Sanctuary Housing Association (202517455)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of multiple repairs in the property. These consisted of a roof leak, damp and mould, windows, and a damaged fence and gate. She raised health concerns during the complaints process and said her daughter was vulnerable.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of multiple repairs in the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of multiple repairs in the property.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

    Reports of multiple repairs in the property

4. The landlord failed to act in line with its repairs policy. It apologised and offered some redress but failed to complete all repairs or demonstrate any learning.

    The complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 did not investigate

6. The resident was concerned about the impact of damp and mould on her and her daughter’s health. She also said the situation caused stress and anxiety that affected her mental wellbeing. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident said she was reporting the roof leak, damp and mould for 2 years before she made her complaint on 19 May 2025. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen, or within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. These complaints were not bought to us at the time. We have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the complaint and the related responses. Any reference to previous events is for context only.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This indicates a record keeping failure. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.

Leaking roof

9. In March 2024 the resident reported a roof leak. The landlord’s records show it resolved this in July 2024. No further reports were made until December 2024, when it raised an inspection for January 2025. This was in line with its repairs policy timescale of 45 days. It identified further work was needed, but there is no evidence this took place.
10. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord asked its contractor to resend a roof repair quote. Notes show it declined this in January 2025 because another quote existed, but it could not locate this. This shows poor record keeping causing avoidable delays. It requested a new roof quote in August 2025, 7 months later, demonstrating poor repairs management.
11. The landlord’s complaint response offered the resident £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience but did not give any timescales for when the repairs would take place. This demonstrated poor communication. Following its response, it approved the works in October 2025 and scheduled the repair for 21 October 2025. It is unclear if this appointment went ahead. The contractor confirmed completion on 29 October 2025, over 9 months after the inspection. This is a breach of its repairs policy which aims to complete repairs within 45 days. The resident told us that the roof is still leaking.

Damp and Mould

12. On 29 July 2024 the resident reported damp, mould and water marks in a bedroom and upstairs hallway. The landlord booked an inspection for 1 August 2024. It failed to gain access and left a calling card asking her to rebook. There is no evidence she contacted the landlord or that it followed up, suggesting the repair was not actively managed. There is no record of further action until December 2024 when the landlord promised to redecorate once it had repaired the roof leak. The delay was unreasonable, however its action was appropriate in the circumstances.
13. The resident reported health concerns in her complaint saying her daughter could not sleep in the affected bedroom. In its stage 1 response it said its January 2025 inspection found no mould. Despite receiving new reports in May 2025, it did not reinspect until 88 days later in August 2025, exceeding its policy which aims to have repairs completed within 45 days. It found damp patches and water marks. It did not offer a dehumidifier as required in its damp, mould and condensation procedure. It failed to demonstrate that it considered her health concerns or any potential risks to health.
14. In its complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £735 compensation for the loss of the bedroom. Following this, it scheduled an appointment for the internal repairs, but the date was prior to the roof leak repair. This shows it failed to manage the sequence of repairs effectively. She raised this, but the contractor still attended. They were unable to complete the work as the leak continued. It arranged a new appointment for November 2025, but this was not completed due to needing “unforeseen additional materials”. It gave a further date in November 2025, a month after the roof repair. It is unclear if this took place, and the resident says that the repairs remain outstanding.

    Windows

15. It is unclear when the resident first reported problems with the windows. However, the landlord obtained quotes to replace them in in March 2024. It failed to progress the works until January 2025, 10 months later, when an inspection found condensation between the glass and failed seals.
16. The landlord received a new window quote in February 2025. The resident declined access for a second quote in March 2025, saying she was unaware of the appointment. It is unclear why a further quote was required or if the landlord had advised her of the appointment again demonstrating poor record keeping. It did not follow up, and records show it cancelled the job in April 2025. It did not tell her about the cancellation, showing a failure to communicate key information.
17. No action was taken after the resident’s complaint. In October 2025 the landlord told her it was awaiting a second quote. There is no evidence it provided regular updates and the work remains outstanding. It has told us that the quote has been approved and the contractor will arrange an installation date, but it has not indicated when the work will commence. It is almost 2 years since it started the process. Its extended delays breached its policy timescales, and its lack of communication likely caused avoidable inconvenience and distress.

Garden gate and fence

18. The landlord’s records show it was aware of damage to the resident’s garden gate and fence in July 2024. It raised a repair for September 2024 but there is no record this took place. In January 2025, it told her it would replace the gate and fence. It replaced the gate on 15 April 2025, 9 months after the issue was first raised. This delay left the garden insecure and breached its repairs policy timescales of 45 days.
19. The resident said in her complaint that the fencing had not been replaced. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the works were complete. It corrected this at stage 2, stating it had no record of a fence replacement. It scheduled an inspection for 26 August 2025 to take measurements, with installation to follow. Its inconsistent records and inaccurate responses likely caused confusion and delay.
20. There is no evidence the landlord acted after its complaint response, causing avoidable inconvenience. In November 2025, a contractor attended to provide a quote. The resident reports the fence has now been installed.

Conclusion

21. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for its delays and poor communication and offered £1,235 for time, trouble, inconvenience and loss of the bedroom. Although these actions can be said to put things right for the resident, it failed to show any learning or ensure it completed repairs as outlined in its response.
22. The evidence shows that delays continued after its final response and some repairs remain outstanding. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. We have, therefore, made an order to pay additional compensation for the further delays, to inspect the property, identify outstanding repairs and provide a timeline to complete these.

23. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint and stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. It should not extend these by 10 and 20 working days respectively without good reason. The timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with the Code.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident 7 working days late. We have seen no evidence to suggest it discussed an extension with the resident in line with its policy. It also gave conflicting information and inaccurate responses. Landlords should ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
25. That said, the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

    General learning

26. Landlords must ensure accuracy of information given in complaint responses to avoid confusion.

    Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlords lack of evidence made it difficult to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

    Communication

28. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents, so they are aware of all actions taken and the progression of queries and complaints.