From 13 January 2026, we will 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 (202324133)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324133

Sanctuary Housing Association

6 August 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:
    1. The resident’s door repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2001. She lives in a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has noted that the customer suffered from anxiety since May 2023.
  2. The resident reported that the external doors were difficult to lock in June 2022. She continued to report issues with both front and back doors on 5 further occasions between June 2022 and January 2023. On 7 March 2023, it was reported to the landlord that the front and back doors were letting in a breeze.
  3. On 13 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The complaint was about poor communication and workmanship related to repairs, and delays in completing repairs. She explained that water is leaking through the door which is damaging belongings. The resident said she had been awaiting contact from the landlord about the outstanding issues.
  4. The landlord’s repairs contractor responded to the complaint on 17 April 2023 on the landlord’s behalf. The contractor apologised that the external door repairs were not resolved yet and for the poor service. An inspection was arranged for 15 May 2023, and the contractor would contact the resident following this inspection to go through the conclusions. The complaint was upheld by the contractor at stage 1.
  5. The resident sent an email to the landlord and the repair contractor on 17 July 2023 requesting a stage 2 review. The resident explained that the repairs had not been fixed, and this was affecting her health. She explained that she had not received replies when she emailed and called people about this re-occurring issue. The landlord acknowledged this request on 19 July 2023. The resident told us she chased the landlord on 6 occasions for a review of their complaint, and she contacted the Ombudsman on 13 October 2023.
  6. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 27 October 2023 reiterating her request for a stage 2 response. She explained the following:
    1. The front door repair remained outstanding.
    2. The back door repair took 7 months to complete.
    3. She had been left in an unsafe situation due to fire hazards, slipping on the floor from leaks, and the door was left unsecure and would often not open.
    4. There was a delay in escalating her complaint.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 November 2023. It apologised for the resident’s experience and confirmed that the front door and frame would be replaced. It did not uphold the claim for damages to white goods and flooring and advised the resident to make a claim with its insurance company. The landlord said that, from its understanding, the repairs contractor had attended multiple emergency repairs to resolve issues causing her home to be unsafe. It apologised for the time taken to respond at stage 2 and offered £100 compensation for the delay. It offered a further £100 compensation for the impact caused by delays in repairing the door.
  8. The resident contacted us after receiving the stage 2 response because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said that the repairs remained outstanding to the front door and the issues had not been fixed. She experienced further issues with the locking system where the door was not locking and can become stuck, not allowing her to exit the property. The resident explained that as a desired outcome, she wanted the door and frame to be replaced.
  9. On 27 January 2025, the landlord confirmed to us that the front door was replaced on 23 September 2024. It advised that since this time, the resident had not raised any further issues about the doors. The landlord explained that it had awarded the resident £1,885 compensation in total for delays in completing the repairs, complaint handling failures, and damage to goods. This included the £200 compensation awarded at Stage 2.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from June 2022 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to June 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
  2. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her health. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to their front and back door

  1. In the tenancy agreement, the landlord says that it will “will carry out works which we are responsible for within a reasonable time of finding out the repairs were needed.”
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time stated that it would attend repairs as per the following timescales:
    1. Immediate repair – attend and make safe within 4 hours.
    2. Emergency – complete repair within 24 hours.
    3. Standard – complete repair within 15 working days.
    4. Planned – complete repair within 45 working days.
  3. The resident reported a repair to the landlord about the main entrance door (MED) on 13 June 2022 reporting that the “MED is stiff and difficult to lock, doesn’t fit in frame.” Another appointment was raised the same day as the back door could not be locked. A repair was completed that day. The landlord attended to the back door as an emergency, which was appropriate as it could not be locked and was a security risk. The landlord also attended to the front door within an appropriate timescale as it was a standard repair.
  4. The resident reported 2 further instances of the back door being hard to open and close between August and October 2022. The landlord attended each report, and its response was appropriate as it was within the defined timescales.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2022 to advise of a breeze coming through the back door. The landlord attended and realigned the door and completed a repair 13 working days later. This was reasonable as this was within its timescales to attend a standard repair within 15 working days.
  6. A further repair was reported about the back door allowing a breeze on 17 January 2023. This was attended on 30 January 2023 where the door was realigned and adjusted which was appropriate. Further repairs were requested for a sub-contractor to attend as it was noted that the front door slab was bowed. The sub-contractor attended on 2 February 2023 but there was no access. A further report was made by the resident about the front and back doors letting in drafts on 7 March 2023. The contractor attended on 10 March 2023, but no work was completed, and the sub-contractor was asked to re-attend on 21 March 2023. On this visit, the sub-contractor completed repairs which included service to rear exterior door and renewing the multi-point lock strap. While it is evident that some delay was caused by difficulties with access, it is not evident that the landlord followed up missed appointments with the resident or attempted to rearrange them. This would have left the resident unclear when the issues would be addressed and caused her to expend time and trouble further chasing the repairs.
