Sanctuary Housing Association (202516965)

Background

1. The resident has reported a number of repairs to his home, including water ingress through his external doors. He is unhappy that repairs remain outstanding despite the landlord’s commitment to complete them. The resident has hearing and mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

5. The landlord failed to carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales and the key issue remains outstanding more than a year after the resident raised it. While it recognised its failings during its internal complaints processes, it repeatedly failed to follow through with the commitments it made.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s first complaint, incorrectly raising a new complaint instead. It did not send the subsequent stage 1 within a reasonable timescale and failed to recognise this in its response.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. In April 2025 the resident told the landlord he had slipped over due to the overflowing guttering and injured himself. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We will consider whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Repairs

8. The resident raised an issue with blocked guttering on 21 September 2023. The landlord initially scheduled an appointment for 18 November 2023 but had to reschedule this for 3 January 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete appointed repairs within 28 days for vulnerable residents, so it did not complete this repair completed in line with its policy.
9. The resident told the landlord on 1 October 2024 that the gutters were again blocked, causing water ingress through his external doors. In its stage 1 response of 8 November 2024, the landlord did recognise that it had previously failed to meet its repairs timescale. However, it said this timescale was 45 days, not recognising the resident’s vulnerabilities, and its duty to vulnerable customers under its policy. It offered the resident £25 for the previous delayed repair, which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
10. The landlord said it had a job open with a target completion date of 28 November 2024. It had also raised a job on 9 October 2024 for the external doors. Its contractor attended on 23 October 2024 and raised a job to inspect the gully, which it had scheduled for 18 November 2024. It noted that it had raised an issue with windows which the resident had not previously raised, and it had raised a new repair for this.
11. The landlord attended the property on 28 November 2024 as agreed and found that it needed to clear the roof and gutters of moss. It raised an appointment for 17 February 2025, which was not in line with its policy timescale.
12. On 9 December 2024 the resident told the landlord he suspected there was a leak from the chimney. In its second stage 1 response of 13 January 2025, it said that while it had initially raised a job, it had cancelled it and its records did not show why. This was not appropriate and indicates a problem with the landlord’s record keeping. It said that it had scheduled an appointment for the windows for 20 February 2025. It acknowledged this was outside its policy timescale and apologised for this.
13. It offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise the delays relating to the gutters and window inspection. This offer was reasonable and proportionate for these issues at that time. The landlord said it had now arranged to inspect his external doors but did not provide a date for this. It did not explain why it had not addressed this in its previous stage 1 or apologise for not raising this inspection earlier, which was not appropriate.
14. The landlord inspected the chimney on 11 February 2025. It found that it was in a bad state of repair, and needed to be taken down and rebuilt, as well as needing work to the pointing and renewed lead flashing. It found that the roof tiles were mossy and water ingress was damaging roof joists. The landlord’s internal communications show that on 13 March 2025 it discussed approval for major works. It is not clear why it took over a month to request this, which was an unreasonable delay.
15. In its stage 2 response of 13 March 2025, the landlord said that it had twice had to rearrange the guttering appointment from 17 February 2025 to 2 May 2025. This led to an unreasonable delay, given that the resident raised this issue in October 2024. It said it was awaiting approval for the chimney repairs. Its operatives had attended on 20 February 2025 to inspect the windows and it had booked repairs for 28 May 2025, which it said was its earliest availability.
16. The landlord said it had sent the request for an inspection of the external doors to the wrong and team and had failed to follow up on this. It apologised for its poor communication and increased its offer of compensation from stage 1 to £600 to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by repair delays. This offer was reasonable, in line with its compensation policy.
17. The landlord received a quote for chimney repairs on 18 March 2025 but did not deem this value for money and it told the resident on 28 March 2025 that it would be obtaining further quotes. Its internal notes of 29 May 2025 said that it had not yet received the quotes and had chased them up.
18. The landlord cleared the moss from the roof and gutters on 20 May 2025, as well as adjusting the guttering. The resident asked the landlord to reschedule the window appointment for 28 May 2025 as he was unwell, which was outside of the landlord’s control. It rescheduled this for 25 July 2025 but cancelled it the day before as it required 2 operatives and it had only booked for one. This was not appropriate and the landlord should have booked the correct appointment.
19. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the external doors on 27 June 2025 but found no signs of water ingress. However, the resident has told us that it was dry at this time and there is no evidence of the landlord doing any additional investigation during or following wet conditions. So, the landlord did not fully inspect this issue to rule out a problem with the doors.
20. The resident was unhappy with a lack of updates and between April and July 2025 his local MP chased the landlord for further updates during this time. On 8 September 2025 he raised a new complaint as he was unhappy repairs were still outstanding. The landlord’s internal notes of 24 September 2025 said that it had done a full inspection in July 2025 and identified repairs that were required.
21. In its stage 1 response of 24 September 2025, the landlord acknowledged its record keeping and communication had been poor. It offered compensation of £250 to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its delays.
22. On 27 October 2025 the landlord’s contractor told it that it had carried out works to the guttering but there were still issues with it. In its stage 2 response of 12 November 2025, it said it was still looking into what new orders it needed to raise. It said it had replaced lead flashing to the chimney, but that it had not included repointing in the order. It had now raised an order for this, and for repairs to the loft A-frame and the lounge window.
23. The landlord said the resident had cancelled a job for the external doors in August 2025. However, we have seen no evidence of this. It said it was looking to get a second opinion on what work was needed. It offered the resident additional compensation of £750 and said it would inspect the internal damage once it had completed external repairs. These offers were reasonable, but it was not appropriate that the landlord did not set a clear plan for outstanding repairs.
24. On 26 November 2025, the landlord realised that due to an administrative error, it had not raised the works identified in July 2025, leading to further avoidable delays. It raised them that day and it expected to complete the work within 6 weeks.
25. On 8 December 2025 the resident spoke to the landlord and said the flashing it had used was not new and was now leaking. He said that there was further internal damage because of this. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 December 2025 to acknowledge that repairs were still outstanding and offered additional compensation of £200. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation to £1,825.
26. The landlord subsequently completed repairs on 23 January 2026 to the loft, guttering, tiles and windows. It said chimney repairs and replacement of internal doors was booked for 16 February 2026. However, the resident has told us the external doors are still allowing water in and the landlord has provided no evidence it has done any further inspections or work regarding this issue. It has also not confirmed that it intends to complete an inspection of any internal damage following the chimney repairs, as promised in its stage 2 response.
27. We have made our award of additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. While it has completed/booked in most of the repairs that were outstanding, it has failed to fully investigate and resolve the issue with water ingress through the external doors. This issue was the resident’s primary concern.

28. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s first complaint 4 working days after it was raised (23 October to 29 October 2024) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 8 working days after its acknowledgement (29 October to 8 November 2024) – within its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged his second complaint 3 working days after it was raised (25 November to 28 November 2024) – within its policy timescale
    4. when it needed more time to investigate, it updated the resident within 10 working days of the acknowledgement (28 November to 10 December 2024) – within its policy timescale
    5. it sent its stage 1 response 13 working days after it gave its update (23 December 2024 to 13 January 2025) – which was not in line with its policy timescales or its previous commitment
    6. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day – within its policy timescale
    7. it sent the resident an update 21 days after its escalation (21 January to 18 February 2025) – 1 day outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
    8. it sent its stage 2 response 18 working days after its update (18 February to 13 March 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days
    9. it acknowledged the resident’s third complaint 4 working days after he raised it (8 September to 11 September 2025) – within its policy timescale
    10. it sent its stage 1 response 10 working days after its acknowledgement (11 September to 24 September 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    11. it acknowledged his escalation request after 5 working days (29 September to 3 October 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    12. it sent the resident an update 20 working days later (3 October to 30 October 2025) – in line with its policy
    13. it sent its stage 2 response 9 working days later (30 October to 12 November 2025) – within its policy timescale
29. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s first complaint to stage 2 when he remained unhappy, rather than raising a new stage 1 complaint. Its failure to do this led to a delay in it providing him with a resolution. Overall, it sent most of its complaint responses within its policy timescales. However, it unreasonably delayed its stage 1 response to his second complaint without an update. It failed to acknowledge this delay in its response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it kept good repairs records. It is likely that this contributed to its failure to complete all repairs in line with its policy. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. While it has recognised and apologised for this during its internal complaints process, it has not shown that it has taken any steps to improve this. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

31. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication with the resident was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident, and his local MP, to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while repairs are ongoing.
32. The landlord’s records also do not demonstrate good communication with its contractors. It failed to follow up following inspections to ensure that the appropriate work orders had been raised. It should ensure it has clear communication channels with its contractors and keeps clear records of these communications.