Sanctuary Housing Association (202400237)

Decision
Case ID	202400237
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. She has told us that her husband is vulnerable and has several medical conditions. She also said he uses a mobility scooter. In November 2023 the resident complained that her front garden was sinking. She said the ground was uneven and dangerous. She said the landlord had told her that she was responsible for maintaining the garden. She asked the landlord to level the garden, including the pathway, and install adequate drainage.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of repair issues in the front and rear garden, including paving and drainage works.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has made and an offer of reasonable redress for the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the front and rear garden.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord significantly delayed progressing works to the front and rear garden. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not maintain effective communication during its handling of the works. It apologised for these failures and offered appropriate and proportionate redress.
7. The landlord handled the complaint poorly and this had an adverse impact on the resident. It did not follow the required 2‑stage process and caused considerable delays during its handling of the complaint. It also did not raise a new stage 1 complaint in response to the resident’s further dissatisfaction in October and November 2024. While the landlord offered sufficient compensation, we are not satisfied that it fully recognised its complaint‑handling failures or that it learned from them.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2023	The resident raised her stage 1 complaint with the landlord, stating: Her garden was sinking due to inadequate drainage. The ground was not correctly levelled and was dangerous. She had fallen as a result of the unlevelled ground. The landlord had confirmed it was her responsibility to maintain the grounds. But she had been advised by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) that this was not the case. Her husband was unwell, requiring use of a mobility scooter and hospital bed set up in the property. The situation had caused her a great deal of distress.
8 November 2023 to 19 February 2024	The resident contacted the landlord numerous times between November 2023 and February 2024, asking for its response to her stage 1 complaint.   The landlord did not send a stage 1 response. Instead, it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure on 19 February 2024.
17 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response.   The landlord apologised for its handling of the complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure. It recognised that the resident had contacted it several times for updates and a stage 1 response. And despite this, it had not answered the complaint at stage 1. The landlord also apologised for the time it had taken to respond at stage 2 of its process.   The landlord said its surveyor had inspected the garden on 16 November 2023. They had recommended a CCTV inspection and the installation of drainage to prevent the garden flooding in wet weather. The landlord said the works had been forwarded to it for approval, but it had not completed this process. It apologised for the delay in progressing the repairs and confirmed it had sent the recommendations to the relevant team for approval. The landlord said its works coordination team would monitor the repairs through to completion and provide the resident regular updates. The landlord said it assumed the works would be complete by 31 July 2024.   For the failures it identified, the landlord offered the resident £800 compensation, broken down as:   £550 for the delayed garden works, and the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience caused in dealing with these matters. This also recognised the resident’s continued loss of enjoyment of her home until 31 July 2024, when the works should be complete. £250 for the complaint handling failures at stage 1 of its internal complaint procedure, and for the delayed stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her case to our service because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the repairs following its stage 2 response, including further delays.   She said the landlord had committed to completing the garden works by the end of July 2024, but nothing had been done to date.   On 3 December 2024 the landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident. It stated its previous offer was made on the basis all works would be completed by 31 July 2024 and that works would be monitored.   The landlord said that on 25 July 2024 it came to light that a further inspection was needed. Following this, the required works were identified and passed to its works coordination team to monitor.   The landlord said the resident had contacted it in October and November 2024 for updates and to express her dissatisfaction at further delays.   The landlord apologised for further delays and shortfalls in its communication. It said the works would be scheduled for 14 December 2024 and should be completed by 31 December 2024.   The landlord offered an additional £500 compensation, broken down as:   £400 for the further delays and the resident’s continued loss of enjoyment of her home. £100 for poor communication, and for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.

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 response to reports of drainage issues in the front and rear garden, including paving and drainage works.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The scope of this complaint

8. We normally would not consider events after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response, which was sent on 17 April 2024. This is because the rules governing our Service say we may not consider complaints about events that the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider through its internal complaint procedure (ICP). However, we may investigate where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
9. In this case, the landlord did not complete a stage 1 investigation or issue a stage 1 response before sending its stage 2 response in April 2024. When the resident raised concerns about delays in October and November 2024, the landlord did not raise a new stage 1 complaint. Instead, it sent an updated response to the resident’s November 2023 complaint, covering events from April to December 2024.
10. At no point did the landlord consider the resident’s concerns through a 2‑stage complaint process, in line with its ICP and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). In light of these complaint‑handling failures, and in the interest of fairness, we have considered events up to the date of the landlord’s most recent complaint response on 3 December 2024. We have assessed the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint elsewhere in this report.
11. The landlord has said the resident first raised concerns about the garden in July 2022. We do not normally consider historical issues. Instead, we consider events within a reasonable period prior to a resident’s formal complaint, usually 12 months. The resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord in November 2023. In the interest of fairness, we have not considered events more than 12 months prior to this.
12. The resident recently told us that she is unhappy with work the landlord completed to the pathway in the rear garden after the drainage works. This issue was not part of the complaint to the landlord. We may not consider complaints about events the landlord has not considered through its ICP, so this matter falls outside the scope of this investigation. The resident has told us she has complained directly to the landlord about the rear garden path. Once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s ICP she may refer the matter to our Service if required.

