From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202232986)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232986

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 March 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:
    1. Replacement of windows in her property.
    2. Replacement of the kitchen in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat.
  2. The resident requested the landlord replace the windows in her property between 2021 and 2023. Following unsuccessful attempts to visit the property in 2022, it inspected it in February 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 17 March 2023 as it had not replaced the windows. In her complaint she said her kitchen was also in need of replacement as it was rotten. She asked for it to replace the windows and the kitchen.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 May 2023. The response stated it had referred her concerns to the relevant department but could not provide a further update.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint the same day citing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response due to the length of time she had reported the issues and that it needed to complete the replacements.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 June 2023. It acknowledged delays in it obtaining quotes for the windows, it had received those quotes and was waiting for approval. It had inspected the kitchen and identified it as being in good condition, but it would replace the sink unit. It offered £400 compensation to the resident for its handling of the complaint and the matters raised.
  7. The resident raised a new complaint regarding the kitchen on 31 July 2023 and the windows on 7 August 2023. The issues raised were regarding continued delays in it completing the works.
  8. The landlord combined those complaints with other complaints the resident had raised that are not being considered as part of this investigation. It issued an email to her on 8 September 2023 that informed her it had no firm information to provide and offered to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  9. The landlord issued an interim stage 2 response on 25 September 2023 acknowledging its complaint handling failures. It offered £650 compensation for its handling of her complaint and provided an update regarding the complaints she had raised. It informed her it would provide a further response in October 2023
  10. It issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. It informed the resident it had authorised the windows and was waiting for them to be manufactured. Regarding the kitchen it noted it had authorised for her to replace the kitchen herself in September 2023. It offered an additional amount of compensation. The amount offered was a combined compensation offer of £3,574 for all the complaints it was responding to. It increased the offer a week later to £4,074 by offering an additional £500 for the delay in replacing the windows.
  11. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has stated the landlord took too long to complete the replacements and she had to replace the kitchen herself. The compensation it offered was less than she considered appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint and landlord’s complaint responses mention issues including damp and mould, a leak in the roof and the intercom at her property. However, these issues form separate complaints to our Service under references 202223656 and 202223664. Those issues are not considered in this investigation.
  2. In communication with us, the resident has raised concerns about the lack of flooring when she moved into the property in 2021. There is no evidence she raised this with the landlord as a formal complaint until 2023. As there is no evidence that issue was raised as a complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the issue arising, the Ombudsman will not consider that element of the complaint.
  3. The resident in her correspondence raised concerns the issues were affecting her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the effect on her health is better dealt with via the court.

The windows

  1. On 19 April 2021, the resident informed the landlord that its housing officer told her the windows in her property were not double glazed due to the fact the property was in a conservation area. However, everybody else in the block had double glazed windows. She asked it to investigate the issue.
  2. The landlord has provided no further evidence of its actions until 3 March 2022. At that time, it noted the resident contacted it again to repeat her reports about the windows. It raised an appointment for 7 March 2022. Its records on 6 April 2022 noted there had been no access to her property. A further visit took place on 13 April 2022 but again it recorded no access. There is no further evidence provided of the extent of its efforts to contact her and rearrange for the inspection to take place. The resident does not appear to have contacted it to rearrange the visit either.
  3. On 6 January 2023, the resident recontacted the landlord and repeated her concerns. It arranged an inspection for 1 February 2023.
  4. On 6 February 2023, the landlord noted the resident had raised issues with the property since she had moved in. It noted several flats in the building had double glazing. The previous occupier of the resident’s property did not grant access to install new double glazing. It recommended a new stock condition survey to include assessment of the timber single glazing windows and her kitchen. It has not evidenced the outcome of this request.
  5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 17 March 2023. She said she had been in the property for 2 years. When she took the tenancy, she had concerns regarding the state of the property. This included rotting windows, single glazing, and a rotting kitchen. The landlord had dismissed her claims at the time. During her tenancy she raised the issues again, but it ignored her or made different excuses. Her property had constant condensation, large utility bills and had affected her health. She had 2 surveyors inspect the property and both said it should not have let the property in its current state. She asked for it to investigate and replace the kitchen and windows.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 March 2023. It said she would hear from it no later than 5 April 2023 to confirm how it proposed to resolve the issues reported.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident on 11 April 2023. It said it had spoken to its surveyor and confirmed it should have replaced the windows as part of a planned programme for the block, but the previous tenant declined the works. It was in discussions regarding the correct actions to take and would confirm with her once it had the details.