  7. A repair was raised on 12 April 2023 where the front and back doors were having lock issues and not opening properly. This was attended the next day where the doors were overhauled and left in working order. On 17 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was still unhappy with both doors. The repairs contractor explained they would attend to inspect the doors. Evidence provided shows this was attended on 15 May 2023. Emails between the repairs contractor and their sub-contractor were provided showing they organised an inspection for 19 June 2023. This is 46 working days after being put on notice which is not appropriate as it was outside of the timescales. This repair subsequently took place and notes are in internal emails provided to us; however, it is not documented on the repair history. This demonstrates poor record-keeping from the landlord and its contractor.
  8. The resident reported repairs for the front and back door 4 times between May 2023 and July 2023. The landlord attended 3 out of 4 of these repairs, but there is no evidence that it raised a repair following an email from the resident on 18 July 2023 where she advised of the ongoing situation with the doors in the property. While the landlord did reply the following day explaining that this would be investigated by the repairs management within 10 days, there is no evidence that the landlord did what it said it would which was not reasonable. The resident confirmed to us she received communication from the repair contractor on 24 July 2023 saying that they were chasing their sub-contractor for an appointment.
  9. The resident raised an emergency repair on 28 July 2023 as the back door was allowing large amounts of water in when closed, and the kitchen was flooded. The landlord attended within 24 hours which was appropriate. On its visit, all locks were working, and all seals were in place. According to the resident, the repairs contractor attended on 3 August 2023 to further inspect the doors. This information was not listed in the repair history provided by the landlord. On 10 August 2023, an appointment was raised to arrange a quote for a canopy for the back door to stop driving rain. This was attended on 22 August 2023. There is no evidence demonstrating what the landlord planned to complete. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident on its plans, which it failed to do.
  10. On 6 September 2023, a repair was raised to request the sub-contractor to replace the back door. An emergency was also raised as the back door was not locking. This was attended the same day where the door was eased and adjusted. The back door was not replaced until 27 October 2023. This took 37 working days which is within the landlord’s timescales for planned repairs. This was appropriate due to the timescales for supplying a new door.
  11. The resident reported issues with both doors on 6 occasions between 19 September 2023 and 18 October 2023. The landlord appropriately attended each time within its applicable timescales. The landlord was contacted by the local Fire and Rescue service about concerns regarding the door. It is unclear what the landlord agreed to do after receiving this information and no repairs were scheduled other than those emergency make-safes. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a full inspection of the doors, frames, and locking mechanisms following the emergency appointments it attended during this time.
  12. On 27 October 2023, the back door was replaced, and the following repairs were completed on 27 October 2023 to the front door and the door was left working:
    1. New multi-point.
    2. 3 new hinges.
    3. New strike plates.
    4. New door numbers.
    5. Drip bar reattached to bottom of the door.
  13. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 30 October 2023 stating her dissatisfaction with the service received on 27 October 2023. According to the resident, a surveyor attended on 8 November 2023. There are no notes from the landlord regarding this visit and the appointment is not documented on the repair history. This is not reasonable of the landlord and demonstrates poor record keeping.
  14. A repair was raised on 16 November 2023 to fit a seal to the bottom of the front door. This was attended on 5 December 2023, and a draft excluder was fitted to prevent drafts. This was within the landlord’s timescales and was appropriate. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2023 requesting it provide the report from the visit on 27 October 2023. On 17 November 2023, she requested that seals are fitted all round the front door and not just the bottom. The landlord confirmed it would fit seals and then reinspect the door.
  15. On 22 November 2023 in its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it would replace the front door and frame. The landlord did not provide a timescale in its response. Given the length of time the resident had been reporting issues with the door, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide a timescale for the work to be completed.
  16. Overall, we have found that there was a failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs to the front and back doors, including:
    1. The landlord arranged an inspection of the doors to take place on 19 June 2023 – 46 working days after being put on notice which is outside of its timescales.
    2. The landlord did not raise further inspections of the doors following several reports of issues with the doors made in the previous 16 months.
    3. Poor record-keeping by the landlord where some repairs and inspections were not logged on the resident’s repair history. Notes from appointments were not documented by the landlord when a surveyor attended on 8 November 2023.
    4. On 18 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that its repairs management would investigate the issue reported by the resident. No evidence was provided demonstrating that the landlord did what it said it would do.
    5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of repairs on several occasions.
    6. Overall, the issues experienced by the resident caused inconvenience and stress for over 12 months and the resident was not provided with a timeline for the door replacement in the stage 2 response on 22 November 2023.
  17. 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.
