Sanctuary Housing Association (202337231)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337231

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 July 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:
    1. A garage door repair.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. As per the tenancy agreement the property includes a garage for which the resident pays service charges. Both the resident and her husband were involved in the complaint correspondence with this Service and the landlord. However, for the purpose of the report and ease of reference we have used the pronouns “she”, “her” in this report.
  2. On 25 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her garage had been broken into. On the same day, a contractor carried out a temporary repair to secure the garage and allow the resident to have some access to it.
  3. On 28 September 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the garage was not as secure as it had been previously. The contractor submitted a quotation for a replacement door for approval. On 29 September 2023, the resident requested an alternative garage and the landlord responded it would consider any available.
  4. On 2 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had not received any update regarding the garage repair. Furthermore, she also raised concerns about water ingress and damp potentially caused by holes in the exterior garage walls following insulation works.
  5. On 12 November 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied about the ongoing delay in repairing the garage door and remedial work of the holes caused by insulation works, which she had reported in June 2023. She also explained that she was still paying rent for the garage and the length of delay impacted her mental health.
  6. Due to not receiving a response, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 8 December 2023. On 22 January 2024, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as she had not yet received a response to the escalation and we followed up with the landlord on 21 March 2024.
  7. On 25 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it could not consider the cavity insulation repairs to the garage because the work to insulate the wall had been completed more than 6 months ago. Furthermore, it acknowledged the delay in repairing the garage door and complaint handling, and its communication failures. It explained that it would arrange for an alternative garage and offered £737 compensation (£400 for the time trouble and inconvenience caused and poor communication, £200 for complaint handling failures at stage 1 and 2 and £137 partial rent refund).
  8. On 4 April 2024, the resident declined the offer of the alternative garage as it was not secure and too far from her property. Thereafter, the landlord considered other potential garages. The resident was dissatisfied with the continued delay and submitted a further complaint on 10 May 2024. On 29 May 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 response and acknowledged the further inconvenience. It reimbursed full service charges from September 2023 to April 2024 for the sum of £318 and offered £75 compensation in recognition of time trouble and inconvenience.
  9. On 10 June 2024, the landlord replaced the garage door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about how the delay in the repair of the garage door impacted her and her husband’s mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her or her husband’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.

  1. The tenancy agreement stated that the property included the garage, and that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, outside walls, outside doors, and window frames. It is not disputed that the garage repair was the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure stated that emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours. The landlord recognised the resident’s report as an emergency and responded on the same day to carry out a temporary repair to secure the garage. This was appropriate given the garage had been broken into and it demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously.
  3. The garage door was damaged and its full repair took 9 months to complete (from September 2023 until June 2024). This exceeded what would reasonably be considered an acceptable timeframe. There were delays in approving the initial quote and alternative repairs were considered. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explore cost-effective options, the overall delay was excessive and it failed to consider the impact on the resident. During the 9 month delay, the resident was inconvenienced by having limited access to the garage and her personal belongings were left unsecure and it had repeated contact with the landlord.
  4. When the landlord realised it could not meet the expected timeframes, it should have maintained effective communication with the resident. However, there was no evidence of the landlord’s proactive contact. In contrast the resident had to chase proactively and raise a complaint. The landlord took 5 months to approve the repair, and further 4 months to complete it from the date (in September 2023) its operative noted a door replacement was required.
  5. Additionally, the landlord took 7 months to conclude discussions for an alternative garage, and rent pause and refund was considered in March and April 2024. There was evidence that the resident repeatedly chased the landlord without receiving timely responses or resolutions.
  6. The landlord should have been aware that the delays in cost approval and repair would likely take time. It therefore should have developed an adequate plan to manage the situation and the resident’s expectations. This could have included options such as storage space for belongings, an alternative garage, a rent pause or communication updates. It failed to do so.
  7. There was no evidence that the landlord offered proactive support but instead it responded only when the resident chased it. For example if a suitable replacement garage was not available, it should have explained the situation to the resident and paused the rent until a solution was in place. This would have managed the resident’s expectations better and may have avoided the distress and inconvenience caused. However, we have not seen evidence of such appropriate communication with the resident.
  8. On 25 March 2024, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the delay in repairing the garage door and lack of communication fell below the standard it expected customers to receive. It explained the approval process and the conflicting information about the availability of alternative garages contributed to the delay. It confirmed that a suitable alternative garage was available and it would arrange the transfer. While delayed, these were all reasonable steps to acknowledge its failures and continue seeking resolution. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer further compensation to a total of £537 (including the partial reimbursement of service changes of £137) during its complaints process for the repair failures.
