missed appointments and poor communication, contributed towards the overall repair delays. Acknowledging this showed accountability and a willingness to learn from the events.
26. The landlord confirmed the wall and plug socket had been repaired and said it would paint the wall on 21 August 2024. It increased its compensation offer from £120 to £200 in light of its failings. This was reasonable as it was consistent with its highest compensation band in its Compensation Policy, which suggests a payment between £151 and £400 where there has been a significant impact on the resident.
27. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about the other repairs identified during the September 2023 survey. Failing to do so likely caused the resident further frustration, who had repeatedly raised these concerns during complaint 1 and 2.
28. The landlord also did not acknowledge the resident’s safety concerns about the loose plug socket. The socket was by the skirting boards and within reach of her young children. It took 168 days to repair the socket after complaint 1 was raised, far exceeding the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This delay was not reasonable given the safety risk and the landlord’s duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act to maintain electrical installations.
29. On 21 August 2024 the landlord painted the kitchen wall as planned. The resident also asked for an update on the other repairs identified in the stock condition survey. On 31 August 2024 the landlord said it would investigate her concerns. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to share its findings.
30. This continued the theme of poor communication and missed opportunities to manage expectations. The lack of detailed survey notes also meant the landlord could not identify a full list of repairs, which contributed to ongoing delays.
31. On 28 March 2025 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the outstanding repairs from the survey. There is no evidence the landlord responded until she chased it on 4 and 6 June 2025. She reiterated that the Surveyor told her the bathroom window needed urgently replacing, the kitchen and bedroom windows need repairing, and the hallway needed plastering. She also asked for a copy of the survey. The landlord raised complaint 3.
32. On 25 June 2024 the landlord issued its response to complaint 3. It said it would not investigate the complaint as it had already responded about the kitchen wall and plug socket in complaint 2. The landlord overlooked the resident’s concerns about the other repairs she had repeatedly raised throughout her complaints. By focussing only on the kitchen wall and socket, it missed the opportunity to address all of the resident’s concerns and manage her expectations.
33. On 1 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 1. The landlord showed accountability by admitting its communication could have been clearer and agreed to update the resident every 5 working days. It clarified that the stock condition survey does not automatically trigger repairs. It agreed to inspect the property again and acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s concerns about the windows, extractor fan, or hallway plastering. These were reasonable steps because they demonstrated a willingness to learn and address the unresolved issues.
34. Although another inspection may have caused the resident further inconvenience, it was fair for the landlord to understand the property’s condition. It also showed it had considered its obligations under the tenancy agreement to maintain the structure, windows, walls, and electrical installations in good repair.
35. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation by way of an apology for its failings. This was consistent with its Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance and reflective of its poor communication and overall delays.
36. After issuing its response, the landlord did not keep to its commitment to update the resident every 5 working days. This likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of her concerns. Two weeks later, it arranged an inspection with the resident for 4 August 2025.
37. The evidence shows that the resident asked to rearrange the appointment for personal reasons, postponing it until 15 October 2025.This3-monthinspection delay was outside both parties’ control. During the inspection, the landlord recorded the bathroom and bedroom windows needed repairing. It had already repaired the living room window in September 2025. It also reported the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working, and the hallway needed to be plastered.
38. On 3 December 2025, the landlord repaired the fan and windows. This took 48 days from the October inspection, slightly exceeding the 45-day timeframe in its 2025 Repairs Policy. It plastered and painted the hallway on 12 January 2026, 88 days after the inspection, which exceeded the allowed timeframes. The resident disagrees that the landlord has addressed the bathroom window and says she has not received a clear outcome on whether it needed replacing.
39. Where the landlord admits its failings, we consider whether the landlord’s redress put things right. We also consider if the redress was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
40. In this case, the landlord also apologised, completed repairs, and offered the resident a total of £525 compensation across all of the complaints. This reflected the missed appointments, delays, and poor communication. The amount broadly aligns with our remedies guidance and its Compensation Policy, which suggest payments between £100 and £600 for significant impact. These actions were reasonable and went some way toward putting things right.
41. However, the landlord did not show learning from earlier complaints as delays continued. It failed to provide a clear response about the bathroom window, extractor fan, or hallway plastering. Its repairs oversight was poor, and it did not deliver on its commitments to see the repairs through to completion. The resident’s confidence in the landlord was repeatedly undermined, even after its final response.
42. The remedies it offered to the resident in its final complaint response may have been fair had it then completed the work in a reasonable timeframe. However, the repairs remained outstanding for almost 3 months after the October 2025 inspection. While it reported it repaired the windows, it did not provide a clear response to whether they required replacing. The resident disagrees that the bathroom window has been adequately repaired and still needs replacing. The landlord’s compensation does not fully reflect the increased frustration, distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced by the repairs being further delayed.
43. These failures caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, and loss of trust. We have made a further order of £150 compensation in line with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

44. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. Both the 2022 and 2024 Codes are relevant in this case. Our findings are:
45. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales. Its Compensation policy allowed payments for failure to follow its complaint policy or procedure.
46. The resident submitted 3 complaints between February 2024 and June 2025.
47. On 28 February 2024 the resident logged complaint 1. The landlord acknowledged it on 4 March 2024 and responded on 12 March 2024. These timeframes met its policy and the Code, which require acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a response within 10 working days.
48. On 28 March 2024 the resident asked to escalate complaint 1. She contacted the landlord again on 7 May 2024.
49. On 7 May 2024 the landlord raised complaint 2 and acknowledged it 16 working days later on 30 May 2024. This was not appropriate as the resident’s escalation reasons included matters that the landlord investigated at stage 1. This caused frustration and confusion as her concerns were not being fully addressed. For this reason, the decision not to escalate the complaint was unreasonable and not in line with the Code.
50. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to log the new concerns as complaint 2. This approach was consistent with the Code, which allows landlords to open a complaint when new issues arise.
51. The landlord’s acknowledgement of complaint 2 was also outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. The delay would have left the resident uncertain as to whether she would receive a response to her complaint.
52. On 10 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for complaint 2. This was 7 days after it acknowledged the complaint and met the 10-working day timeframe in its policy and The Code.
53. The resident asked to escalate complaint 2 on 3 occasions between 12 and 18 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 19 June 2024, which was outside of the required timeframe. Failing to acknowledge the initial request caused the resident time and effort as she had to contact it several times.
54. On 10 July 2024 the landlord asked to extend the deadline for complaint 2. The Code allows extensions of up to 20 working days, but only with a clear and valid reason. In this case, the landlord did not provide one. This was not reasonable and left the resident uncertain as to when she would receive its response.
55. On 19 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 2, 29 working days after its extension request. This exceeded the 20-day extension period set out in the Code and its policy. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay and poor communication. It offered the resident £200 compensation for its delay in acknowledging and responding to complaint 2.
56. This landlord’s offer was consistent with the landlord’s higher compensation band set out in its policy. This suggests a payment between £151 and £250 where there have been delays, difficulties raising the complaint, and poor communication. This was proportionate with the failings that we have identified and is reasonable financial redress.
57. On 21 August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint 1. On 31 August 2024 the landlord said it would investigate her concerns. However, it did not contact her or escalate the complaint. This was not consistent with its policy or the Code, which requires landlords to give a clear reason when refusing an escalation request. The lack of explanation added to the resident’s frustration.
58. On 28 March, 4 June and 6 June 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her concerns. This caused her time and inconvenience. It is unclear why the landlord did not escalate her complaint.
59. On 6 June 2025 the landlord raised complaint 3 following the resident’s earlier contact. It acknowledged this on 12 June 2025 and responded on 25 June 2025. This met the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
60. In its response, the landlord said it could not investigate the complaint as it had already done so in complaints 1 and 2. This was consistent with its policy, which says it will not investigate complaints that have been dealt with. While complaint 1 had not exhausted the complaint procedure as the landlord had not issued its stage 2 response, it was due to do so. Therefore, its response was reasonable and appropriate.
61. On 1 July 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 response for complaint 1. It said it had reviewed the 3 complaints. It acknowledged and apologised for its confusing complaint handling, and crossover of complaints. It offered the resident a further £100 to acknowledge this. This was a reasonable amount and consistent with its Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance.
62. The landlord’s complaint handling, when considered as a whole, amounted to maladministration. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered a total of £300 compensation.

Learning

63. The landlord’s oversight of the repairs could have been stronger. Repairs took several months to be completed. Proactive communication when problems arise shows accountability and reassures residents issues are taken seriously. Regular updates help manage expectations and reduce complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

64. The landlord’s stock condition survey lacked additional notes and did not specify what repairs had been identified. Where information available to the landlord differs to the resident’s understanding of repairs needed, it should take steps to address the gaps in information. This helps restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
65. The landlord should maintain accurate and clear records of the outcome of all repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

66. The landlord did not appear to fully understand all of the resident’s concerns about repairs identified during the survey. This led to misunderstandings and delays. Taking time to speak with residents to understand and confirm all of their concerns helps ensure clarity and shows them that they are being taken seriously.