  8. While visiting another property at the block on 19 April 2023, the landlord’s surveyor reported the resident approached them regarding her windows. They noted her flat was the only one without double glazing and the communal hallway also had new PVCU windows. They noted her windows were not thermal efficient and were draughty but had told her it could not replace them that year. She was unhappy with that decision.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 and 27 April 2023 after not receiving any contact from the landlord. It has also not provided any evidence of its actions during that time regarding the windows until it issued its stage 1 response.
  10. On 11 May 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This only informed the resident it had sent her concerns for the windows to the relevant team and escalated the matter to management to obtain the correct information. It would aim to provide a further update on 16 May 2023, but she could escalate her complaint if dissatisfied with its response.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. She said the issues dated back years, needed urgently completing and it should compensate her.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 15 June 2023, regarding the windows, it noted it had no communication from the resident between April 2022 and January 2023. Following the inspections that took place in February 2023 it requested the stock condition survey, but its records were not clear when or if that took place. It could also see she had contacted it in March and April 2023 without receiving a response from it. It apologised for those failures. It said it raised a works order on 10 May 2023 for its contractor to quote for replacement windows in keeping with the conservation area that the property was located. It received the quote on 2 June 2023 and was awaiting approval. If approved, the normal timescale for replacement of windows within a conservation area, could take up to 6 months due to manufacturers’ timelines.
  13. On reviewing the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not believe the length of time taken to raise works in May 2023 for her window replacement quote and the communication to keep her informed was to the standard that it would expect. However, due to the no access issues and lack of communication regarding her windows in 2021 and 2022, it would not consider that period further. Its decision is not unreasonable in the circumstances.
  14. The landlord offered a goodwill payment of £200 for the extra time and trouble the resident took in requesting updates regarding her windows. It also offered her £100 for the handling of her complaint at Stage 1 and her not receiving a final response at that stage.
  15. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord on 7 August 2023 regarding her windows. She repeated the issues she had raised previously and added that its revenue team received quotes from external contractors who had asked for surveyors to attend again. A window had also cracked in a recent storm due to being so thin. She reiterated that her health was affected. She had waited over a year with no clarification of a date works would commence.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 August 2023. It informed her that it was not yet able to offer its complaint response. It said it had contacted the relevant department for an update on her windows.
  17. The landlord provided a further update on 29 August 2023. It informed her it was waiting for approval for costings for the windows and had requested to expedite that. It said it would provide further updates and hoped to respond to her by 11 September 2023.
  18. The landlord has not explained why it was still waiting for approval over 2 months after the quotes of June 2023. This delay unnecessarily prolonged the process for the resident and would have caused her more distress and inconvenience.
  19. The landlord provided an update to the resident on 8 September 2023 stating it had not yet heard from the relevant team on a date for the windows and would continue to monitor. It confirmed on 15 September 2023 that the complaint had been progressed to stage 2.
  20. On 21 September 2023, the resident informed the landlord condensation was extremely bad on her windows. She had no option but to keep the window open. As the temperature that night was low, she also had to have her heating on. She stated she would need to order a dehumidifier for the whole flat, which was costly.
  21. The landlord issued an interim stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. Regarding the windows, it said it had put forward the quotations for authorisation by senior management on 22 September 2023 and would monitor the progress. When the quotations were authorised, it would notify the relevant contractors and they would arrange the works, subject to their availability and current workload.
  22. The landlord reiterated its failings with respect to delays in updating the resident and poor communication. It also mentioned its failure to provide her with a final written response prior to escalating the complaint to stage 2. It apologised for the poor quality of the investigation of her complaint at stage 1. It made an interim goodwill offer in respect of the handling of her complaint at stage 1 of £650. This consisted of £400 for delays and quality of complaint handling at stage 1 and £250 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced in dealing with the complaint. It said it would provide a further update by 12 October 2023.
