Sanctuary Housing Association (202335406)

Decision
Case ID	202335406
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant in the property, which is a flat within a block of flats, since 2020. Before 8 February 2023, a different landlord managed the property. The resident reported concerns about other residents not disposing of rubbish correctly and about pest infestations in the block. She said the landlord’s actions did not resolve these issues and raised a complaint about its handling of them. She also reported delays in repairing a communal door and raised concerns about the landlord’s response to an alleged attempted burglary.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Residents’ failure to dispose of rubbish correctly and a pest infestation.
   2. An alleged attempted burglary.
   3. The repair to a broken communal security door.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of residents’ failure to dispose of rubbish correctly and a pest infestation.
   2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of an alleged attempted burglary.
   3. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of a repair to a communal security door.
   4. No maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Rubbish disposal and pest infestation

4. The landlord was responsive and acted in line with its policy in relation to the resident’s reports about rubbish disposal and about a rat infestation.

Alleged attempted burglary

5. There is no evidence the landlord immediately offered support to the resident. Its support during its complaint process went some way to resolve this but its handling of repairs to her front door was unreasonable.

Repair to communal security door

6. The landlord mostly responded within policy timeframes to issues with the communal security door. However, when there were delays, the landlord failed to communicate effectively about them.

The complaint

7. Only the general date of the resident’s original complaint is known. However, based on that the landlord either met or almost met its complaint timeframes. Any delay was minor and there is no evidence this would have caused significant adversity.

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.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300, comprised of: £150 to acknowledge the landlord’s initial failure to support the resident after an attempted burglary £150 to acknowledge the landlord’s failure to communicate  effectively about repairs to a communal door The landlord must provide documentary evidence the sum has been paid directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 14 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November/December 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports about: other residents’ failure to dispose of their rubbish correctly. She felt CCTV had been inadequately positioned to capture this an alleged attempted burglary a broken entrance door to the building She said the landlord’s communication was poor and she wanted support to move house.
14 December 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process. It set out the actions it had taken to deal with the rubbish disposal issue, including the installation of CCTV. It said it: contacted her after the burglary and explained the delay to the communal door repair appointed a dedicated officer to respond to her emails and to offer support to ensure she felt safe in her home, such as exploring further security measures
30 December 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the problems were getting worse. She said she: felt the landlord had not acted or provided support/empathy and sought a meeting with senior officers wanted a refund on her service charges from the point at which she had reported the disrepair of the communal entrance door felt “personally attacked” (by the continual rubbish disposal by residents) and that she felt it “was racial”
5 January 2024	The landlord contacted the resident to discuss the issues raised in her complaint. It provided an update on actions it had taken and planned to take in relation to the bins, pest control issue, CCTV, moving house and the resident’s security.
30 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It set out the steps it had taken to deal with the rubbish and pest infestation, such as writing letters to residents in the block and visiting daily for cleaning. It said it would consider repositioning the CCTV and was sorry she did not feel it had been empathetic about the attempted burglary. It said it would ask its contractors about the delay in fixing the door to her flat and contact her about increasing her security. It added it was happy to arrange a meeting with senior managers to discuss her concerns.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said: she had been complaining about the bin areas and rat infestations for over 5 years she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the alleged attempted burglary She wanted: an apology the landlord to fine residents for poor behaviour compensation for the upset caused by having a broken entrance door and the damage she said the events had caused to her health

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	Rubbish disposal and rat infestations
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated the issues at the block have been ongoing for over 5 years. She raised a formal complaint in or around November 2023. While the resident raised earlier complaints with the landlord, she did not bring them to us. For that reason, we will not investigate issues prior to the months leading up to November 2023.
9. The resident has made new complaints to the landlord about continued pest and rubbish problems following the period considered here. However, they will not be considered in this investigation.
10. The resident said the events caused damage to her health and that she has had to seek professional counselling. If she believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected her health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further.
11. The resident also asked us to order the landlord to help her move higher on the housing list. She said she wanted to move because of the difficulties she had faced, including racial abuse. The records show the landlord has contacted her about her housing options. However, we are not able to instruct the landlord to take any action regarding her housing banding.

