Sanctuary Housing Association (202348478)

Decision
Case ID	202348478
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	8 May 2026

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response about the closure of the reception desk at his local housing office. It is aware he has anxiety and struggles with his mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication about closing the local housing office reception desk.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Communication about closing the local housing office reception desk.
   2. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication about closing the local housing office reception desk

4. The landlord identified shortcomings within its communication. It apologised and offered proportionate compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed raising a formal complaint. It apologised and offered fair compensation

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered within its final response for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the substantive issue.
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered within its stage 2 complaint response for the complaint handling delay.
We have made reasonable redress findings on the basis the landlord pays the above compensation to the resident, if it has not yet done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to close the reception in its public office on 14 March 2024. He said he does not have a computer and was concerned about having to rely on a call centre. He was worried he would no longer be able to speak to a housing officer directly.
7 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged his concerns and said a housing manager would respond.
21 March 2024	The housing manager emailed the resident, setting out the landlord’s plans to ensure residents still had contact with local staff. This included home visits, pre-booked office appointments, surgeries, and drop-in sessions.
29 April 2024	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. We asked it to consider the matter through its internal complaint procedure.
3 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1. It issued its stage 1 complaint response the same day. It explained it was not reopening the reception at its office and outlined the reasons for its decision. It partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident £60 compensation, comprising: £10 for the delayed response to his emails £50 for its failure to explain why it was closing its office reception
4 May 2024	The resident requested escalation of his complaint.
8 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2.
15 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that it did not log a complaint at the earliest opportunity. It reiterated its position regarding the closure. It increased its total compensation offer to £200, comprising: £100 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter and the delay receiving a response £100 for the complaint handling delay
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the matter to us. To resolve the complaint, he wants it to take responsibility and be accountable for its actions.

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 communication about closing the local housing office reception desk
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The landlord’s decision to close the reception desk at the resident’s local housing office was an operational matter. This assessment therefore considers only how it communicated with him about his concerns.
7. The landlord put up a notice advising residents that it would close the reception desk on 14 March 2024. The notice explained that residents could access services and information online, request home visits, and use its contact channels. This was clear and set out alternative ways to access housing services.
8. On 8 March 2024, the resident’s housing officer told him that she would continue to support him, although she was no longer assigned to his “patch”. Given his vulnerabilities, this was an appropriate course of action.
9. On 21 March 2024, a housing manager told the resident about the arrangements in place to maintain local contact. These included home visits, local surgeries, pre-booked office appointments, and estate walkabouts with a housing officer. This was a proportionate and reasonable response to his concerns and showed him that he could still deal with local staff despite the reception closure.
10. The resident remained unhappy because he felt the landlord had not explained why it closed the reception desk. It addressed this in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had reviewed how residents used the service, considered whether the arrangement made best use of resources, and decided the change would better meet residents’ needs and allow further investment in homes. This was a reasonable explanation.
11. The resident’s emails showed that the closure caused him distress. The landlord responded appropriately by offering an office meeting with a housing officer and manager, a home visit, and details of its next drop-in session. He declined this engagement. Overall, it took reasonable steps to communicate and reassure him.
12. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged delays in answering some of the resident’s enquiries and accepted that this caused him time and trouble. However, the delays had minimal overall impact because it had provided clear information, offered alternative contact arrangements, and maintained support. Its offer of £100 compensation was proportionate, in line with our guidance, and consistent with its own compensation policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
14. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times in its complaint policy dated May 2024 were in line with the Code. Once the landlord logged a formal complaint on 3 May 2024, it responded in accordance with the above timescales.
15. The landlord initially handled the resident’s complaint as an enquiry. It recognised within its final complaint response that it ought to have logged this as a formal complaint sooner. This caused a 2-month delay.
16. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy, which states redress of up to £150 was appropriate for delays raising a complaint, which led to increased contact from a resident.
17. The £100 offered was also in line with our compensation guidance for when there was a complaint handling failure which adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. We have therefore found that the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Learning

18. When making changes that may affect multiple residents, landlords ought to communicate clearly. In this case, the landlord displayed a notice at its office reception. It would have provided a better service if it had written directly to residents about the change.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

20. Effective communication is vital, especially when residents have vulnerabilities. Poor communication leaves residents uninformed, leading to frustration and repeated contact. The landlord may want to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.