Sanctuary Housing Association (202325776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325776

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a driveway to be built outside her home due to her medical condition.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has informed the landlord that she experiences mental health issues and has been undergoing treatment for a long-standing illness.
4. On 2 March 2023 the landlord received a referral from an Occupational Therapist (OT) that, amongst other things, assessed the parking facilities outside of the resident’s home. The OT recommended a review of the parking facilities outside the property but said it could not recommend building a driveway.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2023. She was unhappy at the lack of progress on the driveway. She said she had been told by an employee of the landlord that it had been approved. On 31 August 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord again to complain that the driveway had not been built. She also said she was unhappy about the lack of contact from the landlord. The landlord took the 31 August 2023 email as the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2023. It said it had investigated the issue and got a further assessment from an independent OT. It told the resident the work to the driveway could not be completed as the available space did not meet size regulations. It apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation for poor customer service.
7. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 24 October 2023. She said that she was unhappy with the decision and believed that works to the driveway should be completed.
8. On 24 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
   1. It apologised for not initially recognising that the resident had complained on 8 July 2023, as well as the delay in the stage 1 response and the lack of updates that were provided to the resident.
   2. The driveway was mistakenly included in works that had been approved by the OT. It apologised to the resident for the error.
   3. Members of the landlord’s staff and an OT had attended the resident’s property on 20 September 2023 to explore alternatives to a driveway. The conclusion from this visit was that the option of a Disabled Person Parking Bay should be explored.
   4. A Housing Officer had spoken with the resident on 6 October 2023. The Housing Officer said they could not recommend any works until a medical need was shown.
   5. It partially upheld the complaint. It said it had acted appropriately in relation to the driveway. However, because of the way the complaint was dealt with and the delay in the resident receiving a decision on the driveway it offered the resident £800 compensation.
9. The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her request for a driveway and her complaint. She has explained that as an outcome she would like a driveway installed at her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. We cannot make a legal finding of discrimination. The courts are best placed to assess whether this occurred. If the resident believes the landlord has unlawfully discriminated or harassed her, she can seek legal advice about this. We will instead consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and how it responded to her concerns.

The resident’s request for a driveway to be built outside her home due to her medical condition

11. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Procedure says that, if it’s possible, minor adaptations will be completed without an OT referral, but major works must be supported by an OT referral. The procedure also says to progress minor adaptations, a work order should be raised and then the works should be completed within 28 days. For a major adaptation, a joint visit between the resident, members of the landlord’s staff, and an OT must be arranged within 10 working days of receiving the OT referral. The Aids and Adaptations Procedure says that for major works the resident should be kept informed throughout the process. The landlord’s Reasonable Adjustment Policy says that it should record a resident’s disability internally if a resident mentions it to a member of staff.
12. The resident informed the landlord that they had a mental health condition on 8 July 2023. However, it is clear from the evidence that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities before this as it mentions prioritising a repair due to the resident’s vulnerability on 18 February 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord has a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the landlord has confirmed to us on 12 July 2024 that while the resident has mentioned issues with her mental health, it has no further record of this. It is a record keeping failure of the landlord that they have not kept any record of this. It is also a failure to follow its Reasonable Adjustments Policy as there is no evidence the resident’s mental health condition was recorded by the landlord.
13. The landlord received the OT referral on 2 March 2023. The OT referral recommended a review of the parking facilities outside the property. It specifically did not recommend that a driveway be installed in the property. The OT said that the shape of the garden meant the Essex Social Care and Highways Good Practice Guide could not be followed if a driveway were installed. The landlord mistakenly referred this internally, believing that the driveway had been recommended.
14. If the landlord classed the driveway as a minor adaptation, it should have raised a work order and completed the works within 28 days. The landlord continued to progress the work internally until it put it on hold 169 days from the referral. If the landlord classed the driveway as a major adaptation, it should have arranged a joint visit and then agree next steps. There is no evidence that the procedure was followed here as the 28 days to complete the works was exceeded and there is no evidence that a joint visit was arranged to progress the works. If the procedure was followed, we believe it is reasonable to say that the mistake would have been caught earlier. This extended the resident’s wait for answers and it is a failure of the landlord as it did not follow its own procedure.
15. On 18 August 2023, the landlord put the works on hold. It began to investigate the matter and contacted the OT who had sent the original referral on 21 August 2023 to clear up what had been recommended. The OT explained that they had not recommended the installation of the driveway. The landlord incorrectly took this explanation as confirmation that the OT had recommended the installation of the driveway. The OT was consistent in their position, but the landlord did not identify this on either occasion. If the OT’s position was identified when it should have been, or even at the second stage, it would have saved the resident a period of uncertainty while she waited on a driveway that she believed had been approved. It is unreasonable that the landlord missed both opportunities to get this right and suggests issues with their procedures for handling these requests.
16. When the landlord identified the mistake, on 7 September 2023, it arranged for a joint visit to the resident’s property. It looked at whether there were any alternatives to the driveway. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Procedure says that for major works the resident should informed throughout the process. While arranging the visit was a reasonable reaction from the landlord after identifying its error, the resident was only notified of this appointment on 19 September 2023. This was the day before the visit was due to take place. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not give the resident more warning of this visit and a potential failure to follow its own procedures.
17. The joint visit took place on 20 September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident why the visit was taking place. At this point, the landlord had realised its error. Given the time that had passed where the resident had believed that the landlord would be building the driveway, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to update the resident. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy says its service should be transparent. It should not have arranged visits to the resident’s property and communicated with the resident while not being transparent about what was happening and why it was doing it. This was not in line with its commitment to be transparent in its policy and the evidence shows it caused confusion and frustration to the resident.
18. The resident chased her complaint and received a call from the landlord on 6 October 2023. From the records provided, the landlord did not explain the correct reasons why the driveway would not be built. Instead, it said that the driveway would not be built because there was no medical need for it. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Procedure says that if its possible minor works will be completed without an OT referral, but major works will need an OT referral. The landlord had an OT’s opinion at this stage, so it was unnecessary for it to be making a further assessment outside of the OT referral. It is clear from the correspondence that it harmed the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. It increased the tenant’s distrust and confusion about the landlord’s position on the driveway. This was inappropriate from the landlord and a failure to follow its own procedures.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. It explained that after 2 OT assessments the driveway would not be built due to size requirements. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy says it will take the advice of an OT when deciding whether a piece of work is required. The landlord had the opinion of an OT that the driveway was not possible due to size regulations. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to rely on this opinion and so it’s decision to decline a driveway was in line with its policies and procedures.
20. However, in the stage 2 complaint response the landlord again mentioned that the Housing Officer could not recommend any works until the resident could show a medical requirement. The landlord should not have included this assessment as it had already accurately informed the resident why the driveway could not be built. The landlord’s records show that an independent OT had informed the landlord that the OT cannot assess the resident’s walking tolerance on 2 October 2023. For the landlord to disregard this and ask the resident for evidence of a medical requirement was inappropriate in the circumstances. Repeating this position only served to confuse the landlord’s position and made it seem like the refusal was partly due to the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s physical health. This element of the landlord’s response was inappropriate and not in line with its policies and procedures for Aids and Adaptations.
21. There is some disagreement over whether the landlord specifically informed the resident that the driveway had been approved. The resident has said that the landlord had told her that it had been approved, whereas the landlord’s stage 2 response apologises for the delay in its decision on the driveway. There is no evidence that the landlord specifically informed the resident that the driveway was approved. Regardless of this, it still should have followed its own policies and procedures for Aids and Adaptations. It should have been transparent and consistent with the resident. While the landlord’s decision not to build the driveway was reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures, its actions caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a driveway.
22. The landlord apologised for the delay in its decision on the driveway in its stage 2 response. It offered the resident £400 compensation specifically for this delay and the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the resident had experienced. It also offered £400 for poor complaint handling.
23. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
24. While the landlord recognised its failings in the delay in providing the resident with a decision, it did not identify its failings to follow its procedures in this instance and was inconsistent in its communications with the resident. These communications caused the resident unnecessary stress and confusion. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £550 compensation, which replaces the previous offer of £400. The sum is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but it does not reflect the failings identified in our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to conduct a review as to why it’s policies and procedures were not followed in this situation.
25. In a conversation with this service, the resident has said that part of her garden wall is falling down, and this has not been repaired as a member of the landlord’s staff told her she would be getting a driveway. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to explore whether a repair should be raised.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord’s Complaint Procedure says that a complaint at either stage 1 or stage 2 should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 complaint response should be sent to a resident 10 working days from the acknowledgement. A stage 2 complaint response should be sent to a resident within 20 working days of the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that if a resident raises additional complaints, they should be incorporated into the landlord’s stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued.
27. The resident originally submitted a complaint on 8 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 4 September 2023, 39 working days from the resident’s complaint. The landlord sent its section 1 response on 24 October 2023, which was 36 working days from the acknowledgement. This is failure from the landlord as neither the acknowledgement nor the response was sent within the timescales set out in its policy.
28. On 6 October 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that she believed she was being discriminated against. The resident was upset about the call that had taken place on the same day. This was not addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response and the resident mentioned being discriminated against in a further email on 24 October 2023. Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct discrimination. Given that the resident raised these concerns before the landlord’s stage 1 response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to these concerns in its stage 1 response. Not doing this means the landlord did not follow the Code and did not have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 as it should have addressed the resident’s concerns.
29. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 24 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 31 October 2023, in 5 working days so within the timescales in its policy and the Code.
30. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023. This was 23 working days from its acknowledgement and so was a failure as it is not in line with its policy or the Code.
31. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings in recognising the resident’s original complaint on 8 July 2023 and for the delay in sending the stage 1 complaint response. It apologised and offered the resident £400 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
32. Though the delay to the stage 2 complaint was minor, the landlord cannot say it demonstrated learning from its stage 1 response as the stage 2 response was still delayed. It also did not address the resident’s concerns on allegedly being discriminated against. Because of this, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The level of compensation offered by the landlord appropriately addresses the impact on the resident and exceeds the range in our remedies guidance for service failure. However, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to address her concerns in relation to discrimination.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a driveway to be built outside her home due to her medical condition.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £550 for its handling of her request for a driveway to be built outside her home due to her medical condition.
    2. Paid the resident £400 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord for this element of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint specifically for this element of the complaint.
    4. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.
    5. Written to the resident to address her concerns in relation to discrimination.
36. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has conducted a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It must set out what went wrong and why, and detail what actions it will take to make sure the same failings are not repeated. This must include, as a minimum, consideration of why it’s policies and procedures were not followed in this instance and the way it communicates updates about aids and adaptations.

Recommendations

37. The landlord should consider whether it needs to record any of the resident’s vulnerabilities, in line with its policy on Reasonable Adjustments and our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
38. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to enquire about the garden wall at the property and whether a repair needs to be raised for the wall.