  18. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in its delays in repairing the doors. For example, in its stage 2 reply it apologised for the inconvenience incurred by the resident, and for the level of customer service she received from its contractor. It sought to put things right by:
    1. Advising that the front door and the door frame would be replaced.
    2. Awarded compensation for the inconvenience and delays.
  19. However, the landlord did not demonstrate any learning in its stage 2 response.
  20. In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord did not offer compensation at stage 1 of the complaints process and awarded £100 with respect to the repair delays at stage 2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it will offer discretionary compensation of up to £500 for ‘high impact’ failures where “a serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event, or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time”. In this case, we found that there was a high level of impact on the resident due to the period of time spent reporting problems with the front and back doors and concerns with the doors’ security.
  21. The level of compensation offered was not within the range of sums recommended in our own Remedies Guidance for situations where there was significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. Therefore, we have found that the landlord did not make a fair and proportionate offer of redress to put things right. Consequently, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  22. We are aware that the door was replaced by the landlord on 23 September 2024. On 27 January 2025, the landlord told us that they had offered the resident £1,235 additional compensation about her repairs. This was broken down as follows:
    1. £300 the resident’s wellbeing for the time she had to leave the door unlocked/unsecure overnight.
    2. £400 for the time and effort spent chasing the repairs.
    3. £125 reimbursement for the extra use of heating.
    4. £260 reimbursement for the 3 surveys she had paid for the doors.
    5. £100 in missed appointment fees.
    6. £50 for the inconvenience of having the wall rendered and plastered after the door installation.
  23. Additionally, £450 was awarded for damages to the resident’s flooring and washing machine/fridge-freezer. The total offer made outside of its complaint procedure was £1,685 in addition to the £100 offered for repair delays at Stage 2.
  24. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than some 10 months after its stage 2 response.
  25. It should not take a resident raising their complaint to this service for a landlord to properly investigate its actions. Therefore, given that the landlord’s offer was only made after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation, we are unable to consider its offer as reasonable redress. However, the revised financial offer did, in our view, reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident and was of a sufficiently high value to put things right. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to reoffer the sums of £100 awarded at stage 2 for repair delays, and £1,685 awarded following the completion of the complaints process, if this has not already been paid.
  26. In the landlord’s further update to us on 9 April 2025, it confirmed that its contract with its repairs contractor had since concluded, and it was managing repairs with its new supply of contractors which it hoped would improve its service delivery. Therefore, we have not included any orders or recommendations relating to the landlord’s management of repairs.

Landlord’s handling of resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy which stated the following:
    1. There are 2 stages to the complaints policy as set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code.
    2. Acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt of the complaint.
    3. Provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    4. Acknowledge a request for a stage 2 review within 5 working days.
    5. Respond to the stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord by email on 13 March 2023. The resident confirmed to us that she received an acknowledgement on 17 March 2023. This was appropriate as it was within the landlord’s timescales of 5 working days.
  3. The resident explained the landlord contacted them on 31 March 2023 to extend its response time. This was appropriate as per the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 17 April 2023. This was 10 working days after it contacted the resident advising of the delay in responding to their complaint. This was appropriate of the landlord and in line with their policies and procedures.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 July 2023 requesting a stage 2 review. The landlord responded on 19 July 2023 acknowledging the email and said it would pass this to the repairs management to respond within 10 working days. The email did not confirm that the escalation had been acknowledged nor when to expect a complaint response. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord 6 more times between31 July 2023 and 27 October 2023 chasing an update.
  5. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy in failing to acknowledge a stage 2 request within 5 working days. It also failed to escalate the complaint on 5 further occasions which was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 October 2023 confirming it had received the request for a stage 2 review. This was 73 working days after the resident’s initial request. The landlord confirmed all points that the resident wanted addressing. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2023 apologising for the delay in responding to the stage 2. It explained this was due to a manager leaving the business. The landlord told the resident it would respond by 23 November 2023. This was reasonable and the landlord followed its procedures by notifying the resident of the delay.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 November 2023 and acknowledged its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident and awarded £100 compensation for the stress this delay caused.
  8. Overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate or reasonable. This is due to the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and made an offer of £100 compensation to the resident was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. Consequently, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. A recommendation has been made to reoffer the sum of £100 awarded in its stage 2 response if this has not already been paid.
  9. In the landlord’s update to us on 25 January 2025, it explained that they had identified failings in its complaint handling and completed the following:
    1. Delivered comprehensive training to all complaint handlers.
    2. Re-iterated the importance of understanding and improving its customer’s journey and its responsibilities at each stage of the complaint process.
  10. Given the steps the landlord, we have not made any further orders or recommendations relating to improving its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the front and back doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Re-offered the resident £100 compensation awarded at stage 2 for its delays in the repairs process.
    3. Re-offered the £1,685 compensation awarded outside of its complaint procedure, if this has not already been paid.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to offer the resident the £100 compensation awarded in its stage 2 response for delays in its complaint handling.