Sanctuary Housing Association (202421161)

Background

1. The resident reported experiencing problems with her rear patio door to the landlord in January 2024. There were gaps in the doors which meant she was struggling to close and secure them. The landlord completed a repair, but she remains unhappy with the repair delays and the additional energy costs she had because of the situation. 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the rear door.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the rear door.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs to the rear door

5. The £450 compensation previously offered by the landlord was insufficient because it did not reflect the scale of the landlord’s failures, including a delay of nearly 10 months for a repair that it should have done within 28 days. These delays likely caused significant inconvenience, frustration, and additional costs for the resident. The amount offered did not align with our remedies guidance, which requires compensation to reflect the severity and duration of the impact.

Complaint handling

6. There was a minor delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 complaint response. However, this caused no detriment to the resident and so there was no maladministration.

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 have not looked at

7. The resident has mentioned that the landlord’s failings has caused further detriment to her mental health. If the resident is looking to make a claim about this, it is not something our service can consider. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide whether a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

8. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant will have the right to have repairs carried out and receive compensation for any failure by the landlord to complete repairs within its specified timeframe. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete non-emergency repairs within a maximum of 28 calendar days.
9. Following the resident’s report of the issues in January 2024, the landlord inspected on 15 March 2024. This was after rearranging a previous appointment due to operative availability. At this stage it had already exceeded its 28-calendar day policy timescale. Although it overhauled both the front and rear doors, the landlord found that it needed to replace the rear patio door. It approved these works on 24 April 2024.
10. Following the complaint, the landlord upheld the case and offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It was reasonable for the landlord to uphold the complaint at this stage given the difficulties the resident had faced.
11. After receiving the stage 1 outcome, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that its service had fallen below standard and increased the compensation to £450. It also accepted that it had not followed its repairs policy or the tenancy agreement in relation to the repair and compensation. However, despite confirming the repair would be booked, it did not provide a timescale. This lack of clarity likely caused further frustration for the resident, who repeatedly sought a specific date.
12. The landlord completed the on 8 November 2024. This was 297 calendar days after it approved the job in April 2024. Given the landlord’s policy requires non‑emergency repairs to be completed within 28 days, this was an excessive delay and represented a significant departure from expected standards. Once the resident escalated her complaint, it would have been good practice for the landlord to provide a clear timeline for completion, but this did not occur, further adding to the resident’s frustration.
13. While the landlord recognised service failures and offered £450, this sum does not proportionately reflect a delay of almost 10 months. Under the our remedies guidance, compensation should account for the extent of inconvenience, disruption, and distress. In this case, the prolonged delay likely affected the resident’s comfort, sense of security, and energy use. A total of £600 would be a more appropriate remedy in the circumstances and is consistent with findings of maladministration.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints. For stage 2 complaints, it will respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
15. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response in 7 working days which was within its policy timeframe. Its stage 2 complaint response was sent in 22 working days which was slightly outside its policy. However, this delay caused no detriment to the resident. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

16. The landlord should ensure it does not go past its policy timescales for providing complaint responses.
17. The landlord should ensure it completes repairs in a reasonable amount of time, in line with its policy timescales. In its response to us, it stated the prolonged delay did not meet its service standard. The landlord has said it is committed to learning from this experience to improve outcomes and services. In light of this, it now uses bespoke software to monitor repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. We found no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

19. The landlord acknowledged that its communication about scheduling was inconsistent, and the resident experienced distress due to unclear timelines and perceived inaction. This recognition should help the landlord improve its services.
20. The landlord should ensure it provides residents with meaningful regular updates to prevent residents having to chase it for information.