Sanctuary Housing Association (202413836)

Decision
Case ID	202413836
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident was concerned about the landlord’s handling of repairs and ongoing delays for a roof leak that began in June 2023. He later found a hole in the ceiling. The resident arranged a temporary private repair. The landlord considered this to be a lasting and effective resolution, but the resident disagrees.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Roof repair.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repair.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof repair

4. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and reasonably compensated the resident for its delays in dealing with the roof repair. However, it then delayed in confirming pervious repairs had resolved the issue. It also did not show it had taken steps to learn from the complaint.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord reasonably acknowledged its delay and poor communication to the resident’s initial complaint. At stage 2, it did not recognise its failures and missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.

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 28 May 2026
2	Case review order The landlord must complete a case review of its handling of delays and communication for the repairs investigated in this report. This review must: Identify learning about how it plans, monitors, and communicates with other departments during repair delays. Set out the general improvements it has made or will make to strengthen communication and reduce avoidable delays in future cases. The landlord must provide a written report to us outlining its findings and the wider learning it has identified to prevent a recurrence.	No later than 25 June 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 May 2024	The resident complained. He said: Almost a year had passed since he first reported the roof leak, and he was “fed up” that it was still not fixed. He had repeatedly painted over the stain on his ceiling, which wasted his time. He contacted the landlord weekly to chase it for updates and felt forced to “project manage” the repair. He wanted compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 June 2024.
20 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and: Upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging the repair exceeded its service standards. Confirmed it had sourced quotes to repair the roof and said it would refer the matter to a team who would track and monitor the outstanding repair. It said the team would reach out to the resident to discuss the next steps. Apologised for the resident’s experience in chasing the repairs team. It paid him £150 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
Between 11 July 2024 and 8 August 2024	The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated, as his roof repair still had not been arranged. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day. It sent the same acknowledgment again on 5 August 2024, and a few days later said it needed to delay its response by a further 20 days.
4 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it: Received a quote to repair the resident’s roof on 15 August 2023, but decided it needed further quotes . It did not receive these until 12 July 2024. It approved the works on 27 August 2024. Had requested that the works be completed urgently and assigned a team to monitor progress. Apologised for not resolving the complaint at stage 1, and for the delays that caused his roof leak. It also apologised for the lack of information in its stage 1 response. Offered compensation of £575. This included £400 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident, and £175 for its poor quality stage 1 response.
3 October 2024	The landlord reviewed the complaint and amended the compensation it had offered in its stage 2 response. It wrote to the resident and paid him £1,175 compensation. This included: £650 for its service failure that caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience. £350 compensation for the temporary repair he had paid for. £175 for poor complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he considered the roof repair was still outstanding. He wanted the landlord to arrange the repair it, and pay him compensation for delays, stress and chasing.

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	Roof repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we cannot look at

6. The resident reported a brown stain on his ceiling in June 2023, caused by a roof leak and made a complaint to the landlord. The complaint concluded at stage 1, when the landlord paid £150 compensation to the resident. He did not ask it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. We investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process, therefore we have not investigated this complaint. The landlord reviewed its repairs history back to June 2023 in its stage 2 response to the current complaint. We have also reviewed its handling of the repairs from this date.

What we can look at

7. The lease places an obligation on the landlord to maintain and keep in repair the resident’s roof. The landlord’s homeowner and repair handbook also confirm that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the outside of the property to keep in good repair. This includes general ‘wear and tear’, such as a loose roof tile. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days.
8. It is unclear when the landlord first inspected the issue because it has not provided any evidence between June 2023 to April 2024. Therefore, there we cannot be certain about what communication and action took place during this time. The first record we found was on 18 April 2024, when the landlord was arranging an inspection for the roof repair. It is unclear if this is because it did not make a record or failed to share them with us. As a result, for 10 months we could not be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably to progress the roof repair and keep the resident informed.
9. In its complaint response the landlord says it obtained the first quote on 15 August 2023.It decided it was too expensive and needed further quotes, but it did not receive another quote until July 2024. There is no evidence this was an unavoidable delay. This contributed to the landlord’s failure to meet its 28 day repair timescale and caused the resident time, trouble and distress.
10. The resident complained again in May 2024 and then chased the landlord for updates more than 15 times until September 2024.The landlord provided evidence that it sent a quote to the home ownership team for approval on 27 July 2024. It chased that team several times between August 2024 and September 2024, after the resident had escalated his complaint and mostly after he chased for updates. While we recognise the landlord’s efforts to respond when prompted, it did not proactively update the resident, which led to his chasing. There was evidence of silo working within the landlord which clearly contributed to the delays. This was a missed opportunity to monitor and progress the repairs and keep the resident informed. This this caused time and trouble as well as frustration.
11. On 8 September 2024, the resident reported he had a hole in his ceiling. Due to ongoing delays, he arranged a temporary repair and paid £350, which he asked the landlord to reimburse, which it did. The landlord attended on 22 October 2024 and concluded that the insurers repair had resolved the issue and there were no leaks. The resident believes a permanent repair is still required. We recognise the resident’s frustration, however, the landlord is entitled to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion, and to decide whether further works are necessary.
12. The landlord does not dispute that it delayed completing the repair, which did not meet its service standards. It also acknowledged the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. It paid the resident £1,000 to recognise this failure. We consider this amount sufficient and consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. This is also in line with our range of compensation we may order, in our compensation policy, in the event of an adverse detriment caused to the resident over a period of 14 months.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delays. However, it took no steps to learn from the complaint. This was important because it went to the core of the delays experience by the resident. There was a missed opportunity to obtain quotes for the work in a timely manner, address the delays and poor communication between its departments, and effectively escalate and monitor ownership of the repairs. This caused the resident trouble, distress and frustration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in 2024 applied when the resident made his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint after 11 working days and issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay. It was not in line with its complaint policy and the Code which sets out a 5 working day timeframe for acknowledgement. This caused minimal but avoidable distress to the resident.
16. The Code and the landlord’s policy state the landlord must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated or provide an explanation for its extension request. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation the same day, but it sent the same acknowledgement again the following month. It then asked for an extension of 20 working days but failed to give a reason for the extension. It also did not provide its stage 2 response until 40 working days after its initial acknowledgement. The unexplained delay in providing the final complaint response and poor communication delayed the resident from bringing the matter to us. This caused further distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
17. The landlord failed to appropriately assess the handling of its stage 2 response. As such, it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged some failings about its stage 1 response and offered the resident reasonable compensation. This was sufficient to cover the failures we identified and proportionate to the compensation we may have ordered in line with our compensation guidance. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation.
18. It was positive that the landlord told us that it had identified learning and made service improvements to deliver enhanced training to its complaints team. However, it missed an opportunity to set out its failures and learning in its stage 2 response. Had it done so, it could have allayed the resident’s concerns about its operation of its complaint procedure at the earliest opportunity.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. Despite being asked as part of our evidence request, the landlord has not provided all of its repair records. We expect landlords to provide evidence from at least 12 months prior to when the resident made a stage 1 complaint. It should keep records to ensure relevant information is captured and available.

Communication

20. The landlord would benefit from a more robust set of working practices around escalation and ownership of repairs with its home ownership team.