The landlord’s response to the garden works

13. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the repairs complained about. Its repair policy says it treats non‑emergency repairs as appointed repairs and aims to complete these within 45 days, with an enhanced 28‑day target for vulnerable residents. The policy also says it aims to complete all major repairs within 90 days. Within the scope of this complaint, the earliest record of the resident raising a repair for the garden was on 25 September 2023. The landlord had not completed the work to a satisfactory standard by 3 December 2024, the date of its updated complaint response. This was significantly outside its repair timeframe.
14. The landlord has acknowledged delays and poor communication between November 2023 and December 2024 which has caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Where matters are not in dispute, it is not necessary for us to investigate what happened in detail. Instead, we must consider whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
15. To do this, we have considered the landlord’s handling of both the garden works and the complaint itself. We have also considered what impact any failure had on the resident. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. The resident has recently informed us the landlord has completed works to drainage in the front and rear garden and levelled the pathway in the front garden. The landlord has told us the repairs were complete by 16 January 2025.
16. The resident told us about the impact of the landlord’s handling of the garden works. She said pursuing the works caused her stress and adversely affected her mental health. She also said the uneven pathway in the front garden made it difficult for her and her husband, who uses a walking stick and a mobility scooter, to access the property. The resident said both she and her husband had fallen because of the unlevelled garden path. She said her husband broke his wrist and attended hospital after the fall.
17. Regarding any injury the resident or her husband may have suffered, 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’ve not investigated this matter further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
18. We do note that in an internal email on 4 December 2024 the landlord asked its Housing Management Team to complete a welfare check. It instructed the relevant staff to not discuss insurance or a potential claim with the resident. It is unclear why the landlord instructed this. We generally expect landlords to signpost residents to their public liability insurance following reports of an injury potentially arising from a landlord’s actions.
19. We note from internal emails the landlord has provided that it attended on 5 December 2024 to begin work on the front garden. This shows the landlord acted promptly after issuing its December 2024 complaint response. We note that repairs did not go ahead as planned on 5 December 2024 as the landlord identified wider issues that its proposed drainage and paving work would not resolve. The nature of the works completed after 5 December 2024 falls outside of the scope of this complaint as this relates to events that happened after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s ICP. As mentioned, the resident has told us she raised a further complaint about this. This gives the landlord an opportunity to resolve these matters for the resident.
20. Regarding the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced, the landlord has offered £1,300 compensation, £1,050 of this was apportioned for the delays and poor communication in its response to the garden works. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay up to £400 for service failures which have had a significant negative impact on a resident. Our compensation guidance says awards of between £600 and £1,000 may be fair and reasonable where there has been maladministration which has had a significant emotional and physical impact on a resident. Our guidance says awards of more than £1,000 are likely fair where maladministration has a severe and long-term impact on a resident.
21. It is evident the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failures, and she has spent considerable time and trouble pursuing the repairs. It was fair and appropriate for the landlord to compensate for this. We have not seen evidence that the adverse impact on the resident was so severe as to justify further compensation beyond the £1,050 the landlord has already offered. We therefore have not ordered the landlord to increase this.
22. Taking the above into account, we have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the drainage issues, and the paving issue in the front garden. This recognises that there were service failures in the landlord’s response, but the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for these failures prior to our service making a determination.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

