Sanctuary Housing Association (202406879)

Decision
Case ID	202406879
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from their neighbour. They also said that their boiler was not working properly as its pipe was screwed to the wall, that they were unhappy with the communal areas of the estate and had not received a response to their Right to Buy enquiry. They were unsatisfied with the landlord’s response about these issues and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Reports to repair the boiler.
3. Reports to maintain the communal areas.
4. Right to buy enquiry.
5. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the communal area.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the right to buy enquiry.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

It had taken multiple reports of ASB, a complaint being made, and the escalation of the issue before the landlord risk assessed it. It had also not risk assessed the issue at significant milestones. It had not clearly set out and shared an action plan with the resident, provided evidence gathering tools from the outset, and it had not proactively contacted the resident about the issue. It had not set out what other tools it could use in line with its policy to mitigate the issue. This could have been mediation, signposting the resident to support, warnings, and acceptable behaviour contracts.

Reports to repair the boiler

The landlord had taken over a year to complete a boiler repair that should have been finished within 45 days as per its repair policy. It did not keep the resident updated despite repeated chases, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. It had recognised the delay, apologised, and offered compensation. However, it did not set out the reasons for the delay or its learnings to prevent it happening again in the future.

Reports to maintain the communal areas

The landlord had taken 6 months to respond to concerns about the communal areas and had not confirmed whether the redecoration request had been approved. Although it fitted a lock to the bin area and carried out maintenance, it did not address all issues raised or recognise these failings in its complaint response.

Right to buy enquiry

The landlord had not kept clear records of the resident’s Right to Buy enquiry, and it took around 4 months to respond. The resident had to chase for updates, and the landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint response.

Complaint

The landlord had not acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales required by its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The delay at both stages prevented the resident from receiving a timely outcome. It apologised and offered compensation. However, it did not set out the reasons for the delay or its learnings to prevent it happening again in the future.

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 20 January 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £1,300 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of ASB £300 as offered in its complaint response for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports to repair the boiler £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports about the communal areas £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the Right to Buy enquiry £250 as offered in its complaint response for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 January 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident about their reports of ASB. It then must consider its ASB policy and set out in writing to the resident the next steps, including an action plan and signposting the resident to support. The landlord must provide us with a copy of this.	No later than 20 January 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident with an update about their request for communal areas to be redecorated in line with its estate management policy.	No later than 20 January 2026
5	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 20 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 January 2024 to 3 February 2025	The resident reported ASB from their neighbour, including disorderly behaviour, allegedly taking drugs, causing noise and mess to communal areas. They reported their boiler had a screw through part of the pipe, that the communal door was broken and they were unhappy with the upkeep of the communal areas. They also asked the landlord whether they could use the Right to Buy scheme.
13 March 2025	The resident complained that they had made multiple reports of ASB, had enquired about the Right to Buy scheme, and made reports to repair their boiler pipe and remedy the condition of communal areas. However, they said the landlord had not acted on these reports and enquiries.
14 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response about the condition of the communal bin area, fly-tipping, other people using their parking bay, damage to the communal door and the resident’s reports of ASB. It offered £50 for the delay in handling the complaint and £150 for the failure to respond to several of the resident’s communications.
21 June 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord had taken no meaningful action about their reports of ASB.
24 June 2025	The landlord sent a revised stage 1 response about the ASB, repair to the communal doors, the condition of the communal bin area, repair to the resident’s boiler pipe, incomplete records of the resident’s contact, and the Right to Buy enquiry. It apologised and offered £50 for the delay in handling the complaint. It also offered £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of repairs to the boiler pipe and failure to respond to several of the resident’s communications. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day.
1 August 2025	The landlord set out an extension to respond to the complaint.
14 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response about the ASB, repair to the communal doors, the condition of the bin area, upkeep of the communal areas, repair to the boiler pipe, incomplete records of the resident’s contact, and the Right to Buy enquiry. It apologised and offered: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of repairs to the boiler pipe, delays to address ASB and failure to respond to several of the resident’s communications £250 for the delay handling the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us. They wanted the landlord to pay compensation and provide support in regard to their reports of ASB.