  9. On 4 April 2024, the resident declined the offer of the alternative garage because it was not secure and too far from her property. The landlord continued to consider other options which was reasonable and demonstrated a customer orientated approach. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the continued delay and submitted a further complaint. The landlord’s further response on 29 May 2024 appropriately acknowledged the continued inconvenience. It reimbursed fully the service charges from September 2023 to April 2024, which was a further appropriate step to take despite being delayed. It also offered additional £75 compensation in recognition of time trouble and inconvenience.
  10. As such the landlord’s total compensation offer was £793, which includes the £400 offered at stage 2 for its repairs handling failure, £75 offered in its further response from May 2024 and £318 service charge reimbursement.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to complete repair works within a reasonable timeframe and failed to maintain effective communication with the resident or implement any meaningful interim measures. The resident had to raise a further complaint which caused additional inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord acknowledges all the failures and delays identified in this report during its complaints process. In its response from May 2024 it acknowledged the additional inconvenience caused by its further delays and offered compensation for this.
  12. The total compensation offer of £793 (£475 towards the repairs failures and £318 service charges reimbursement) was proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Furthermore, this level of compensation is the higher end of administration as per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have therefore found that the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it must respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed at any stage, the landlord must inform the resident. The landlord will not consider under its complaints process issues that occurred more than six months ago, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken.
  2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, which the resident submitted on 12 November 2023. On 23 November 2023, the landlord provided an update that it needed more time, until 7 December 2023. However, it failed to send the response and therefore the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 8 December 2023. After not receiving a reply, the resident contacted the Service on 22 January 2024, 48 working days since the complaint was submitted. It was not reasonable that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord and seek this Service’s assistance. The landlord should have responded in line with its policy to make sure 2 stage fair process was provided for the resident.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 6 February 2024 and explained that a response would be sent in 30 working days. It explained that it was sorry to hear that the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This was incorrect as no stage 1 response was provided. Additionally, the response timeframe mentioned was not in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy for stage 2 response (20 working days).
  4. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 25 March 2024, in 74 days and this was almost 4 times the target. As such, the overall complaint handling took for over 4 months despite the resident’s follow-ups and the Service’s involvement. In its response the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and that the resident’s request for escalation was not actioned until 5 February 2024. It offered £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures at stage 1 and 2. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer proportionate compensation.
  5. The resident also complained about repairs to the garage’s exterior. Cavity insulation was completed in early 2022 and the resident stated she had noticed holes in the walls and reported them in June 2023 as she had concerns that this could cause water ingress and damp. In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the remedial work had been undertaken in January 2024. And this was no longer an issue as the holes did not cause a water ingress. However, the landlord stated it did not consider this element of the complaint citing its 6-month rule despite providing an overview of completed works.
  6. This was unreasonable as the resident identified the holes some time after the installation and stated she had reported them in June 2023. We have not seen further evidence in relation to this concerns but she raised her complaint in November 2023 which was within the 6 months period. The landlord should have considered her initial complaint, investigated this and provided a response. The landlord did not appropriately apply its discretion in this case. Furthermore, the resident advised the Service at the time of bringing her complaint that there were some outstanding repairs left. The landlord is ordered to discuss with the resident whether repairs are needed and whether she wants to raise a complaint about its handling of this.
  7. In summary, the landlord acknowledged some of the failures identified in this report and put things right in relation to the lack of stage 1 response and delays in the complaint handling. However, it failed to address all the points of the complaint fully and as such it did not provide a comprehensive response to the resident’s cavity wall concerns. We have therefore found service failure in its complaint handling.
  8. The timescale of 6 moths for considering complaints set out in the landlord’s corporate complaints policy and procedure at the time was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Prior to April 2024 and when this policy was in place, the Code was not a statutory requirement. Furthermore, the landlord has already updated its new complaints policy now to include complaints made within 12 months of the issue arising will be considered as set out in the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which resolves the complaint about the handling of repairs to a balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report related to its complaint handling.
    2. Pays £250 compensation (including the £200 offered during the landlord’s complaint process if not paid already) in recognition of the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Contact the resident and discuss whether further repairs to the cavity insulation should be arranged. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s action she may wish to raise a new complaint.
    4. Contact the Service and provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays to the resident £793 compensation (if not paid already)  offered before this investigation for its handling of the garage door repair.