Sanctuary Housing Association (202412363)

Decision
Case ID	202412363
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a one-bedroom flat in a block. He had mobility issues and a physical health condition as well as mental health issues. He told the landlord his housing situation including noise affected his mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about: ·
   1. antisocial behaviour by his neighbour. ·
   2. the position of his gas meter.
   3. the resident’s request to move.
   4. the condition of the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration for the following complaints:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour by his neighbour. ·
   2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the position of his gas meter.
5. We found maladministration for the following complaints:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
   2. the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. We found the complaint about the condition of the property to be outside our jurisdiction.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. While there was an initial delay, the landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
8. The landlord’s decision to refer the resident to his energy supplier in relation to his gas meter was reasonable.
9. Given the landlord was aware of the resident’s health issues and the condition of the property, it was insufficiently proactive in supporting the resident with a move.
10. While the complaint handling was otherwise reasonable, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 14 December 2023.

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 a total of £550 made up as follows: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to assist the resident with his application to transfer to another property. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint of 14 December 2023. £300 the sum already offered by the landlord in its complaint responses for its complaint handling if it has not been paid to the resident already. 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 07 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident and discuss whether he would like his medical issues and any request for reasonable adjustments recorded centrally.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 December 2023	The resident’s first complaint: He had experienced disruption due to “unbearable noise, threats, and a general sense of insecurity” by neighbouring occupiers of a sub-let property. The original tenants had returned and were also noisy. He was living away from his home as a result. The landlord had not taken action.
22 June 2024	The resident’s second complaint: His health had deteriorated significantly due to “intolerable living conditions”. There was noise from one neighbour who was subletting and overcrowded and littering. He did not complete a noise diary because he stayed away from the property due to the conditions. He was unable to access the gas meter. He wanted to move as this property was unsuitable. He described the impact on his mental health.
25 October 2024	The landlord’s Stage 1 response: The resident’s allegations that his neighbour was subletting were not substantiated. The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets on 8 January 2024. It had not received them back from the resident. It signposted the resident to the council’s noise team. It had investigated a foul smell from another neighbours’ property but there was none. The resident had made an application to transfer to another property. It referred his request to move the gas meter to the utility provider. It offered £200 for the delay in replying to his complaint consisting of £150 for the delay and £50 for his time, trouble and inconvenience.
4 December 2024	The resident’s request to escalate the complaint: He was unhappy at the delay. He had reported his poor mental health to his housing officer om several occasions. He found the landlord’s statement there was no smell questionable.
24 January 2025	The landlord’s Stage 2 response: It had tried to contact the resident on 7 February 2024 after sending him the diary sheets. The “alleged” perpetrator had since moved away. The resident needed to contact the utility provider regarding the gas meter as it was their property not the landlord’s. The resident had not stated why the property was unsuitable. It suggested the resident contact his doctor or request Occupational Therapist (OT) Assessment to support his application. It offered a further £100 for the delay in escalating his complaint. This meant that the total compensation for its complaint handling was £300.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told the landlord in reply to its Stage 2 response the following:  He had made many anonymous reports of sub-letting over 8 or 9 years. The placing of the gas meter was the landlord’s responsibility. The National Grid had referred the resident back to the landlord. He denied not having raised the unsuitability of his property in the past. He was not given any support in the transfer process. The compensation of £300 was inadequate.

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 the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

11. We cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure
12. The resident had been making reports about the condition of the property since 2020. On 16 October 2024 solicitors for the resident sent the landlord a pre-action protocol letter regarding the repair and defects. In November 2024 the parties sent their respective expert surveyor reports. On 8 January 2025 the landlord’s expert finalised its comments on a point-by-point list of issues in a form suitable for court proceedings (joint Scott Schedule). On 9 January 2025 the landlord stated it would carry out the repairs identified. The repairs required were extensive. We understand that, at the time of this investigation, the repairs remain outstanding.
13. The landlord told us on 4 November 2025 that there is an on-going discussion about how and when to carry out the repairs and a move to either temporary or permanent accommodation. It also told us that the resident’s solicitors have not issued proceedings. On 17 November 2025, the resident told us he believed his solicitors had issued proceedings. We do not dispute this but we have not seen a sealed Claim Form. Where proceedings have been issued, we must not investigate the complaint. That would include any associated complaint handling.
14. If proceedings have not been issued, the resident’s solicitors are in a position to negotiate an out-of-court settlement based on their knowledge and working with their experts. If agreement cannot be reached, they can issue proceedings.
15. Given the advanced state of the legal case, we consider that the solicitors are best placed to progress repairs, negotiate with the landlord and assess compensation. This is because they will have a detailed knowledge of the circumstances, including the condition of the property, the parties’ relative positions and the level of any damages the case will merit. They will also act as advocate for the resident.
16. In the circumstances, we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court and, in our opinion, the complaint about the condition of the property falls outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour by his neighbour.
Finding	No maladministration