23. Under the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code, the landlord must operate a 2-stage complaint process. It must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. The landlord must answer complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
24. As mentioned earlier in this report, the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 November 2023. But it had failed to provide a stage 1 response by 19 February 2024, which was 68 working days after acknowledging it. This was a significant delay at stage 1 of the landlord’s ICP.
25. Ultimately, the landlord failed to send a stage 1 response. Instead, it escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process on 19 February 2024 without completing a stage 1 investigation. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code. This was a significant complaint handling failure.
26. After escalating the complaint, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 17 April 2024. This was 40 working days after acknowledging it. This was a further delay and a failure by the landlord. It is concerning that the landlord did not improve its complaint handling at stage 2 of the process. This indicates it had not learned from the significant failures at stage 1 of its ICP.
27. We note that on 18 March 2024 the landlord notified the resident that it would need more time to answer the complaint. However, it said it would contact the resident by 2 April 2024. But it missed this deadline by more than 2 weeks, responding on 17 April 2024 instead. Consistently missing deadlines evidently caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord’s ability to answer the complaint.
28. In its stage 2 response letter the landlord said it would monitor the repairs and keep the resident updated on its progress. It is evident that despite this, there continued to be poor communication and delays after the stage 2 response. So, any monitoring was clearly ineffective.
29. The Code says a complaint must be raised when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a landlord’s response to a service request. It also says a stage 2 response is the landlord’s final response to a complaint. As the landlord had already issued a stage 2 response in April 2024, it should have raised a new stage 1 complaint to consider the further dissatisfaction the resident raised on 16 October and 14 November 2024. Instead, the landlord sent what was, in effect, a further stage 2 response on 3 December 2024, addressing issues from April 2024 onwards. In doing so, it failed to consider the resident’s complaint about delays from April to December 2024 through its 2‑stage internal complaint procedure. This was a significant failure. It is also concerning that this was, in effect, a repeat of a failure the landlord had previously made.
30. The 2-stage complaint process is a requirement which should be met in all complaints. It benefits both residents and landlords. For residents it ensures concerns receive an initial response and, if unresolved, a more independent review at Stage 2, strengthening trust and accountability. For landlords it supports early and effective resolution, helping address issues before they escalate, saving organisational time and resources. By failing to answer the complaint at stage 1, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve matters in a way that may have benefited the resident and itself.
31. We also note as the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 16 October 2024, the landlord ought to have acknowledged that as a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provided a response within 20 working days. Instead, it did not provide a response until 3 December 2024, which was 34 working days later.
32. In line with the Code, the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition. In its April 2024 stage 2 response the landlord noted that the resident had complained about flooding in the front and rear garden. However, neither of its complaint responses clearly addressed the resident’s concerns about the rear garden. Based on the information the landlord has provided, it appears the landlord did not consider the issues in the rear garden until 4 December 2024, when it noted an inspection would be needed. So, in both its responses the landlord failed to fully understand and consider the resident’s complaint. This is a failure by the landlord.
33. The landlord has offered a total of £1,300 compensation, £250 was for its failures in handling the complaint. In accordance with our compensation guidance, awards of up to £250 may be appropriate where there has been severe maladministration by a landlord in its handling of a complaint. In this case, it is clear the resident was caused avoidable distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s poor complaint handling. The resident also had to spend unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the complaint due to the landlord’s failures. That said, we have not been provided evidence to show the resident was caused a level of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that would justify increasing the compensation further. Overall, we are satisfied the compensation amount is fair, reasonable and proportionate.
34. However, the landlord has failed to recognise the full extent of its complaint handling failures, namely:

• • Failing to consider the resident’s concerns about the rear garden.
• Failing to open a new stage 1 complaint when the resident expressed further dissatisfaction in October and November 2024.
• Failing to respond to the dissatisfaction raised in October 2024 and November 2024 within the required timescales.
• Repeatedly failing to consider concerns under its 2-stage complaint procedure.

35. Taking the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the complaint. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which say a finding of maladministration may be appropriate where there have been failures which have not been fully recognised and where the landlord has not demonstrated that it has learned from outcomes and improved its services.
36. While we have not ordered further compensation, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Learning

37. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor and had an adverse negative impact on the resident. Effective complaint handling is key to resolving disputes and rebuilding trust. The landlord has told us that it is in the process of introducing accredited complaint handling training to all its complaint handlers. This is positive. The relevant staff may also benefit from reviewing the range of learning resources available on our Centre of Learning, including our dispute resolution e-learning modules.
38. The landlord’s communication was poor. Repairs should be completed within required timescales. However, where this is not possible or progress stalls, landlords should ensure clear communication with residents about the repair process. This should include clear information on when repairs are expected to be completed. Landlords should also monitor repairs effectively to ensure progress does not unnecessarily stall. Once a repair has been identified, landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with policies and obligations and confirm these with residents in writing. This ensures all parties remain informed on the progress of repairs.
39. The landlord agreed to monitor repairs, but this was not effective and delays continued. To improve matters, the landlord should ensure it has an effective system for tracking outstanding works, identifying delays, scheduling follow‑ups, and providing regular and meaningful updates.