  23. The landlord’s handling of the complaint had been inadequate, and it recognised those failures in its complaint response. It also appropriately offered her reasonable redress for those failures.
  24. The landlord had previously stated in its first stage 2 response in June 2023 that it had obtained the quotes to be authorised. Given those quotes had not progress to authorisation by the time it issued its interim second stage 2 response almost 3 months later, the delay was a failure by it to progress the repairs. This evidenced it had failed to learn from the original complaint process. This further delay was unreasonable given there was no reason provided regarding why it took so long for the quotes to be authorised.
  25. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 October 2023 regarding the quotes for the windows. She said it told her it needed someone to take photographs as the quotes had been sitting with it since April 2023. She said it had taken 6 months for it to request photos for a quote given by the contractor.
  26. The landlord requested on 27 October 2023 for a surveyor to attend to evaluate the condition of the windows in the resident’s property. Its records show on 30 October 2023 that she refused another surveyor. It cancelled the inspection.
  27. The next day the resident called the landlord. She stated she could not understand why it required a fourth inspection. In addition to work commitments, this was why she refused a further inspection.
  28. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. This response also covered other complaints the resident had raised not considered in this investigation. They include damp and mould, roof repairs and intercom repairs. Regarding the windows element of her complaint, it again acknowledged the quotes it received were not progressed. It said an operations manager had visited the property on 13 November 2023, inspected the windows, and authorised the works to take place. It apologised for the length of time taken to get authorisation to replace the windows.
  29. The landlord offered an overall, but not itemised, award of compensation for all the resident’s complaints. This included the complaints not considered in this investigation. This has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to distinguish the amounts awarded for each element of the complaint.
  30. The stage 2 response confirmed the resident had accepted the interim offer of £650 and that it would offer a further £3574. This offer consisted of £100 for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response and was appropriate for the additional delay. It also offered £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience dealing with delayed repairs, £150 for future impact until works were completed the following month for damp and mould works and replacement of windows. It offered £2924 for loss of enjoyment of her property as a result of the delayed repairs, additional utility costs, recurrent damp and mould and redecorating costs.
  31. In response the resident emailed the landlord the same day. She said she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered. In contribution to that she had conducted replacements in the property at her own cost. She asked it to reconsider the offer it made and requested £6000.
  32. The landlord sent a further stage 2 response to the resident on 12 December 2023. It referred to her request for £6000 compensation for all the issues she had raised. It increased the offer of compensation to £4074 by offering £500 for contribution towards additional utility costs due to the delay replacing the windows.
  33. The landlord and resident have confirmed it replaced the windows in January 2024.
  34. Overall, the landlord’s response to the window replacements was inadequate. It initially delayed obtaining the required quotes. Once it received the quotes it failed to progress those to be authorised within a reasonable timescale. During this time, the resident was requesting updates of progress with the works which it did not always respond to in a timely manner. It is acknowledged it can take time for windows to be produced and the timescales from authorising the quote to installation was reasonable. It is also noted that her property is in a conservation area. While this could have reasonably led to some delay, the amount of time taken by it in progressing the works to replace the windows was excessive.
  35. The landlord made offers of compensation in both its stage 2 responses. It offered £200 in its first stage 2 response for the delay in replacing the windows. It offered an additional £500 in its final stage 2 response for the delays. It also offered £150 for future impact of works split between the windows and damp and mould which the Ombudsman has considered as a 50% split. It is acknowledged the landlord would have also considered the windows repairs in its offer of compensation for time and trouble and loss of enjoyment of the home. This would be in addition to the total amount that can be attributed directly to the windows element of her complaint of £775.Given the length of time for the delays, the failures identified in its handling of the matter and the distress and inconvenience this would have caused, the offer it made falls within the range the Ombudsman would order. We conclude that it offered reasonable redress to her.

The kitchen

  1. The landlord on 6 February 2023, made a recommendation to survey the kitchen as part of the stock condition survey following the inspection by its surveyor. The resident then raised her concerns about the condition of the kitchen in her complaint raised on 17 March 2023.