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	Report of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord arranged to visit the resident about their reports of drug use, noise, and communal doors being broken. However, this was 6 months after the resident reported these issues. This delay was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy to risk assess the issue and interview the resident within 1 to 5 working days. It left them without assurance as to whether their reports were being investigated.
The landlord said that it would visit the resident’s neighbour about the issues raised. It referred the resident to a noise app to keep record of further ASB, that it would visit the neighbour about the issue, and would send a newsletter to all residents about noise. These steps were appropriate to gather evidence of the ASB and to set out ways to attempt to alleviate the issue. However, there is no evidence to show when the newsletter was sent to all residents. This is a failure of its record keeping and had made it difficult to assess the landlord’s actions.
The landlord contacted the resident about the ASB 3 months later, where they confirmed the noise had reduced. It was appropriate to check with the resident about the issue. However, it did not keep to the timescales set out in its ASB policy to keep contact with the resident fortnightly or monthly. This was inappropriate.
A month later the resident reported that they felt unsafe as the communal door was kicked and the handle was damaged. The landlord inspected the issue the next day, repaired it and recommended changing the door to a fob system. It was appropriate to secure the door handle in a day, in line with the emergency timeframes set out in its repair policy. However, there is no evidence it assessed the risk of the report of ASB. This was inappropriate.
The resident reported further ASB including that their neighbour and their visitors were allegedly taking drugs and leaving rubbish in outdoor spaces. They requested additional CCTV for the communal areas. The landlord spoke to the resident about the issue on the same day, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The resident chased the landlord about their report of ASB and a few months later raised a complaint about it. There was no evidence the landlord had kept the resident updated fortnightly or monthly, set out an action plan or what tools it would use to gather evidence and mitigate the issue. This was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy. The delay, lack of tools in attempt to remedy the issue and its lack of communication was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy.
A week later the resident reported a physical altercation between them and their neighbour’s visitor, which was reported to the police. The landlord risk assessed the issue, responded to the resident within a day, provided diary sheets and a noise app, and requested the police crime reference number. It also set out it would look to provide added CCTV cameras as a deterrent of ASB. The landlord then interviewed the neighbour about the report of ASB and contacted the police about the issue.
The landlord said it would consider the outcome of the police investigation to determine appropriate next steps, including a possible tenancy breach. The landlord provided a link to the resident to request a case review and agreed to give the resident monthly updates on their ASB reports.
These steps were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy to take a multiagency approach with the police, gather information about the report, and take steps to manage and alleviate the issue.
The resident requested to move due to the ASB. However, there is no evidence the landlord responded to them in line with its ASB policy. This sets out an immediate response should be provided to the resident where the police support a managed move, and the landlord should signpost the resident to emergency accommodation. It was inappropriate not to consider this as part of the multiagency approach it had taken and respond to the residents enquiry.
The resident reported further ASB. They said someone had been hurt by a knife and the police arrived to confiscate it. There is no evidence the landlord risk assessed this which was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy. It had responded to the resident to discuss the report, which was appropriate.
The resident reported further ASB in the communal areas and raised concern that the CCTV was positioned at the communal bin, but not towards other key areas to monitor ASB, such as the car park and communal entrance. They also reported that their neighbour was parking in their space.
The landlord said it had installed additional CCTV and checked the cameras were positioned correctly. It also said to the resident it would arrange to speak with the neighbour about the parking space. It was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy to respond to the resident’s concerns and set out what it would do in attempt to resolve the issue.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised it had not communicated appropriately with the resident throughout their reports of ASB and its record keeping failure. However, it had not recognised the issues set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord said it had offered compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of repairs to the boiler pipe, delays to address ASB and failure to respond to several of the resident’s communications. However, it had not set out what part of the compensation was for the repair, and what part was for the ASB. We have considered that the compensation was apportioned evenly at £300 for each issue.
The compensation the landlord offered was not in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy for the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and the impact the landlord’s delay had on them.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This includes getting an updated position on the resident’s reports of ASB, providing a response and action plan in line with its ASB policy, and signposting the resident to support. We have also ordered it pays compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to them, in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Repairs to the boiler
Finding	Service failure