17. On 7 November 2023 the resident reported that his neighbour was subletting and the occupants were very noisy. When he tried to speak to them, he said that they were aggressive and swore a lot. There was an unreasonable delay before the landlord responded on 14 December 2023 following his making his first complaint. There was then a further delay until 2 January 2024 when the landlord opened a case, even taking into account the intervening festive period.
18. We note the resident stated he had made reports of subletting. While sub-letting in itself was for a matter for the landlord, the landlord should investigate if occupants for which the neighbour will be responsible was causing a nuisance.  However, we also noted the resident said his reports, prior to November 2023, had been made anonymously. We appreciate he did not wish to identify himself for fear of reprisals. However, this meant the landlord was unable to address the reports as anti-social behaviour impacting the resident.
19. On and after 2 January 2024 the landlord then took reasonable steps including as follows:
    1. It spoke to the resident on 2 January 2024 and sent him diary sheets to complete on 8 January 2024.
    2. It investigated the reported smell on 12 January 2024 and said it would visit the block once a month in any event.
    3. On 16 January 2024 it:
       1. sent the resident an agreed action plan. This included monitoring the neighbour for any subletting and visiting the property.
       2. It provided a link for the resident to apply for a transfer to another property.
       3. It wrote to the neighbour and tried to call both the resident and neighbour. It spoke to the neighbour on 12 January 2024. It tried to call the resident again on 23 January 2024.
       4. It concluded there was no evidence of subletting.
20. The resident did not make any further reports or send the landlord any diary sheets. He explained later he did not complete them because he was staying away from the property because of the noise. The landlord was not aware of the reasons for the resident staying away at the time. While the situation was distressing for the resident, it meant the landlord was unable to act without specific reports.  It was therefore reasonable that the landlord closed the file on 7 February 2024.
21. Once the resident raised the issues again in an email of 5 July 2024, explaining the impact of the noise levels on him and attaching his medical evidence, this would have been an opportunity for the landlord to consider noise mitigating measures. However the neighbour at that stage had been rehoused.
22. We find no maladministration in relation to this complaint. This is because the landlord took steps to address the resident’s reports but he did not respond, given he was not at the property. It was reasonable that, without further input from the resident, the landlord closed the case.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
Finding	Maladministration

23. We appreciate the landlord did not treat this aspect of the resident’s complaint as a complaint at Stage 1. However, he had asked to escalate the issue and we have therefore investigated the issue.
24. The landlord treated the resident’s complaint of 24 June 2024 about the unsuitability of the property as a request for a move. It reasonably provided the relevant information and he made a transfer application. There was no evidence of the resident raising the unsuitability of the property sooner than June 2024.
25. However. the resident explained in June and July 2024 that it was his lack of mobility that made the property unsuitable. He provided his medical information. In a letter dated 31 May 2024, one of the clinicians set out the resident’s state of mind and asked the landlord to support him.  However, the landlord gave little assistance even after the resident had set out his circumstances. Its Stage 1 response stated the landlord would supply supporting evidence to support his application. We did not see evidence that it did so.  The landlord was aware that the property was in a poor state of repair. It was also aware of his health conditions. The landlord should have assessed the suitability of the property, given the condition of the property and his health conditions.
26. While it was reasonable to signpost the resident to his doctor and Occupational Therapist (OT) Assessment, it did not do so until its Stage 2 response in January 2025.It should have addressed the issue outside of the complaints process. The issue should have been referred to his housing officer or the appropriate team. The landlord should have referred the resident for support and given him guidance sooner.
27. This was frustrating for the resident and gave the impression the landlord did not understand the resident’s circumstances and concerns.
28. Given the condition of the property, and the resident’s ill health, we consider the landlord should have been proactive in supporting the resident’s application. In the circumstances, we find maladministration for this complaint.
29. We noted that the landlord had not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident although he had reported a number of issues in relation to his mobility and mental health. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident in order to discuss recording these in its central records so that they can be taken into account.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the position of his gas meter.
Finding	No maladministration

30. The gas meter was inconveniently placed for the resident given his disabilities. However the landlord’s explanation that he would have to contact his utility provider to move it was correct because the meter was the property of the relevant utility company. In any event, moving the meter would need specialist knowledge. It is unlawful for an unauthorised person to move a meter. There are a few accredited companies that may be able move meters but it is not something the landlord would be able to do.
31. Given the resident’s mobility issues, there was no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, whether the resident was disabled under the act and whether arranging this work would be as a reasonable adjustment. However, this was also something the resident would have been able to arrange with the relevant energy company himself.
32. We do not find maladministration for this complaint. This is because the landlord was right to refer the resident to the supplier.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

33. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its responses to the resident’s complaint of June 2024 and his subsequent request to escalate it. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint of 14 December 2023 at all. This was unreasonable as it increased the frustration for the resident and was a breach of its own policy as well as our complaint handling code. It deprived the resident of the opportunity of making a complaint at that time. We therefore find maladministration with how the landlord handled the complaint and will make an order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident.
34. The complaint responses otherwise addressed the resident’s issues.

Learning

35. We identified the following learning from our investigation:
    1. The landlord should consider, where a resident has reported they have disabilities, whether it had any duties under the Equality Act 2010 or at the very least whether they can provide assistance given the resident’s vulnerabilities. This may include guidance, practical support and/or signposting to relevant agencies that can assist including the local authority.
    2. The landlord should ensure that it responds to resident’s complaints in accordance with its policy and our Scheme.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. We did not identify any issues in the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

37. While we note the landlord communicated with mental health services on the resident’s behalf, its overall communication with the landlord lacked empathy and understanding of the resident’s situation, given his health issues.