  2. On 11 April 2023, the landlord provided an update to the resident stating its surveyor advised the kitchen was in good condition, usable and did not require any works. As she had advised the kitchen was rotten and required repairs/replacement it asked her to supply photographs of the concerns. It would discuss the kitchen further with the surveyor and the operations team. It aimed to provide an update by 25 April 2023. She provided photographs of the kitchen to it on 12 April 2023.
  3. The landlord has not provided evidence of the inspections it took in reaching its decision. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to establish the extent of the investigations it completed. There is also no evidence it responded to the resident by the 25 April 2023 as it agreed. She contacted it at least 4 times between 25 April 2023 and 10 May 2023 asking for an update.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 May 2023, it stated that as with the windows element of her complaint, it had sent her concerns for the kitchen to the relevant team. It apologised for the delay and that it was not able to provide a full response at that time in relation to the complaint.
  5. On 15 May 2023, the landlord noted photographs it had taken showed the kitchen was in reasonable condition. It however did ask if it could raise works to replace the sink unit. It asked the resident for further photographs on 19 May 2023 explaining it wanted to examine if there was any deterioration since the photographs she originally provided. It raised the sink works on 6 June 2023 and booked those for 28 July 2023.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 15 June 2023, it said following the inspection in February 2023, it identified her kitchen was in good condition. On receipt of her photographs it agreed to replace the sink unit but would keep the existing doors, worktop, and sink. It had raised a works order to assess and measure for the unit.
  7. The landlord found that the length of time taken to raise the works for the resident’s kitchen following the inspection in February 2023 and the communication to keep her informed was below the standard it would expect. It offered a goodwill payment of £100 for the delay in raising an assessment of her kitchen.
  8. Following the operatives’ visit on 28 July 2023, the resident submitted a new complaint on 31 July 2023 regarding her kitchen. She said its surveyor had advised that it would replace some of the units, despite them all rotting, having multiple faults, and smelling. She added the operative who attended had advised her of a full replacement of the kitchen. She asked for a replacement of the kitchen and a different surveyor to attend.
  9. On 2 August 2023, the landlord noted the resident had asked how she would go about getting permission to install a kitchen. It asked her to look at its website about obtaining permission. Later that day it requested it raise a kitchen inspection and to use an alternative surveyor. It however later stated an operative could attend and raise a proforma if they felt that the kitchen required replacement. It raised an order on 7 August 2023 for an operative to attend the resident’s property regarding the kitchen. Its response here was appropriate. However, on 14 August 2023 it received a request from her to install a new kitchen herself.
  10. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 September 2023 that it had approved for her to conduct the works to replace the kitchen. It cancelled any remaining works it had raised. Its decision to accept her request to replace the kitchen herself came within 3 weeks of her making the request. The Ombudsman considers that it made the decision within an appropriate timescale.
  11. In the landlord’s interim stage 2 response on 25 September 2023, it confirmed the resident informed it that because of the delays and refusal to replace her kitchen, she had now obtained permission from it to fit her own kitchen, at her own expense. It provided no further response on the matter. It repeated that finding in its final stage 2 response on 7 December 2023.
  12. The landlord’s handling of the matter following the first stage 2 response was appropriate as it requested an inspection as it had committed to. Once the resident requested permission to install a new kitchen herself it provided its decision within a timely manner.
  13. However, after the initial inspection in February 2023 there were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident and, following its decision to replace the sink unit, delays in it arranging the works. It has also failed to evidence the inspections it took in reaching its conclusion.
  14. The landlord acknowledged those failures in its first stage 2 response. It made an offer of compensation of £100 for the delay raising an assessment of the kitchen. As previously stated, the landlord’s overall compensation offer in its final second stage 2 response was £4,074. When considering the amount that it specified was allocated to specific elements of the resident’s complaints, the remaining amount, while also acknowledging this included other complaints not considered in this investigation, is considered sufficient to redress the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request to replace her kitchen. We, therefore, conclude that it offered reasonable redress to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of its handling of the resident’s request for:
    1. Replacement of windows in her property.
    2. Replacement of the kitchen in her property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the resident the compensation of £4,074 it offered in its final stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord considers how it allocates its offer of compensation in its complaint responses when dealing with multiple complaints to ensure the resident understands how much compensation is allocated for each complaint point raised.