What we did investigate

12. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy says it will encourage responsible waste disposal, remove reported rubbish within 24 hours, take action where individuals are identified, and may use covert CCTV where appropriate.
13. Records show that between November 2023 and February 2024 the landlord sent reminder letters to residents, carried out daily rubbish removal, searched waste to identify those responsible, invited individuals to interviews, and installed CCTV to monitor the bin area. While the problem persisted, the evidence shows this was not due to a lack of action by the landlord.
14. The landlord also responded to the resident’s concerns by agreeing to issue stronger letters and later agreeing to consider repositioning the CCTV to improve its effectiveness.
15. However, the landlord’s communication about its use of CCTV was inconsistent. It initially, in its 14 December 2023 stage 1 response, said it would not consider moving CCTV the resident considered was placed ineffectively. It then, within weeks, said it would consider moving the CCTV. It gave conflicting messages about whether it could be moved or used to investigate littering. This was a relatively minor issue in the overall context of the steps the landlord was taking to address the problems and not a failing in and of itself, but it caused uncertainty for the resident about how the issue was being managed.
16. The landlord was also aware that the rubbish issue was contributing to an ongoing a pest infestation. The evidence shows it took a range of steps to address the pests, alongside its efforts to resolve the rubbish problem. These steps included increased baiting, repairs to drainage, and the appointment of specialist contractors. Although it is unclear whether the issue had been fully resolved by the final complaint response in January 2024, the evidence shows the landlord made sustained and appropriate efforts to do so.
17. Overall, while the issues proved difficult to resolve and communication was not always clear, the landlord took reasonable and responsive action to address the resident’s concerns using a range of measures.

Complaint	The attempted burglary
Finding	Service failure

18. In her stage 1 complaint (at the end of November 2023 or start of December), the resident said the landlord failed to respond appropriately after she reported that 2 men had attempted to force entry to her home on 27 November 2023. She said she was scared, felt unsafe, and reported that her front door handle had been loosened. She asked the landlord to review its CCTV and contact her.
19. In its 14 December 2023 response, the landlord said it contacted the resident and reviewed CCTV footage but did not identify the individuals involved. However, it has not provided records confirming this contact and the resident disputes that it occurred.
20. The landlord raised a standard repair for the door handle on 1 December 2023. It said that as the resident had not reported visible damage to the door, its policy required a standard repair to be completed within 15 working days.
21. A contractor attended within that timeframe and noted signs the door had been “booted”. Repairs (which included changing the locks) were completed on 28 December 2023, outside the landlord’s target timescale. Given the nature of the incident, the damage identified and the resident’s concerns, treating the matter as ‘standard’ was not reasonable. The landlord then exacerbated its poor handling by exceeding the standard timescale, albeit only by approximately 1 week.The landlord had the opportunity to identify and address this in its complaint investigation, but did not do so.
22. After the resident made her complaint the landlord took positive steps, including contacting her to offer support, exploring security options with her and agreeing to install a peephole camera.
23. Overall, the landlord’s initial response to this issue, in regard to the resident’s front door repair, was not reasonable in the specific circumstances she reported. It subsequently took reasonable steps once she complained but did not recognise or remedy the shortcoming found in this investigation. Because of that the complaint remained unresolved. We have made a compensation order in line with our compensation guidance which reflects the service shortcomings identified.

Complaint	Repair to communal door
Finding	Service failure

24. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said she reported the communal front door as broken around September 2023 and that the unrestricted access it allowed made her feel unsafe, particularly given the alleged attempted burglary.
25. The landlord accepted there were issues with the communal door. The records show it was reported on 9 October 2023 and repaired within its 15 working day timeframe, then reported again on 15 November 2023. Contractors later identified likely rat damage to the wiring.
26. The landlord took steps to address the pest issue through repeated pest control visits between December 2023 and January 2024. Repairs to the door were delayed while rat activity remained ongoing and were completed on 3 January 2024, before further repairs were required later that month.
27. Overall, the landlord acted broadly in line with its repairs policy, but progress was affected by a persistent rat infestation which proved difficult to resolve.
28. However, the landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident despite her repeated reports. Given the steps it was taking, this was a missed opportunity to reassure her and amounts to a communication failing.
29. We have therefore made a compensation order in line with our compensation guidance, reflecting the service failings identified.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	No maladministration

30. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process that is in line with our Complaint Handling Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It also says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
31. The landlordhasbeen unable to confirm when the residentsubmitted her stage 1 complaint. As she referred to events on 28 November 2023 in that complaint, it must have been made after that date. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. Accordingly, if there was a delay it would only have been very minor, and there is no evidence of any subsequent impact.
32. At stage 2, the landlord’s response was 1 working day late. Although this was not in line with its policy, the short delay would not have caused the resident significant adverse impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord has taken on the responsibilities of another landlord. However, it is also responsible for any record keeping issues. Its inability to confirm the date of the resident’s complaint shows there are potential issues with its record-keeping. It should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

34. The landlord always responded politely and was happy to arrange meetings if the resident requested them. However, as set out above, its communication was not always as responsive as it could have been, particularly around the resident’s security concerns.