The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord was responsible for the supply of, gas, water, heat and hot water.
The resident reported low pressure from their boiler on 7 February 2024. The landlord sent a contractor 33 days later that found the boiler pipe had been screwed to the wall which caused a “slight” leak that needed to be fixed. It also needed to repair subsequent damage to the boiler cupboard. The resident chased the landlord about the repair 49 days later, continued to chase it thereafter and raised their complaint about it. The landlord said the repairs were completed on 4 April 2025 and provided evidence of an invoice for the repairs on 11 April 2025.
There had been a significant delay of over a year since the resident reported the issue, and the landlord had not proactively kept the resident updated in that time. This was inappropriate and not in line with its repair policy to complete repairs within 45 days. It caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to endure the issue and chase the landlord about it until the repair was completed.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised the delay to repair the boiler and that it had not communicated appropriately with the resident throughout. As set out previously in this report, we have considered that the compensation offered in the complaint response of £600 was apportioned evenly at £300 for ASB and the repair to the boiler.
The landlord apologised to the resident for its handling of the repair to the boiler. Its offer of compensation could be said to go some way to address the issue. This offer of £300 was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. However, it did not recognise learnings from this and what it would do to prevent the same issue happening again in the future. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, and this has been set out under the Summary of Reasons section of this report.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This includes setting out its learnings from the issue to prevent it happening again in the future, and that the compensation offered to the resident in the complaint response has been paid to them.

Complaint	The communal area
Finding	Service failure

The tenancy confirms the landlord will maintain communal areas. Its estate management plan refers to a rota that the landlord uses to maintain communal areas, and it sets out that additional work that may be needed to communal areas needs approval.
The resident raised concerns about the communal parts of the building and outside areas. This included that a previous tenant damaged the hallway carpet, the bin area was untidy, that the landlord verbally told them it would redecorate the communal areas, they thought cyclical repairs to communal areas would happen every 6 years, and bulky items were left in the communal bin area. They said that the general cleaning, grass cutting, and window cleaning was not taking place as often as it used to.
The landlord had not initially responded to the report of the bin area, but after the resident raised it again 6 months later, along with their other concerns, it responded within 5 days on 24 June 2024. It said it would fit a lock for the bin area to minimise it being used by others and prevent it being kept in poor condition. It also said it would request if redecoration of the communal areas could take place and it would send a letter to residents about the use of the bin area. What it had set out to do was reasonable in an attempt to improve the communal areas. However, the delay to respond was unreasonable.
The landlord confirmed a month later that it had fitted a lock to the bin area, and it had cut back a bush in the communal grounds. The resident intermittently raised concern about redecoration of the communal areas. The tenancy agreement and estate management policy does not set out a timeframe to complete cyclical repairs. However, it had not responded to the resident as to whether the request for redecoration was approved, or not. This was inappropriate and not in line with its estate management policy that sets out requests for communal areas needs approval first.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised it had generally delayed responding to the resident and that redecoration requests were considered in line with its budget. However, it had not recognised all the issues set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This includes an update for the resident in regard to their request for communal areas to be redecorated, an apology and compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	Right to buy enquiry
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s website sets out it would respond to Right to Buy applications within 4 weeks.
The exact date that the resident enquired or applied for Right to Buy is unclear. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping. However, the landlord said that the resident contacted them about it around November 2024.
The resident chased the landlord for a response in January 2025. The landlord replied that it would respond within 4 weeks of the request being raised. It was 3 months later that the landlord responded to the resident and explained why they were not eligible for the Right to Buy scheme but may be eligible for the Right to Acquire scheme. The delay to provide an answer to the resident was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised it had generally delayed responding to the resident. However, it had not recognised the issues set out under the Summary of Reasons section of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This includes an apology and compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Code. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. The resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive a formal response within 20 working days.
The landlord had not acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days which delayed the timeframe to respond. It then sent the stage 1 response 11 working days late. This was inappropriate and not in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
The resident contacted us and we in turn contacted the landlord about the complaint. It sent a revised stage 1 response on 21 June 2025 which answered additional points raised by the resident. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 which the landlord did not acknowledge within 5 working days. This delayed the overall timeframe for it to respond to the complaint. It set out to the resident it needed an extension, and it would respond by 29 August 2025. It provided its stage 2 response by 14 August 2025.
It was reasonable for the landlord to set out an extension to respond to the complaint. However, at both stages it had delayed acknowledging the complaint and providing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, which prevented the resident from receiving an answer to their complaint sooner and within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and the Code. This was inappropriate.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised the delay responding to the complaint, apologised, and offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. However, it did not recognise learnings from this and what it would do to prevent the same issue happening again in the future. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles and has been set out under the Summary of Reasons section of this report.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. This includes paying the compensation it offered in its complaint response, and setting out lessons learnt to the resident to prevent this happening again.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord had not provided evidence of all records, such as when the resident raised their Right to Buy enquiry. The landlord also acknowledged it had not kept proper records. This, at times, impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident about their reports and keep them updated when there were delays, which likely contributed to their distress when expecting responses to their reports.