Sanctuary Housing Association (202448219)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. He complained about delays to repairs to a ventilation unit and a shattered glazed unit in his property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of repairs to a ventilation unit.
   2. Handling of reports of repairs to a glazed unit on the balcony.
   3. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to:
   1. A ventilation unit.
   2. A glazed unit on the balcony.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to a ventilation unit and glazed unit on the balcony

5. There were unreasonable delays in approving quotes and completing repairs. The landlord made compensation offers after the complaints process which we could not consider.

Complaints handling

6. The landlord did not follow through with commitments made in its complaint response. It did not make the resident aware of his right to contact us in its stage 2 response.

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.

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 investigated

7. The resident has raised expenses including loss of earnings and childcare. While we can consider the inconvenience caused, we cannot award compensation for loss of earnings and childcare.
8. The resident said he wants to be reimbursed for service charges as he has not received the service expected. However, the tenancy agreement does not list any service charge payable to the landlord. As the complaint is against the landlord, not the freeholder, we cannot consider service charges in this case. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about service charges and appropriately signposted him to the correct process.

9. The resident reported the broken ventilation unit on 8 March 2024. A contractor attended on 15 March 2024, confirmed the unit needed replacing and said he would provide a quote. It is unclear what happened next, as the landlord did not show evidence of receiving a quote until 12 September 2024, 6 months later. This is not a reasonable timeframe.
10. A surveyor inspected the property for damp and mould on 3 October 2024 and confirmed that the lack of ventilation was causing condensation, damp and mould. He said these posed risks to both the residents and the property. He chased the replacement of the ventilation unit. Under the repairs procedure, works costing over £1,500 go through the quoted works route. This requires medium risk work orders, such as doors, windows, and ventilation, to be authorised within 28 days. The landlord can increase priority when a complaint is active. Despite the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not authorise the order until 27 January 2025, a delay of 137 days.
11. Delays continued after this point for unknown reasons, and the landlord did not replace the unit until 23 July 2025. This was 502 days from the resident’s initial report. This was not a reasonable timescale. While the landlord addressed the resulting damp and mould within its timescales, it delayed completing the repair needed to resolve the underlying problem. The resident repeatedly chased updates during this period.
12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are to be fair (treat people fairly and follow fair processes), put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case.
13. In this case, the landlord upheld the complaint at each stage. It apologised and awarded compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. It offered £175 at stage 1, increasing this to £400 at stage 2. Outside the complaints procedure, it offered the resident £1,000 for the delays. However, it grouped the issues together and did not show how much of this amount related specifically to the ventilation unit or the balcony glazing.
14. As the ventilation unit had the greater impact on the resident, we consider that £700 of the £1,000 was for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by that issue. The landlord also awarded £200 for dehumidifier electricity costs due to the lack of ventilation. Although the amount offered was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance, it cannot be considered reasonable redress because it was offered outside the complaints procedure. The complaint responses also did not show evidence of learning.
15. The landlord had unreasonable delays at each stage – obtaining the quote, approving it, and completing the replacement. These delays amount to maladministration. We have identified learning points to prevent these issues happening again. It has already paid the full compensation amount to the resident. Therefore, have not made any orders for compensation relating to this issue.

16. On 10 September 2024, the resident reported that exterior works on the building had shattered the outer pane of his double-glazed balcony unit. An operative inspected the damage on 30 September 2024 and confirmed that an external contractor would be needed to replace the unit. During the damp inspection on 3 October 2024, the surveyor noted that neither the freeholder nor the cladding company had taken responsibility. He advised the landlord to urgently arrange the repair as a health and safety issue and recharge the responsible party. This was reasonable.
17. A subcontractor measured the unit on 10 October 2024 and provided a quote on 18 October 2024. The balcony could not be accessed due to the cladding works, and the inner pane remained intact, so the landlord advised it was not an emergency. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging the quote but then delayed approving the work. It did not authorise the order until 27 January 2025, 101 days after receiving the quote.
18. On 2 April 2025, the subcontractor reported that external scaffolding blocked access and caused further delays. On 8 May 2025, the landlord advised that the scaffolding should not prevent work because the repair could be completed internally. The subcontractor replaced the unit on 12 June 2025, 237 days after the quote was received.
19. The landlord upheld the complaint at each stage. It apologised and awarded compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. It offered £175 at stage 1, increasing this to £400 at stage 2. Outside the complaints procedure, it then offered the resident £1,000 for the delays. However, it did not explain how much of this amount related specifically to the balcony glazing. The broken outer glass pane had a less significant impact on the resident than the ventilation unit repair. For this reason we believe that a fair proportion of the £1,000 awarded would be £300. This is in line with our remedies guidance, however it cannot be considered reasonable redress because it was offered outside the complaints procedure.
20. The landlord had unreasonable delays in both approving and completing the repair. This amounts to maladministration. We have identified learning points to prevent these issues happening again. It has already paid the full compensation amount to the resident. Therefore, have not made any orders for compensation relating to this issue.

21. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (CHC). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
22. In this case, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints within CHC timescales and its responses were detailed. However, it did not progress the repairs from stage 1 as planned. It said it had passed the account to the works coordinators to track and monitor the works to make sure they went ahead. By stage 2, however, there had been no progress. The landlord failed to follow through on its commitment.
23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process and states that at both stages it will make the resident aware of their right to contact the Ombudsman, which is in line with the CHC. However, the stage 2 response did not make the resident aware of his right to contact the Ombudsman.
24. The landlord did not progress the works after stage 1 as it said it would and it did not provide the Ombudsman’s details at stage 2. This amounts to service failure. We have awarded £50 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord which it did not fully put right.

Learning

25. There were significant delays in the landlord approving works orders. Our published spotlight report on repairs and maintenance contains useful guidance for landlords about managing repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord produced a detailed and thorough complaint overview, which shows good record keeping in some areas.
27. The lack of clear evidence showing how the landlord approved works orders suggests weaknesses in the process and highlights the need for more robust record-keeping practices.

Communication

28. Communication with the resident was inconsistent. He often had to chase updates and the complaint handler at stage 2 was hindered by poor internal communication.

Complaint handling

29. When offering compensation for multiple issues, it should state how much relates to each issue so the parties in dispute are clear about the basis for the proposed remedy. This is in line with our remedies guidance.